Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 121–164

Chapter 5
Metarepresentation markers in Indus Kohistani

A study with special reference to the marker of desirable utterances loo

| Independent researcher

The marker loo, a discourse particle of Indus Kohistani, spoken in Northern Pakistan, marks utterances that a speaker wishes her audience to convey to a third party and furthermore indicates third-person imperative. The proposed analysis uses relevance theory as framework and includes a brief look at three other Indus Kohistani discourse particles: the “hearsay” evidential lee, the quotative karee, and the complementizer če. The distinction made within relevance theory between utterances that represent states of affairs and utterances that metarepresent other representations (speech, thought) on one hand, and between conceptual and procedural meaning on the other hand, allows for an analysis of all four markers as procedural indicators of metarepresentation. What distinguishes them is the type of metarepresentation they mark: the particle loo specifically indicates non-attributive metarepresentations of desirable utterances.

Keywords: discourse marker, procedural encoding, non-attributive metarepresentation, desirable utterances, third-person imperative, Indus Kohistani
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Analyses of evidential and quotation markers
      • 2.1.1Evidentials
      • 2.1.2Grammaticalized quotation markers and complementizers
    • 2.2Relevance theory
      • 2.2.1Conceptual vs. procedural encoding
      • 2.2.2Linguistic metarepresentations
    • 2.3Indus Kohistani markers of metarepresentation
  • 3.The Indus Kohistani marker loo
    • 3.1Uses of the marker loo
      • 3.1.1 loo as indicator of desirable utterances
      • 3.1.2 loo as indicator of third person imperative
      • 3.1.3Summary: Uses of the marker loo
    • 3.2Analysis of the marker loo
      • 3.2.1Non-attributive metarepresentations
      • 3.2.2Indus Kohistani loo : A procedural indicator of metarepresentations of desirable utterances
    • 3.3The marker loo in third person imperative constructions
      • 3.3.1Comparison between “desirable utterances” metarepresentations and third person imperative constructions
    • 3.4Indus Kohistani third person imperative: A special case of desirable utterance
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.05lub
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2004) Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M.
(1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bashir, E.
(1996) Mosaic of tongues: Quotatives and complementizers in North-West Indo-Aryan, Burushaski and Balti.” In W. L. Hataway, & W. Heston (Eds.), .Studies in Pakistani Popular Culture. Lahore (Pakistan): Sang-e-Meel Publikations and Lok Virsa Publishing House.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
(1987) Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, R.
(1990) Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buddruss, G.
(1959) Kanyawali: Proben eines Maiyā̃-Dialektes aus Tangir (Hindukusch). Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft B.Google Scholar
(1987) Ein Ordal der Waigal-Kafiren des Hindukush. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, No. 41, Cahier deédieé à Georges Redard, 31–43.Google Scholar
Chappell, H.
(2008) Variation in the grammaticalization of complementizers from verba dicendi in Sinitic languages.” Linguistic Typology Vol. 12, 1, 45–98.Google Scholar
Clark, W.
(1991) Relevance theory and the semantics of non-declarative sentences. Ph.D. thesis University College London.Google Scholar
Degener, A.
(1998) Die Sprache von Nisheygram im afghanischen Hindukusch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Doke, C. M.
(1935) Bantu linguistic terminology. London: Longmans & Green.Google Scholar
Faller, M.
(2002) Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
(2006) Evidentiality and epistemic modality at the semantics/pragmatics interface. [URL].Google Scholar
Fitch, M., & Cooper, G.
(1985) Report on a language and dialect survey in Kohistan district. Journal of Central Asia Vol. 8 No. 1, 139–149.Google Scholar
Güldemann, T.
(2008) Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutt, E.-A.
(1991) Translation and relevance. 1st edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hallberg, D. G.
(1992) The languages of Indus Kohistan. Sociolinguistic survey of Northern Pakistan.” In C. R. Rensch, S. J. Decker, & D. G. Hallberg (Eds.), Languages of Kohistan. Vol. 1. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Qaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hallberg, D. G., & Hallberg, C. E.
(1999) Indus Kohistani: A preliminary phonological and morphological analysis. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Qaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(1995) The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In M. Haspelmath, & E. König (Eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Empirical approaches to language typology 13. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Closs Traugott, E.
(1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E.
(2001) Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou-Trouki, E.
(1993) Sentence adverbials and relevance. Lingua, 90, 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itani, R.
(1994) A relevance-based analysis of hearsay particles: Japanese utterance-final tte. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 215–237. [URL].Google Scholar
Johanson, L.
(2000) Turkic indirectives. In L. Johanson, & B. Utas (Eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R. J.
(1997) Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of communication, cognition, and the development of language. Randy J. LaPolla Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Leitner, G. W.
(2001[1893]) Dardistan in 1866, 1886 and 1893: With several appendices. New Delhi: Bhavana Books & Prints.Google Scholar
Lord, C.
(1976) Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: From verb to complementizer in Kwa. In S. B. Steever, C. A. Walker, & S. S. Mufwene (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, Chicago Linguistic Society, 12, 179–191.Google Scholar
(1993) Historical change in serial verb construction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lubberger, B.
(2014) A description and analysis of four metarepresentation markers of the language Indus Kohistani. M.A. theses in linguistics at the University of North Dakota. [URL]Google Scholar
Noh, E-J.
(1998) The semantics and pragmatics of metarepresentation in English: A relevance-theoretic approach. P.h.D. thesis University College London.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R.
(2001) Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A.
(2000) Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y., & Han, Ch.
(2007) Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition, 103 (2), 253–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saxena, A.
(1995) Unidirectional grammaticalization: Diachronic and cross-linguistic evidence. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 48.4, 350–372.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V.
(1995) Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F. Heintz, Ch., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D.
(2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance, Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Unger, Ch.
(2012a) Epistemic vigilance and the function of procedural indicators in communication and comprehension. In E. Wałaszewska, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance theory: More than understanding. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2012b) Procedural semantics, metarepresentation, and some particles in Behdini Kurdish.” Lingua, 122, 1613–1635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Evidentials, genre and epistemic vigilance. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory. Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, J., Dobrushina, N., & Goussev, V.
(2013) Imperative-Hortative Systems. In M. S. Dryer, & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]Google Scholar
Wharton, T.
(2009) Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2011) The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti, & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (pp. 3–31). Bingley, UK: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012a) Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber Meaning and Relevance (pp. 230–258). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Modality and the conceptual-procedural distinction. In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding. In E. Wałaszewska, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance theory: More than understanding. (pp. 23–43). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & D. Sperber
(2012) Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber, Meaning and Relevance (pp. 230–258). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zoller, C. P.
(2005) A grammar and dictionary of Indus Kohistan. Vol. 1: Dictionary. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Piskorska, Agnieszka
2023. Has madam read Wilson (2016)?. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:3 ► pp. 486 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.