Abstract
A domain pertinent to knowing in interaction is evidentiality, but documenting evidential markers can be challenging. Among methodologies, direct elicitation and questionnaires offer the advantages of efficiency and cross-linguistically comparable data. They can, however, miss markers that are below the level of speaker consciousness, as well as significant discourse and social factors. Experimental tasks can provide cross-linguistically comparable data complete with discourse context, and in some cases evidence of the role of differential knowledge states of participants. A single task might miss genre-specific markers, however. Documentation of extensive unscripted speech in a variety of genres, much of it interactive, can provide a foundation for identifying the full sets of markers to be investigated and for uncovering functions beyond specifying the source of information. Insights from speakers can then take us further, potentially shedding light on subtle circumstances underlying choices among alternatives, particularly those reflecting social factors. But we need to know how to listen. Effective collaboration depends crucially on recognition of the variability of speaker consciousness of the markers. If this is kept in mind, speakers can serve as important co-analysts, scouting through their lifetime experiences to provide hypotheses about the contexts in which alternative constructions would be appropriate, meanings they can add, and social and cultural factors influencing their use. Resulting hypotheses can then be tested against the documented material and refined until they account well for the data. These points are illustrated with material from Central Pomo, indigenous to California.
Abbreviations
- 1
1st person
- 2
2nd person
- 3
3rd person
- agt
grammatical agent
- art
article
- caus
causative
- cond
conditional
- cop
copula
- distr
distributive
- hab
habitual
- inch
inchoative
- ipfv
imperfective
- irr
irrealis
- mult
multiple
- obs
observation
- pass
passive
- pat
grammatical patient
- pfv
perfective
- pl
plural
- poss
possessive
- q
question
- sg
singular
- vis
visual
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2014. The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001.Search in Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2015. Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology 19(2). 239–277. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0008.Search in Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia M. & Monica Macaulay. 2015. Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology 19(2). 201–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0007.Search in Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1). 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33.Search in Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018a. The grammar of engagement I: Framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10(1). 110–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.21.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018b. The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10(1). 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.22.Search in Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2003. Evidentials: Summation, questions, prospects. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 307–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.54.17josSearch in Google Scholar
McLendon, Sally. 2003. Evidentials in Eastern Pomo with a comparative survey of the category in other Pomoan languages. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 101–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.54.08mclSearch in Google Scholar
Moshinsky, Julius. 1974. A grammar of Southeastern Pomo (University of California Publications in Linguistics 72). Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2013. Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies 15(5). 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501447.Search in Google Scholar
O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1992. Topics in Northern Pomo grammar. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L. 1961. A Kashaya grammar (Southwestern Pomo). Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert 1976. Comparative verb morphology of Pomo. In Margaret Langdon & Shirley Silver (eds.), Hokan studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan Languages, held in San Diego, California, April 23–25, 1970 (Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 181), 13–28. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110819113-002Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler R. 2010. Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2012. “Who knows best?” Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 3(2). 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid.Search in Google Scholar
Walker, Neil Alexander. 2013. A grammar of Southern Pomo, an indigenous language of California. Santa Barbara: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
