Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article focuses on two types of constructional effects of indirect evidential marking in Harakmbut (isolate, Peru). Both types originate in a clash of interpretation: the use of indirect evidential marking indicates a shift of perspective away from the speaker (as if they did not witness the event, thus disclaiming epistemic authority), while the events referred to are in principle directly accessible to them. As the signalled shift is not fully realized in interpretation, the effects will be characterized as showing perspective persistence. The first type involves constructions with a first person agent, and indirect evidential marking is found to produce the interpretation that the speaker performed the action referred to unintentionally, finding out about the outcome of this action only later. Other types of non-volitional events – without pragmatic inference on the part of the speaker – are found not to carry indirect evidential marking; they use different linguistic means to signal non-volitionality. The second type involves constructions with impersonal predicates referring to the cycle of the sun, and the use of indirect evidential marking yields emphasis on the completion of the event referred to. It is proposed that both types of effects can be explained in terms of endpoint emphasis (cf. DeLancey 1985).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adelaar, Willem F. H.
    2000 Propuesta de un nuevo vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos indígenas de la Amazonía occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina. InLuis Miranda Esquerre (ed.), Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica, L. Miranda Esquerre (ed.), vol.2, 219–236. Lima: U. Ricardo Palma.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2007 Ensayo de clasificación del katawixí dentro del conjunto harakmbut-katukina. InAndres Romero-Figueroa, Ana Fernández Garay, Ángel Corbera Mori (eds.), Lenguas indígenas de América del Sur, 159–169. Caracas: Universidad Católica Andrés Bello.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2003A grammar of Tariana. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2004Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barnes, Janet
    1984 Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics50(3). 255–271. 10.1086/465835
    https://doi.org/10.1086/465835 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bashir, Elena
    1988 Inferentiality in Kalasha and Khowar. Chicago Linguistic Society24(1). 47–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crevels, Mily & Hein van der Voort
    2008 The Guaporé-Mamoré region as a linguistic area. InPieter Muysken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics, 151–179. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.90.04cre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.90.04cre [Google Scholar]
  9. Curnow, Timothy J.
    2003 Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language27(1). 39–59. 10.1075/sl.27.1.03cur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.1.03cur [Google Scholar]
  10. DeLancey, Scott
    1985 Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Berkeley Linguistic Society1. 65–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Haan, Ferdinand
    2013 Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin
    (eds.) 2013The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Epps, Patience & Lev Michael
    eds Forthcoming. Amazonian Languages, An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fauconnier, Stefanie
    2011 Involuntary agent constructions are not directly linked to reduced transitivity. Studies in Language35(2). 311–336. 10.1075/sl.35.2.03fau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.2.03fau [Google Scholar]
  15. 2012 Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate Agents: A cross-linguistic study. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD thesis.
  16. 2013 Completives as markers of non-volitionality. Folia Linguistica47(1). 35–54. 10.1515/flin.2013.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gentens, Caroline, María Sol Sansiñena, Stef Spronck & An Van linden
    2019 Introduction. Pragmatics29(2). 155–169. 10.1075/prag.18050.gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18050.gen [Google Scholar]
  18. Gray, Andrew
    1996The Arakmbut: Mythology, spirituality and history. Oxford: Berghahn.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Haller, Felix
    2000 Verbal categories of Shigatse Tibetan and Themchen Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area23(3). 175–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hart, Raymond
    1963 Semantic components of shape in Amarakaeri Grammar. Anthropological Linguistics5(9). 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Helberg Chávez, Heinrich Albert
    1984 Skizze einer Grammatik des Amarakaeri. Tübingen: Tübingen University PhD thesis.
  22. 1990 Análisis functional del verbo amarakaeri. InRodolfo Cerrón Palomino & Gustavo Solís Fonseca (eds.), Temas de lingüística amerindia, 227–249. Lima: Concytec.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1996Mbaisik: en la penumbra del atardecer. Literatura oral del Pueblo Harakmbut. Lima: Centro Amazónico de la Antropología y Aplicación Práctica.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hewitt, B. George
    1995Georgian: A structural reference grammar [London Oriental and African Language Library 2]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/loall.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2). 251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kittilä, Seppo
    2005 Remarks on involuntary agent constructions. Word56(3). 381–419. 10.1080/00437956.2005.11432555
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2005.11432555 [Google Scholar]
  27. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
    1995Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Majid, Asifa, James S. Boster & Melissa Bowerman
    2008 The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition109. 235–250. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska
    (eds.) 2011Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.124 [Google Scholar]
  30. Maslova, Elena
    2003A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197174
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197174 [Google Scholar]
  31. Matteson, Esther
    1972 Proto Arawakan. InEsther Matteson, Alva Wheeler, Frances L. Jackson, Nathan E. Waltz & Diana R. Christian (eds.), Comparative studies in Amerindian languages, 160–242. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110815009.160
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815009.160 [Google Scholar]
  32. McQuown, Norman A.
    1955 Indigenous languages of Latin America. American Anthropologist57. 501–570. 10.1525/aa.1955.57.3.02a00080
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1955.57.3.02a00080 [Google Scholar]
  33. Moore, Denny
    2007 Endangered languages of lowland tropical South America. InMatthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language diversity endangered, 29–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Queixalós, Francesc
    . Forthcoming. Katukinan. InPatience Epps & Lev Michael eds
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ramirez, Henri
    1997A fala Tukano dos Ye’pâ-Masa, vol. 1: Gramática. Manaus: Inspetoria Salesiana Missionária da Amazônia & Centro “Iauareté” de Documentação Etnográfica e Missionária.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
    (eds.) 2018Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. San Roque, Lila, Alan Rumsey, Lauren Gawne, Stef Spronck, Darja Hoenigman, Alice Carroll, Julia Colleen Miller & Nicholas Evans
    2012 Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Language Documentation & Conservation6. 135–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Spronck, Stef, An Van linden, Caroline Gentens & María Sol Sansiñena
    . This issue. Perspective persistence and irregular perspective shift: mismatches in form-function pairings.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tatevosov, Sergei
    2001 From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics33(3). 443–464. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00012‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00012-6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Tripp, Robert
    1976 Los verbos Amarakaeri. Datos etno-lingüísticos: Colección de los archivos del ILV 33. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
  41. 1995Diccionario amarakaeri-castellano. Yarinacocha: Min. de Educación & SIL.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Van linden, An
    . Forthcoming. Harakmbut. InPatience Epps & Lev Michael eds.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2019 Nominalization in Harakmbut. InRoberto Zariquiey, Masayoshi Shibatani & David W. Fleck (eds.), Nominalization in Languages of the Americas, 455–490. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.124.12lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.124.12lin [Google Scholar]
  44. Wise, Mary R.
    1999 Small language families and isolates in Peru. InR. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 307–340. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zemp, Marius
    . This issue. Evidentials and their pivot in languages on and around the Tibetan plateau.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error