Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 2:1 (2022) ► pp.79–109

Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions

Insights on conversational data from the Tibetan Plateau and the Amazonian Foothills

 | University of Helsinki
 | University of Valencia | Stockholm University
This article discusses how evidential and egophoric making is used to manage knowledge in interaction. To this end, it analyzes interactional data from Wutun (mixed Sinitic, Northwest China) and Upper Napo Kichwa (Quechuan, Ecuador). Wutun has an egophoric marking system, which, according to the definition of egophoricity, encodes involvement/lack of involvement in the described event. Upper Napo Kichwa has a set of evidentials, which, according to theory, encode the source of evidence for a given proposition. The two languages are typologically unrelated. However, when we look closely at how speakers of Wutun and Kichwa use epistemic markers, we discover functional similarities not predicted by the dominant definitions of epistemicity and evidentiality. In both languages, the use of the markers is conditioned by the interpersonal context of the interaction, and speakers use egophoric and evidential marking to signal their epistemic rights and responsibilities with respect to other speech-act participants.
Keywords: epistemicity, Conversation Analysis, Kichwa, Wutun, stance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidentiality and egophoricity
  • 3.Definitions of the relevant interactional concepts
  • 4.Egophoric marking and epistemic authority: The case study of Wutun
    • 4.1The paradigm of egophoric markers in Wutun
    • 4.2Interactional analysis of Wutun egophoric markers
  • 5.‘Evidentials’ as markers of epistemic authority: The case study of Upper Napo Kichwa
    • 5.1Meaning and interactional functions of UNK evidentials/epistemic markers
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Symbols used in transcripts
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 22 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21014.san
References (80)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(Ed.), (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. vol. 11. Oxford, New York: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & LaPolla, R. J. (2007). New perspectives on evidentials: A view from Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30 (2). 1–12.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), (2014). The Grammar of Knowledge: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Explorations in Linguistic Typology 7. Oxford, New York: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bendix, E. (1992). The grammaticalization of responsibility and evidence: Interactional potential of evidential categories in Newari. In J. H. Hill & J. T. Irvine (Eds.) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse (pp. 226–247). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H. (2016). Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arawako-Chibchan). International Journal of American Linguistics 82(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The role of ‘perspective’ in epistemic marking. Lingua 186–1871, 5–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, H. & Grzech, K. In Press. The role of pragmatics in the definition of evidentiality. STUF – Language Typology and Universals.
Bergqvist, H. & Kittilä, S. (2020). Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, H. & Knuchel, D. (2017). Complexity in egophoric marking: From agents to attitude holders. Open Linguistics 31, 359–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(5), 569–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. (2018). Evidentiality in Tibetic. In A. Y. Aikhenvald (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality Online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, C. (2000). Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2), 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M. & Floyd, S. (2014). Conversation across cultures. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman & J. Sidnell (Eds). Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T. (2014). Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language 38(1), 5–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, M. T. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD Thesis. Stanford University.
Floyd, R. (1997). La estructura categorial de los evidenciales en el quechua wanka. Serie Lingüística Peruana 44. Lima: SIL International.Google Scholar
Floyd, S. (2018). Chapter 9. Egophoricity and argument structure in Cha’palaa. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.) Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language 118 (pp. 269–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50(1), 219–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Dingemanse, M., Kendrick, K. H., Zinken, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2018). Universals and cultural diversity in the expression of gratitude. Royal Society Open Science 5(5), 180391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Enfield, N. J., Kendrick, K. H., Blythe, J., Zinken, J., Baranova, J. & Dingemanse, M. (2020). Getting others to do things. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, R. W. (2018). Chapter 7. Egophoricity in Mangghuer: Insights from pragmatic uses of the subjective/objective distinction. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.), Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language, vol. 1181 (pp. 197–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, E. J. (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Ph.D. Thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.
Gipper, S. (2011). Evidentiality and Intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: an Interactional Account. PhD Thesis. Nijmegen: MPI.
(2015). (Inter)subjectivity in interaction: Investigating (inter)subjective meanings in Yurakaré conversational data. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68(2), 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Conversational structure as evidence for regularity and variability in the use of epistemic markers: The case of Yurakaré. Presentation given at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea , Leipzig.
Grzech, K. (2016). Discourse enclitics in Tena Kichwa: A corpus-based account of information structure and epistemic meaning. PhD Thesis. SOAS, University of London. [URL] (access 01/02/2022).
(2017b). Autoridad epistémica y atenuación en Tena Kichwa: Análisis de enclítico =cha basado en el corpus. Normas 7(2), 48–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a). Managing Common Ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evidential’ markers in Upper Napo Kichwa and their functions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 1681, 81–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Upper Napo Kichwa: a documentation of linguistic and cultural practices. London: SOAS. [URL]. SOAS, University of London, Endangered Languages Archive (15 December, 2020).
(2020c). Epistemic primacy, Common Ground management and the epistemic perspective domain. In H. Bergqvist & S. Kittilä (Eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 99 (pp. 23–60). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Using discourse markers to negotiate epistemic stance: A view from situated language use. Journal of Pragmatics 1771, 208–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, A. (1980). Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In R. L. Trail (Ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 71. Pacific Linguistics Series A, 53. Canberra: Australian National University, 95–106.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 861, 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.). The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp.58–81). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1985). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. (2012b). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1), 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, N. W. & Gawne, L. (2017). The contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of evidentiality. In N. W. Hill & L. Gawne (Eds.) Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 302 (pp. 1–37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintz, D. J. & Hintz, D. M. (2017). The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua. Essays on Evidentiality 186–1871, 88–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
INEC, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (2010). Censo Nacional: Población Y Economía. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. [URL]. (Accessed 4 November 2015).
Janhunen, J. (2007). Typological interaction in the Qinghai linguistic complex. Studia Orientalia 1011, 85–103.Google Scholar
Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E. et al. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics 1681, 119–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loughnane, R. (2009). A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD Thesis. University of Melbourne.
Michael, L. D. (2008). Nanti Evidential Practice: Language, Knowledge, and Social Action in an Amazonian Society. PhD Thesis. University of Texas, Austin.
(2020). Rethinking the communicative functions of evidentiality: Event responsibility in Nanti (Arawakan) evidential practice. Cadernos de Etnolingüística 8(1), 95–123.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance: narrative retelling. Pragmatics & Beyond new ser. 87. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies 15(5), 627–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Editorial: Turn design and epistemic management in small communities. Journal of Pragmatics 1931, 21–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. (2014). A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin, Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity and evidentiality in Guambiano (Nam Trik). In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.), Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language 118 (pp. 305–345). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, J. B. & Michael, L. D. (Eds.). (2014). Evidentiality in interaction. John Benjamins Current Topics volume 63. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswalt, R. L. (1986). The evidential system of Kashaya. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology (pp. 29–45). Norwood, N.J., Ablex.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Actions (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). In G. Jefferson (Ed.). Lectures on conversation. Vol. 21. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
San Roque, L. (2015). Using you to get to me – Addressee perspective and speaker stance in Duna evidential marking. Language Typology and Universals, 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandman, E. (2016). A Grammar of Wutun. PhD Thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
(2018). Chapter 6. Egophoricity in Wutun. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.) Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language 118 (pp. 173–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., Floyd, S. & Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity: An introduction. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.) Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language 118 (pp. 1–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L. & Schieffelin, B. (2018). Chapter 14. Learning how to know: Egophoricity and the grammar of Kaluli (Bosavi, Trans New Guinea), with special reference to child language. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language, vol. 1181 (pp. 437–471). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, E. (2017). Shared vs. Primary Epistemic Authority in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open Linguistics 3(1), 178–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slater, K. W. (2003). A Grammar of Mangghuer. London, New York: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
(2021). Introduction: Language contact in the Amdo Sprachbund. Himalayan Linguistics, Special Issue 20(3), 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, Ch., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., Levinson, Stephen C. (2009). Universality and cultural specificity in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 1061, 10587–10592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011a). The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, J. T.-S. (1993). Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63(4), 945–1001.Google Scholar
(2018). Evidentials and person. In A. Y. Aikhenvald (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality (pp. 47–64). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Torero, A. (1964). Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Científicos de la Universidad Nacional Agraria, Lima, 446–78.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. (2008). Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/’disjunct’ in Tibetan. In B. Huber, M. Volkart, P. Widmer & P. Schwieger (Eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festscrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (pp. 281–308). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. & LaPolla, R. J. (2014). Towards a new approach to evidentiality: issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2), 240–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widmer, M. (2017). The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas: The case of Bunan. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7(1), 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, T. (1988). A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1), 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeisler, B. (2018). Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself! – Evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi. Himalayan Linguistics 17(1), 67–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.