Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 377–404

Chapter 12
The evidential nature of conjunct-disjunct terms

Evidence from Oksapmin and Newar

Conjunct-disjunct person-marking systems, such as those found in Newar, mark first person in statements the same way as second person in questions, in contrast to second and third person in statements and first and third person in questions. In the Papuan language Oksapmin, the evidential system implies conjunct-disjunct subject person. In addition to tense, aspect and subject number, the past tense forms in Oksapmin are obligatorily marked for evidentiality: participatory versus visual evidence. Participatory evidential marking correlates with conjunct subject person; visual, with disjunct. Despite assertions by some researchers that conjunct-disjunct systems are not evidential in nature, Oksapmin is part of the growing body of evidence in favour of a link between evidential systems and conjunct-disjunct ‘person marking’.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The conjunct-disjunct distinction
    • 2.1Conjunct-disjunct alignment in Newar
  • 3.Evidence from Oksapmin: Oksapmin’s evidential system and the distribution of the participatory evidential
    • 3.1The Oksapmin language
    • 3.2Participatory versus visual evidentiality
    • 3.3Conjunct-disjunct alignment & the Oksapmin evidentials
      • 3.3.1Statements
        • 3.3.1.1First person statements
        • 3.3.1.2Second person statements
        • 3.3.1.3Third person statements
      • 3.3.2Questions
        • 3.3.2.1First person questions
        • 3.3.2.2Second person questions
        • 3.3.2.3Third person questions
        • 3.3.2.4Summary: Questions
      • 3.3.3Reported statements
        • 3.3.3.1Reported marker =li
        • 3.3.3.2Direct reported speech
        • 3.3.3.3Summary: Reported statements
      • 3.3.4Conjunct-disjunct alignment and the Oksapmin evidentials: Summary
  • 4.Discussion: Conjunct-disjunct as evidential
    • 4.1Visual and non-visual indicating non-volitionality
    • 4.2Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.12lou
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward H.
1992 The grammaticization of responsibility and evidence: Interactional manipulation of evidential categories in Newari. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, Jane H. Hill & Judith T. Irvine (eds), 226–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boram, Clifford & Marshall. Lawrence
1977 Difficulties in communication and social perception in Oksapmin society. Oral History 5(1): 3–10.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2008 Remarks on so-called “conjunct/disjunct” systems. Talk given at Syntax of the World’s Languages III conferene in Berlin 25–28 September. [URL]
2011 Participles and finiteness: The case of Akhvakh. Linguistic Discovery 7(1): 106–130.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan
2002a Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40: 611–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002b Evidentiality and me: The interaction of evidentials and first person. In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Cynthia Allen (ed.). [URL]
2003 Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27(1): 39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand
2011 Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. [URL]
DeLancey, Scott
1990 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics. 1–3, 289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Connie
2000 Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A.
1986 The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2000 The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 357–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward
2001 Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, UCLA.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
Hargreaves, David
1990 Indexical functions and grammatical sub-systems in Kathmandu Newari. Chicago Linguistic Society 26(1): 179–193.Google Scholar
1991 The conceptual structure of intentional action: Data from Kathmandu Newari. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 379–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Kathmandu Newar (Nepal Bhasa). In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Thurgood, Graham & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 371–384. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2005 Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1–48.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
1971[1957] Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings, II: Word and Language, 130–147. The Hague: MoutonGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
2003 Evidentiality in Qiang. In Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 63–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Helen
1972 Viewpoint and location in Oksapmin. Anthropological Linguistics 114(8): 311–16.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Marshall
1971 Oksapmin clause structure. Kivung 4: 111–132.Google Scholar
1972a Oksapmin sentence structure. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics Pacific Linguistics A-34(16): 17–46.Google Scholar
1972b Structure and function of Oksapmin verbs. Oceanic Linguistics 11(1): 47–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977a Quotations in Oksapmin. In Miscellaneous Papers in P.N.G. Linguistics 22, Richard Loving (ed.), 87–98. Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar
1977b Verb morphology and discourse prosodies. In Proceedings of the S.I.L. Consultants Seminar, Ukarumpa, 1976 [Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 20], Richard Loving & David D. Thomas (eds), 143–52 Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar
1987 Viewpoint in Oksapmin. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 16: 54–70.Google Scholar
1993 Oksapmin Dictionary [Dictionaries of Papua New Guinea 13]. Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar
2005 Oksapmin Dictionary (Oksap Ire Nitat Win Aripti Ohe Meng Oh). Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar
2006 Oksapmin Dictionary [Dictionaries of Papua New Guinea 13], 2nd edn. Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar
Loeweke, Eunice & May, Jean
1980 General grammar of Fasu (Namo Me). In Grammatical studies in Fasu and Mt. Koiali [Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 27], Don Hutchisson (ed.), 5–106. Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn
2007 Expanding the typology of evidentiality: The participatory/factual in Oksapmin. Paper read at the Seventh Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Paris.
2009 A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne. [URL]
Loughnane, Robyn & Fedden, Sebastian
2011 Is Oksapmin Ok?–A study of the genetic relationship between Oksapmin and the Ok languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31: 1–42. DOI logo
Mithun, Marianne
1999 The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana
2001 Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L.
1986 The evidential system of Kashaya. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 29–45. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A.
2001 The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 333: 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Types of verbal evidentiality marking: An overview. In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds), 15–58. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm
2005 Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Papuan Pasts: Cultural, Linguistic and Biological Histories of Papuan-speaking Peoples, Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds), 15–65. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rule, William Murray
1977 A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea [Oceania Linguistic Monographs 20]. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Loughnane, Robyn
2012a The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1): 111–167. DOI logo
San Roque, Lila and Robyn Loughnane
2012b Inheritance, contact and change in the New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Language & Linguistics in Melanesia: 387–427. [URL]
Tatevosov, Sergei
2001 From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 339–464. DOI logo
Tournadre, Nicolas
1996 Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains (Tibétain Central, Ladakhi, Dzongkha et Amdo). In L'Énonciation Médiatisé, Zlatka Guentcheva (ed.), 195–213. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
2008 Against the concept of ‘Conjunct’/’Disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 281–308. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas
1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

San Roque, Lila
2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2023. 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.