Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 347–375

Chapter 11
The role of sentence type in Ika (Arwako) egophoric marking

| Stockholm University

The chapter focuses on the role of sentence type and subject person in accounting for egophoric marking in Ika, an Arwako-Chibchan language spoken in northern Colombia. Egophoric marking in Ika is only found in declarative clauses for which the speaker either assumes the role of epistemic authority, or where the speaker shares this role with the addressee. Interrogatives are treated as non-egophoric with all subject persons, as they do not encode the speaker’s assumptions about possible answers. This restriction, together with ones that pertain to predicate type and temporal frame of reference, point to epistemic/observational access as an important parameter in a system where public acts and personal attributes involving the speaker and/or the addressee are the only ones available for egophoric marking. Drawing on a model of dialogical stance-taking (Du Bois 2007), the notion of “complex epistemic perspective” (see Bergqvist 2016) is introduced to identify which perspective configurations allow for egophoric marking.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Issues of analysis
  • 3.Egophoric marking in Ika
  • 4.Gradient speaker expectations in interrogatives
  • 5.Sentence type and speaker stance
    • 5.1The stance triangle
    • 5.2Complex epistemic perspective
  • 6.Egophoric marking in Ika as speaker stance: A complex perspective
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.11ber
References
Bergqvist, Henrik
2009 The categorical expression of epistemic intersubjectivity in grammar: towards a typology. Presentation at The Chronos 9th International Conference on Tense, Aspect, and Modality, September 2–4 2009, University Paris-Diderot – Paris 7 & University of Chicago Center in Paris.Google Scholar
2011 Complex perspectives in Arwako languages: Comparing epistemic marking in Kogi and Ika. In Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory 3, Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, David Nathan & Lutz Marten (eds), 49–57. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
2012 Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language 36(1): 151–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). IJAL, 82:1, 1–34.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna
2007 Inflectional morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Case marking and alignment. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 304 – 321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2004 The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typologial Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 77–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 1–14. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1957 Interrogative Structures of American English. Tuscaloosa AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
1978b Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In Questions, Henry Hiz (ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Malinda, Nagell, Katherine & Tomasello, Michael
1998 Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63: 4, Serial No. 255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, William, Milic, Louis T. & Greppin, John A.C.
(eds) 1984 Interrogativity: A Colloquium on the Grammar, Typology, and Pragmatics of Questions in Seven Diverse Languages, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5th 1981 – May 3rd 1982 [Typological Studies in Language 4] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1984 Russian. In Chisholm, Milic & Greppin (eds), 7–46.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2008 Person variation in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. STUF 61(4): 309–325.Google Scholar
2009 Language documentation and verb inflection typology: The case of Northern Akhvakh (Nakh-Daghestanian). Handout at Chronos 9th International Conference on Tense, Aspect, and Modality, September 2–4 2009, University Paris-Diderot – Paris 7 & University of Chicago Center in Paris.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan
2002 Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3): 611–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1992 The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25: 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragamtics 33(3): 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Connie
2000 Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W.
2007 The stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse. Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J., Brown, Penelope & de Ruiter, Jan P.
2013 Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sentence final particles in comparative perspective. In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, Jan P. de Ruiter (ed.), 193–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2005 View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective. Proceedings of the Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society Meeting 31(1): 93–120.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1990 Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin
1980 Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 7 [Pacific Linguistics Series A, 53], Ronald L. Trail (ed.), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice
1984 Georgian. In Chisholm, Milic & Greppin (eds), 63–112.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey
2005 The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68:15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2002 The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Epistemics in Conversation. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. pp. 370–394, Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn
2011 A Grammar of Kurtöp. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul
2004 Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14: 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William & David Fanshel
1977 Theraputic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Landaburu, Jon
1992 La langue ika ou Arhuaco: Morphosyntaxe du verbe. Amerindia 17: 1–30.Google Scholar
2000 La lengua ika. In Lenguas indígenas de Colombia: Una visión descriptiva. pp. 733–748, Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2011 Speech-act participants in modality. Presented at the International Conference on Discourse and Grammar, Universiteit Gent 23–25 October 2008 <[URL]
Levinson, Stephen C.
1979 Action types and language. Linguistics 17: 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan
2008 Tur och ordning. Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter
2007 Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah E.
2011 Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Pope, Emily
1976 Questions and Answers in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rohde, Hannah
2006 Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. San Diego Linguistic Papers 2: 134–168.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol
2003 Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57], Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), 315–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2010 An overview of the question – response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2772–2781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Rossano, Federico
2010 Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1): 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1999 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas
1996 Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains (tibétain central, ladakhi, dzongkha et amdo). In L'énonciation médiatisée, Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 195–213. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Bergqvist, Henrik
2018. Chapter 1. Evidentiality as stance. In Evidence for Evidentiality [Human Cognitive Processing, 61], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Bergqvist, Henrik
2023. Seeing and knowing. Functions of Language 30:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Bergqvist, Henrik & Dominique Knuchel
2019. Explorations of Engagement: Introduction. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 650 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.