Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 197–224

Chapter 7
Egophoricity in Mangghuer

Insights from pragmatic uses of the subjective/objective distinction

| SIL International and University of North Dakota

Egophoricity in Mangghuer is a binary distinction expressed in finite verbal morphology and the system of copulas. In declarative contexts, egophoric forms are used with first person subjects (or predicate nominals containing first person possessors) if the subject is perceived to be in control of the action or state; non-egophoric forms are used elsewhere. In interrogative contexts, egophoric forms are used with second person subjects, while non-egophoric forms are used with non-second person subjects. Previous work on Mangghuer has reported on uses of the egophoric distinction that do not conform to this pattern expressing things such as degree of speaker certainty, mirativity, and lack of control. This paper explores further complexities in pragmatic uses of egophoric marking. Of particular interest are situations in which the pragmatically neutral use of speaker perspective is contrary to the basic pattern and situations in which the non-basic use of the speaker perspective has multiple possible meanings. In these situations, the discourse context must be taken into account to correctly interpret the pragmatic function of the egophoric marking. This paper concludes that the common thread underlying the uses of egophoric forms is the degree of “involvement in the event being reported, or in the reporting activity itself” (Slater 2003a: 194–220). While a strictly objective rubric for determining speaker involvement is elusive, this paper examines the use of egophoric marking in a broad range of pragmatic contexts and confirms that egophoric forms consistently indicate a higher degree of speaker involvement while non-egophoric forms indicate a lower degree of speaker involvement.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Egophoricity in Mangghuer
    • 1.2The basic pattern
      • 1.2.1The basic pattern in declarative sentences
      • 1.2.2The basic pattern in interrogative sentences
      • 1.2.3Systematic differences between Mangghuer (mjg) and Bao’an Tu (peh)
      • 1.2.4Summary of the basic pattern
  • 2.Manipulation of the basic pattern
    • 2.1Unexpected uses of objective marking
      • 2.1.1Expressing lack of control
      • 2.1.2Expressing mirativity
    • 2.2Unexpected uses of subjective marking
      • 2.2.1Expressing a strong degree of certainty
      • 2.2.2Expressing an unusual degree of volition or assertion
      • 2.2.3Expressing concern for an interlocutor
  • 3.Further complexities
    • 3.1Non-conforming uses that have more than one interpretation
      • 3.1.1Subjective forms indicating either certainty or a prediction
      • 3.1.2Subjective forms indicating either an elicitation of a prediction or an expression of doubt
      • 3.1.3Subjective forms used to assert confidence or echo doubt
      • 3.1.4Objective forms indicating either annoyance or lack of control
      • 3.1.5Objective forms used to answer an implied request or to express annoyance
    • 3.2Non-conforming uses that are pragmatically neutral
      • 3.2.1Subjective forms to indicate that the speaker has privileged access to information
      • 3.2.2Subjective forms acknowledging concern expressed by an interlocutor
    • 3.3A case involving both types of complexity: Implied requests.
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.07fri
References
Åkerman, Vesa
2012 Inflection of finite verbs in Mongghol. SIL Electronic Working Papers 2012: 1–61.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1992 The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25: 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dpal-Idan-bkra-shis, Hu Jun, Hu Ping, Limusishiden, Keith Slater, Kevin Stuart, Wang Xianzhen, and Zhu Yongzhong
1996 Language Materials of China's Monguor Minority: Huzhu Mongghul and Minhe Mangghuer. Sino-Platonic Papers 69.Google Scholar
Fried, Robert Wayne
2010 A Grammar of Bao’an Tu, a Mongolic Language of Northwest China. PhD Dissertation, University of Buffalo, State University of New York.Google Scholar
Georg, Stefan
2003 Mongghul. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 286–306. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin
1980 Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct forms in Newari. In Papers in South-east Asian Linguistics 7 [Pacific Linguistics Series A. No. 53], Ronald L. Trail (ed.), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha
(ed.) 2003 The Mongolic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, Stephen S.
2003 Santa. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 346–63.London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul
(ed.) 2009 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th edn. Dallas TX: SIL International. [URL] (22 February 2012).
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1981 Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rybatzki, Volker
2003 Intra-Mongolic taxonomy. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 364–90. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Slater, Keith W.
2003a A Grammar of Mangghuer. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
2003b Mangghuer. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 307–324.London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wu, Hugjiltu
2003 Bonan. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 325–345.London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Sandman, Erika & Karolina Grzech
2022. Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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.