Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony

  • NICHOLAS EVANS (a1), HENRIK BERGQVIST (a2) and LILA SAN ROQUE (a3)
Abstract

Engagement systems encode the relative accessibility of an entity or state of affairs to the speaker and addressee, and are thus underpinned by our social cognitive capacities. In our first foray into engagement (Part 1), we focused on specialised semantic contrasts as found in entity-level deictic systems, tailored to the primal scenario for establishing joint attention. This second paper broadens out to an exploration of engagement at the level of events and even metapropositions, and comments on how such systems may evolve. The languages Andoke and Kogi demonstrate what a canonical system of engagement with clausal scope looks like, symmetrically assigning ‘knowing’ and ‘unknowing’ values to speaker and addressee. Engagement is also found cross-cutting other epistemic categories such as evidentiality, for example where a complex assessment of relative speaker and addressee awareness concerns the source of information rather than the proposition itself. Data from the language Abui reveal that one way in which engagement systems can develop is by upscoping demonstratives, which normally denote entities, to apply at the level of events. We conclude by stressing the need for studies that focus on what difference it makes, in terms of communicative behaviour, for intersubjective coordination to be managed by engagement systems as opposed to other, non-grammaticalised means.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
*Address for correspondence: Nicholas Evans. e-mail: nicholas.evans@anu.edu.au
References
Hide All
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2015). Evidentials: their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology, 19(2), 239277.
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistíque générale (Vol. 1). Paris: Gallimard.
Bergqvist, H. (2008). Temporal reference in Lakandon Maya: speaker and event perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London.
Bergqvist, H. (2011). Complex perspectives in Arwako languages: comparing epistemic marking in Kogi and Ika. In Austin, P. K., Bond, O., Nathan, D., & Marten, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of conference on language documentation & linguistic theory 3 (pp. 4957). London: SOAS.
Bergqvist, H. (2016). Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics, 82(1), 134.
Bergqvist, H. (in press). Time and commitment: the grammaticalization of uúch in Lakandon Maya. In Vapnarsky, V. & de-Pierrebourg, F. (Eds.), Special Issue: Mesures et Textures du Temps chez les Mayas: le dit, l’écrit et le vécu, Journal de la Société des Américanistes.
Bergqvist, H., & Kittilä, S. (Eds). (2017). Person and knowledge: introduction. Open Linguistics, 3, 1830.
Boas, F., & Deloria, E. (1941). Dakota grammar (Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences 23). Washington: US Government Printing Office.
Bosse, S., Bruening, B., & Masahiro, Y. (2012). Affected experiencers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30(4), 11851230.
Brown, D., Chumakina, M., & Corbett, G. (Eds.) (2013). Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brugman, C. M., & Macaulay, M. (2015). Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology, 19(2), 201237.
Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cinque, G. (1991). Teoria linguistica e sintassi italiana. Bologna: Mulino.
Clark, H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 1063). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R. (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 139182). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Enfield, N., Brown, P., & de Ruiter, J. (2013). Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: sentence final particles in comparative perspective. In de Ruiter, J. P. (Ed.), Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 193221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Epps, P. (2009). Escape from the noun phrase: from relative clause to converb and beyond in an Amazonian language. Diachronica, 26(3): 87318.
Epstein, R. (1997). Viewpoint and the definite article. In Goldberg, A. E. (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 99112). Stanford: CSLI.
Fleck, D. (2007). Evidentiality and double tense in Matses. Language, 83(3), 589614.
Foolen, A. (2003). Niederländisch toch und Deutsch doch: gleich oder doch nicht ganz. Linguistik online 13, 1/03:85–101 <http://www.linguistik-online.de/13_01/foolen.html>.
Gipper, S. (2011). Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: an interactional account. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.
Gipper, S. (2015). (Inter)subjectivity in interaction: investigating (inter)subjective meanings in Yurakaré conversational data. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF), 68(2), 211232.
Gossner, J. (1994). Aspects of Edolo grammar. Retrieved from UMI Dissertation services, Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
Gutiérrez, A., & Matthewson, L. (2012). Evidential determiners: best (sensory) evidence. In Bogal-Allbritten, E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth meeting on the semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas and SULA-Bar (pp. 6379). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Hanks, W. (1990). Referential practice, language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hardman, M. (1986). Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 113136). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hawkins, J. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 5881). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayano, K. (2012). Territories of knowledge in Japanese interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Radboud University.
Hengeveld, K., & Olbertz, H. (2012). Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology, 16, 487503.
Hintz, D. J., & Hintz, D. M. (2017). The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua, 186/187, 88109.
Hyslop, G. (2014). On the category of speaker expectation of interlocutor knowledge in Kurtöp. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 40, 201214.
Jacques, G., & Lahaussois, A. (2014). The auditory demonstrative in Khaling. Studies in Language, 38(2), 393404.
Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of information (Pragmatics and beyond new series 48). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kratochvil, F. (2011a). Demonstratives as markers of stance: evidence from Abui. Unpublished manuscript.
Kratochvil, F. (2011b). Discourse-structuring functions of Abui demonstratives. In Yap, F. H., Grunow-Hårsta, K., & Wrona, J. (Eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: diachronic and typological perspectives (pp. 757788). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kroeker, M. (2001). A descriptive grammar of Nambikuara. International Journal of American Linguistics, 67(1), 187.
Landaburu, J. (2007). La modalisation du savoir en langue andoke (Amazonie colombienne). In Guentchéva, Z. & Landaburu, J. (Eds.), L’énonciation médiatisée II: Le traitement épistémologique de l’information; Illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes (pp. 2347). Leuven: Peeters.
Leiss, E. (2012). Epistemicity, evidentiality, and theory of mind (ToM). In Abraham, W. & Leiss, E. (Eds.), Modality and theory of mind elements across languages (pp. 3966). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lowe, I. (1999). Nambiquara. In Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A. (Eds.), Amazonian languages (pp. 268291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Madden, B. (n.d.). [c. 1960]. An introduction to Mendi grammar. Unpublished manuscript.
Manning, H. P. (2001). On social deixis. Anthropological Linguistics, 43(1), 54100.
Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (2011). Cantonese: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
McCawley, J. D. (1981). Notes on the English perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1, 8190.
McCoard, R. W. (1978). The English perfect:tTense-choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Mexas, H. (2016). Mirativity as realization marking: a cross-linguistic study. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Leiden.
Olsson, B. (2016). The Marind absconditive: attention alignment and knowledge asymmetries in a language of south New Guinea. Paper presented at the 8th Austronesian and Papuan Languages and Linguistics conference, May 2016, SOAS, University of London.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reithofer, H. (2011). Skywalkers and cannibals: chanted tales in the Angal (Mendi) language area. In Rumsey, A. & Niles, D. (Eds.), Sung tales from the Papua New Guinea Highlands: studies in form, meaning and sociocultural context (pp. 207245). Canberra: ANU EPress.
Rule, W. (1977). A comparative study of the Foe, Huli and Pole languages of Papua New Guinea. Sydney: Oceania Linguistic Monographs, University of Sydney.
San Roque, L. (2008). An introduction to Duna grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Australian National University.
San Roque, L. (2015). Using you to get to me: addressee perspective and speaker stance in Duna evidential marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF), 68(2), 187210.
San Roque, L., Floyd, S., & Norcliffe, E. (2017). Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua, 186/187, 120143.
San Roque, L., & Loughnane, R. (2012a). The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology, 16, 111167.
San Roque, L., & Loughnane, R. (2012b). Inheritance, contact and change in the New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia: Special Issue 2012, Part II, 397427.
Saxena, A. (2000). Evidentiality in Kinnauri. In Johanson, L. & Utas, B. (Eds.), Evidentials in Turkic, Iranian and neighboring languages (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology) (pp. 471482). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schapper, A., & San Roque, L. (2011). Demonstratives and non-embedded nominalisations in three Papuan languages of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family. Studies in Language, 35, 380408.
Schultze-Berndt, E. (2017). Shared vs. primary epistemic authority in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open Linguistics, 3, 178218.
Schwenter, S. (1996). The pragmatics of independent si-clauses in Spanish. Hispanic Linguistics, 8(2), 316351.
Sekiguchi, T. (1977 [1939]). Was heißt doch? In Weydt, H. (Ed.), Aspekte der Modalpartikeln (pp. 39). Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Originally published 1939.)
Sillitoe, P. (2010). Trust in development: some implications of knowing in indigenous knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.), 16, 1230.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Aijmer, K. (2007). The semantic field of modal certainty: a corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Speas, M. (2004). Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua, 114, 255276.
Tipton, R. (1982). Nembi procedural and narrative discourse. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Traugott, E., & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verhagen, A. (1986). Linguistic theory and the function of word order in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Visconti, J. (2009). From textual to interpersonal: on the diachrony of the Italian particle mica . Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 937950.
Wierzbicka, A. (1980). Lingua mentalis: the semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press.
Willett, T. (1991). A reference grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. Dallas, TX: SIL. <http://www-01.sil.org/acpub/repository/29375.pdf>.
Wilkins, D. (1986). Particle/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda). Journal of Pragmatics, 10(5), 575596.
Yap, F. H., Grunow-Hårsta, K., & Wrona, J. (Eds.) (2011). Nominalisation in Asian languages: diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Yliniemi, J. (2016). Attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 39(1), 106161.
Zariquiey, R. (2015). The encoding of addressee’s perspective in Kakataibo (Panoan, Peru). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF), 68(2), 143164.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 13
Total number of PDF views: 231 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 339 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 14th December 2017 - 23rd June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.