1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Volume 31, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 31, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper studies the way utterances project properties of the interactional context via the choice of grammatical indexicals. Our analysis is an original combination of existing theoretical developments including notions of grammatical indexicality (Silverstein 1976), of the relational structure of indexical reference (Hanks 2014) and of presupposition accommodation (von Fintel 2008; Heim 1982; Karttunen 1974, among others). While Silverstein (1976) suggested that different types of grammatical indexicals can be (relatively) context-creating or (relatively) context-presupposing, we argue that presupposition vs creativity is not a property of specific categories, but rather of tokens in a given context and that in natural interaction, they are subject to negotiation. While all indexicals are presupposing, there are two types of uses of pragmatic presupposition involved forming a scale (Mazzarella & Domaneschi 2018; Sbisà 1999): non-informative (when the presupposition is already part of common ground of the interlocutors) and informative (when the presupposition needs to be accommodated by the addressee). The theoretical analysis is grounded in a discussion of data on evidentiality, egophoricity, pronouns of address, demonstrative reference, and tense and is based on literature review, as well as first-hand recordings of conversations in Wutun (mixed Sinitic language, China) and Mano (Mande, Guinea).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23032.kha
2024-12-03
2025-01-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.23032.kha
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. (ed.) 2018 The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Åkerman, Vesa
    2012 Inflection of finite verbs in Mongghul. SIL Electronic Working Papers104(3). 1–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariel, Mira
    2016 Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations. Intercultural Pragmatics. 13(1). 1–35. 10.1515/ip‑2016‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaver, David. I.
    1999 Presupposition accommodation: A plea for common sense. InLawrence S. Moss, Jonathan Ginzburg & Maarten de Rijke (eds.), Logic, language and computation, vol.21, 21–44. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Beaver, David I., Bart Geurts & Kristie Denlinger
    2021 Presupposition. InEdward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2021 edn.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Metaphysics Research Lab. Available online athttps://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/presupposition/
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Becker, Laura
    2021 Articles in the world’s languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110724424
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110724424 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergqvist, Henrik & Dominique Knuchel
    2017 Complexity in egophoric marking: from agents to attitude holders. Open Linguistics31. 359–377. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0018 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bernander, Rasmus
    2017 Grammar and grammaticalization in Manda: An analysis of the wider TAM domain in a Tanzanian Bantu language. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Besha, Ruth Mfumbwa
    1989 A study of tense and aspect in Shambala. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan
    1989 Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text91. 93–124. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bickel, Balthasar
    1997 Spatial operations in deixis, cognition, and culture: Where to orient oneself in Belhare. InJan Nuyts & Eric Pederson (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 46–83. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139086677.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086677.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bochnak, M. Ryan & Peter Klecha
    2018 Temporal remoteness and vagueness in past time reference in Luganda. InJason Kandybowicz, Travis Major, Harold Torrence & Philip T. Duncan (eds.), African linguistics on the prairie: Selected papers from the 45th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 377–391. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.5281/zenodo.1251752
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1251752 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bohnemeyer, J.
    2018 Yucatec demonstratives in interaction: spontaneous versus elicited data. InStephen C. Levinson, Sarah Cutfield, Michael J. Dunn, N. J. Enfield & Sérgio Meira (eds.), 176–205. 10.1017/9781108333818.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818.009 [Google Scholar]
  15. Botne, Robert
    2012 Remoteness distinctions. InRobert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 536–562. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0018
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0018 [Google Scholar]
  16. Botne, Robert & Axel Fanego Palat
    (eds.) 2023 Domains and regions in Bantu tense and aspect. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Botne, Robert & Tiffany L. Kershner
    2008 Tense and cognitive systems: On the organization of tense/aspect systems in Bantu languages and beyond. Cognitive Linguistics191. 145–218. 10.1515/COG.2008.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
  18. Boye, Kasper
    2012 Epistemic meaning. A cross-linguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219036
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219036 [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman
    2012 [1968] The pronouns of power and solidarity. InJoshua A. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the sociology of language, 252–275. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110805376.252
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805376.252 [Google Scholar]
  20. Burenhult, Niclas
    2003 Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: The case of the Jahai demonstrative ton. Pragmatics13(3). 363–379. 10.1075/prag.13.3.01bur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.3.01bur [Google Scholar]
  21. Cable, Seth
    2013 Beyond the past, present, and future: Towards the semantics of ‘graded tense’ in Gĩkũyũ. Natural Language Semantics21(3). 219–276. 10.1007/s11050‑012‑9092‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9092-3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Clark, Herbert H.
    1975 Bridging. InBonnie Nash-Webber & Roger C. Schank (eds.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing, 169–174. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Clark, Herbert H. & Susan E. Haviland
    1977 Comprehension and the given–new contract. InRoy O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension, 1–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Clark, Herbert H. & C. R. Marshall
    1981 Definite reference and mutual knowledge. InAravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber & Ivan Sag (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding, 10–63. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Clark, Herbert H., Robert Schreuder & Samuel Buttrick
    1983 Common ground at the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior22(2). 245–258. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(83)90189‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90189-5 [Google Scholar]
  26. Clift, Rebecca
    2006 Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics10(5). 569–595. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00296.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber
    2000 Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. InSusan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  28. Córdova, Rosa J. Garcia
    2002 The shifted reading of the Spanish simple past as dependent on presupposition accommodation. InJavier Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed.), From words to discourse, 289–305. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9780585475295_016
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585475295_016 [Google Scholar]
  29. Cornillie, Bert
    2017 On speaker commitment and speaker involvement. Evidence from evidentials in Spanish talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics128(2). 161–170. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.014 [Google Scholar]
  30. Crane, Thera Marie
    2011 Beyond time: Temporal and extra-temporal functions of tense and aspect marking in Totela, a Bantu language of Zambia. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2023 Non-metrical tense distinctions in isiNdebele (South Africa). InRobert Botne & Axel Fanego Palat (eds.), 105–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Curnow, Timothy Jowan
    2002 Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics40(3). 611–627. 10.1515/ling.2002.025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.025 [Google Scholar]
  33. DeLancey, Scott
    1992 The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia251. 39–62. 10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277 [Google Scholar]
  34. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2015 When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung161. 63–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Diessel, Holger
    2006 Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics171. 463–489. 10.1515/COG.2006.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  36. Dom, Sebastian & Koen Bostoen
    2015 Examining variation in the expression of tense/aspect to classify the Kikongo Language Cluster. Africana Linguistica211. 163–211. 10.3406/aflin.2015.1045
     https://doi.org/10.3406/aflin.2015.1045 [Google Scholar]
  37. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  38. Duranti, Alessandro
    1994 From grammar to politics: Linguistic anthropology in a Western Samoan village. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520354852
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520354852 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1990 Politics and grammar: Agency in Samoan political discourse. American Ethnologist17(4). 36–56. 10.1525/ae.1990.17.4.02a00030
     https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1990.17.4.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  40. Duranti, Alessandro & Charles Goodwin
    (eds.) 1992 Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Errington, Joseph
    1988 Structure and style in Javanese: A semiotic view of linguistic etiquette. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. 10.9783/9781512815764
     https://doi.org/10.9783/9781512815764 [Google Scholar]
  42. Enfield, Nick J.
    2003 Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language791. 82–117. 10.1353/lan.2003.0075
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0075 [Google Scholar]
  43. Fintel, Kai von
    2008 What is presupposition accommodation, again?Philosophical Perspectives221. 137–170. 10.1111/j.1520‑8583.2008.00144.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque
    (eds.) 2018 Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118 [Google Scholar]
  45. Forker, Diana
    2020 Elevation as a grammatical and semantic category of demonstratives. Frontiers in Psychology111. e1712. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01712
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01712 [Google Scholar]
  46. Friedrich, Paul
    1972 Social context and semantic feature: The Russian pronominal usage. InJohn J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 270–300. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gipper, Sonja
    2017 Pre-semantic pragmatics encoded: A non-spatial account of Yurakaré demonstratives. Journal of Pragmatics1201. 122–143. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.012 [Google Scholar]
  48. Grzech, Karolina
    2020 Managing common ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evidentials’ in Upper Napo Kichwa and their functions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics1681. 81–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2021 Using discourse markers to negotiate epistemic stance: A view from situated language use. Journal of Pragmatics1771. 208–223. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  50. Gumperz, John J.
    1992 Contextualization and understanding. InAlessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), 229–252.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hale, Austin
    1980 Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct forms in Newari. InRonald L. Trail (eds.), Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics71, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 10.15144/PL‑A53.95
     https://doi.org/10.15144/PL-A53.95 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hale, Austin & Kedār P. Shrestha
    2006 Newār (Nepal Bhāsā). Munich: Lincom.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hanks, William F.
    1990 Referential practice. Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 1992 The indexical ground of deictic reference. InAlessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), 43–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2005 Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology46(2). 191–220. 10.1086/427120
     https://doi.org/10.1086/427120 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2009 Fieldwork on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics411. 10–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2014 Foreword. Evidentiality in social interaction. InJanis Nuckolls & Lev Michael (eds.), Evidentiality in interaction, 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Harjunpää, Katariina, Arnulf Deppermann & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2021 Constructing the Chekhovian inner body in instructions: An interactional history of factuality and agentivity. Journal of Pragmatics1711. 158–174. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.034
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.034 [Google Scholar]
  59. Häsler, Katrin
    2001 An empathy-based approach to the description of the verb system of the Dege dialect of Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area24(1). 1–34. 10.32655/LTBA.24.1.01
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.24.1.01 [Google Scholar]
  60. Heim, Irene
    1982 On the semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 1994 Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. InHans Kamp (ed.), Ellipsis, tense and questions, 143–170. Stuttgart: Dyana-2 Esprit Basic research Project 6852.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly68(1). 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  63. Heritage, John
    2012 Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction45(1). 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  64. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    1996 Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. InBarbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 205–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.08him
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.08him [Google Scholar]
  65. Hintz, Dan & Diane M. Hintz
    2017 The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua186–1871. 88–109. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hyman, Larry M.
    1980 Relative time reference in the Bamileke tense system. Studies in African Linguistics11(2). 227–237.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Jakobson, Roman
    1971 Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. InRoman Jakobson, Selected Writings of Roman Jakobson21, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110889604
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889604 [Google Scholar]
  68. Karttunen, Lauri
    1974 Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics11. 181–194. 10.1515/thli.1974.1.1‑3.181
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181 [Google Scholar]
  69. Keating, Elizabeth & Alessandro Duranti
    2006 Honorific resources for the construction of hierarchy in Pohnpei and Samoa. The Journal of the Polynesian Society115(2). 145–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Kershner, Tiffany L.
    2002 The verb in Chisukwa: Aspect, tense, and time. Bloomington, IU: Indiana University PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Keenan, Edward L.
    1971 Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. InCharles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langndoen (eds.). Studies in linguistic semantics, 45–54. New York, NY: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Khachaturyan, Maria
    2019 Knowing is belonging: Recognitional deixis and emergence of common ground in religious conversion. Signs and Society7(2). 186–216. 10.1086/702441
     https://doi.org/10.1086/702441 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2020 Common ground in demonstrative reference: The case of Mano (Mande). Frontiers in Psychology111. e543549. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.543549
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.543549 [Google Scholar]
  74. Kiso, Andrea
    2012 Tense and aspect in Chichewa, Citumbuka and Cisena: A description and comparison of the tense-aspect systems in three southeastern Bantu languages. Stockholm: Stockholm University PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Kleifgen, Jo Anne
    2001 Assembling talk: Social alignments in the workplace. Research on Language & Social Interaction34(3). 279–308. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI34‑3_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-3_1 [Google Scholar]
  76. Klein, Wolfgang
    1994 Time in language. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Küntay, Aylin C. & Asli Özyürek
    2006 Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: what do language specific strategies in Turkish reveal?Journal of Child Language331. 303–320. 10.1017/S0305000906007380
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007380 [Google Scholar]
  78. Laury, Ritva
    1997 Demonstratives in interaction. The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7 [Google Scholar]
  79. Lermontov, Mikhail
    2012 A hero of our time. J. H. Wisdom & Marr Murray (trans.). New York, NY: Dover Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  81. Levinson, Stephen. C.
    2000 Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalised conversational implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2003 Contextualizing ‘contextualization cues’. InSusan L. Eerdmans, Carlo L. Prevignano & Paul J. Thibault (eds.), Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz, 31–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.117.04lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.04lev [Google Scholar]
  83. 2005 Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies71. 431–453. 10.1177/1461445605054401
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054401 [Google Scholar]
  84. 2018 Introduction: Demonstratives: Patterns in diversity. InStephen C. Levinson, Sarah Cutfield, Michael J. Dunn, N. J. Enfield & Sérgio Meira (eds.), 1–42. 10.1017/9781108333818.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818.002 [Google Scholar]
  85. Levinson, Stephen C., Sarah Cutfield, Michael J. Dunn, N. J. Enfield & Sérgio Meira
    (eds.) 2018 Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108333818
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818 [Google Scholar]
  86. Lewis, David
    1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic8(1). 339–359. 10.1007/BF00258436
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  87. Machobane, Malilo
    1985 Tense and aspect in Sesotho. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Margetts, A.
    2018 Saliba-Logea: exophoric demonstratives. InStephen C. Levinson, Sarah Cutfield, Michael J. Dunn, N. J. Enfield & Sérgio Meira (eds.), 257–281. 10.1017/9781108333818.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818.013 [Google Scholar]
  89. Mazzarella, Diana & Filippo Domaneschi
    2018 Presuppositional effects and ostensive-inferential communication. Journal of Pragmatics1381. 17–29. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  90. Michael, Lev
    2020 Rethinking the communicative functions of evidentiality: Event responsibility in Nanti (Arawakan) evidential practice. Cadernos de Etnolingüística8(1). 95–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Michael, Lev & Janice Nuckolls
    2014 Evidentiality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.63
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.63 [Google Scholar]
  92. Mushin, Ilana
    2001 Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.87
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  93. 2013 Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies15(5). 627–645. 10.1177/1461445613501447
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501447 [Google Scholar]
  94. Nakassis, Constantine V.
    2018 Indexicality’s ambivalent ground. Signs and Society6(1). 281–304. 10.1086/694753
     https://doi.org/10.1086/694753 [Google Scholar]
  95. Neely, Kelsey
    2019 The linguistic expression of affective stance in Yaminawa (Pano, Peru). Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Nurse, Derek
    2008 Tense and aspect in Bantu. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780199239290.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199239290.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  97. 2019 Data for tense and aspect systems in Bantu. Tervuren: Royal Museum for Central Africa.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Ochs, Elinor
    1996 Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. InJohn J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 407–437. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Petrukhin, Pavel
    2013 K pragmatike sverxsložnogo prošedšego vremeni v vostočnoslavjanskoj pis’mennosti [The pragmatics of the supercompound past tense in the East Slavic written texts]. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, Neue Folge11. 74–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Post, Mark
    2013 Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. InTim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey, 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos [Google Scholar]
  101. Récanati, Frangois
    1987 Meaning and force: The pragmatics of performative utterances. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1989.tb00254.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00254.x [Google Scholar]
  102. Riedel, Kristina
    2009 The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: A comparative Bantu perspective. Leiden: Leiden University PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Sandman, Erika
    2018 Egophoricity in Wutun. InSimeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), 173–196. 10.1075/tsl.118.06san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.06san [Google Scholar]
  104. Sandman, Erika & Karolina Grzech
    2022 Egohoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions. Insights on conversational data from the Tibetan Plateau and the Amazonian Foothills. Interactional Linguistics2(1). 79–109. 10.1075/il.21014.san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21014.san [Google Scholar]
  105. San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2018 Egophoricity: An introduction. InSimeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), 1–77. 10.1075/tsl.118.01san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.01san [Google Scholar]
  106. Sbisà, Marina
    1999 Ideology and the persuasive use of presupposition. InJef Verschueren (ed.), Language and ideology. Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, 492–509. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 2021 Presupposition and implicature: Varieties of implicit meaning in explicitation practices. Journal of Pragmatics1821. 176–188. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.027
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.027 [Google Scholar]
  108. Schultze-Berndt, Eva
    2017 Shared vs. primary epistemic authority in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open Linguistics31. 178–218. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0010 [Google Scholar]
  109. Schwarz, David S.
    1977 On pragmatic presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy1(2). 247–257. 10.1007/BF00351106
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351106 [Google Scholar]
  110. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. InKeith H. Basso & Henry A. Selby (eds.). Meaning in anthropology, 11–55. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 2022 Language in culture: Lectures on the social semiotics of language. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781009198813
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009198813 [Google Scholar]
  112. Simons, Mandy
    2003 Presupposition and accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian picture. Philosophical Studies112(3). 251–278. 10.1023/A:1023004203043
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023004203043 [Google Scholar]
  113. 2005 Presupposition and relevance. InZoltan Gendler Szabo (ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics, 329–355. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  114. Singh, Raj, Evelena Fedorenko, Kyle Mahowald & Edward Gibson
    2016 Accommodating presuppositions is inappropriate in implausible contexts. Cognitive Science40(3). 607–634. 10.1111/cogs.12260
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12260 [Google Scholar]
  115. Skilton, Amalia
    2021 Demonstratives and visibility: Data from Ticuna and implications for theories of deixis. Language97(4). 793–824. 10.1353/lan.2021.0065
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0065 [Google Scholar]
  116. Slater, Keith W.
    2003 A Grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic Language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. London: Routledge Curzon.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Stalnaker, Robert
    1973 Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic21. 447–457. 10.1007/BF00262951
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262951 [Google Scholar]
  118. 1974 Pragmatic presuppositions. InMilton Munitz & Peter Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy, 197–213. New York, NY: New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 1998 On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information7(1). 3–19. 10.1023/A:1008254815298
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298 [Google Scholar]
  120. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction41(1). 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  121. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig
    2011 Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. InTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 3–24. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  122. Strawson, Peter F.
    1950 On referring. Mind59(235). 320–344. 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  123. Thomason, Richmond H.
    1990 Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. InPhilip Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication, 325–363. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0018
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0018 [Google Scholar]
  124. Tonhauser, Judith
    2015 Are ‘informative presuppositions’ presuppositions?Language and Linguistics Compass9(2). 77–101. 10.1111/lnc3.12119
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12119 [Google Scholar]
  125. Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts & Mandy Simons
    2013 Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language891. 66–109. 10.1353/lan.2013.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001 [Google Scholar]
  126. Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy J. LaPolla
    2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(2). 240–263. 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
  127. Widmer, Manuel & Fernando Zúñiga
    2017 Egophoricity, involvement and semantic roles in Tibeto-Burman languages. Open Linguistics31. 419–441. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0021 [Google Scholar]
  128. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language12(1). 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  129. Yurchak, Alexei
    2005 Everything was forever, until it was no more: The last Soviet generation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400849109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400849109 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23032.kha
Loading
Doing things with grammar
Functions of Language 31, 166 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23032.kha
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23032.kha
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23032.kha
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): grammar in interaction; indexicality; presupposition accommodation

Most Cited

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