Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


There are many excellent descriptions of mirativity in various language grammars, and more recently there has been a flurry of research refining mirativity to include how languages linguistically realize surprise and related concepts such as ‘unexpectedness’ and ‘new information’. However, there is currently no commonly accepted set of independently motivated diagnostics for testing mirativity that utilizes the best practices and first principles of semantic and pragmatic investigation. As such, the goal of this paper is to go back to basics and examine mirativity from the point of view of a field linguist who has been given the task of discovering and documenting how a speaker of a language linguistically expresses her surprise. This approach rests on two premises: first, mirativity is about surprise in the psychological sense. The second premise is that we take seriously that mirativity involves a kind of meaning, and that all languages have the linguistic resources for communicating mirative (surprise) meaning. The outcome is a set of tests that can be used to probe mirative meanings in any language.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2004) Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2012) The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–486. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aksu-Koç, A. , & Slobin, D.
    (1986) A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp.159–167). Norwood, N J: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. AnderBois, S.
    (2016) Illocutionary mirativity: The case of yucatec maya bakáan . In B. Thuy & I. Rudmila-Rodica (Eds.), Proceedings of SULA 9: Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bochnak, M. R. , & Matthewson, L.
    (2015) Methodologies in semantic fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, J.
    (2010) Gitksan phonotactics. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Celle, A. , & Lansari, L.
    (2014) ‘I’m surprised’/‘Are you surprised?’: Surprise as an argumentation tool in verbal interaction. In I. Novakova , P. Blumenthal , & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Les émotions dans le discours/Emotions in discourse (pp.267–279). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DeLancey, S.
    (1992) The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Havniensia, 25, 39–62. doi: 10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277 [Google Scholar]
  9. (1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1, 33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2001) The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 369–382. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2012) Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 529–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dickinson, C.
    (2000) Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language, 24, 379–422. doi: 10.1075/sl.24.2.06dic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.2.06dic [Google Scholar]
  13. Faller, M.
    (2002) Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grunow-Hårsta, K.
    (2007) Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the Tibeto- Burman Area, 30, 151–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hill, N.
    (2012) “Mirativity” does not exist: hdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. ˙Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 389–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LaPolla, R.
    (2003) Evidentiality in Qiang. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp.63–78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54.06lap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.06lap [Google Scholar]
  17. Matthewson, L.
    (2004) On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics, 70, 369–415. doi: 10.1086/429207
    https://doi.org/10.1086/429207 [Google Scholar]
  18. Meyer, W. U. , & Niepel, M.
    (1994) Surprise. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, volume3 (pp.353–358). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Meyer, W. U. , Reisenzein, R. , & Schützwohl, A.
    (1997) Toward a process analysis of emotions: The case of surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 251–274. doi: 10.1023/A:1024422330338
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024422330338 [Google Scholar]
  20. Molochieva, Z.
    (2007) Category of evidentiality and mirativity in Chechen. Handout for a talk given at the Conference on Languages of the Caucasus , MPI-EVA, December9–12 2007.
  21. Peterson, T.
    (2010) Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics- pragmatics interface. Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015) The semantics of grammatical evidentiality and the unprepared mind. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 314–352. doi: 10.1075/rcl.13.2.03pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.03pet [Google Scholar]
  23. (2016) Mirativity as surprise: Evidentiality, information, and deixis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 1327–1357. doi: 10.1007/s10936‑015‑9408‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9408-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2018) Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Gitksan. In A. Aikhenvald (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Potts, C.
    (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. pp.463–489Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Reisenzein, R.
    (2000) The subjective experience of surprise. In H. Bless & J. Forgas (Ed.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp.262–279). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rett, J. , & Murray, S. E.
    (2013) A semantic account of mirative evidentials. In T. Snider (Ed.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XXIII (pp.453–472). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rigsby, B.
    (1986) Gitksan grammar. Unpublished manuscript, University of Queensland, Australia.
  29. Slobin, D. , & Aksu, A.
    (1982) Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of Turkish evidential. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (pp.397–405). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.1.13slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.1.13slo [Google Scholar]
  30. Temürcü, C.
    (2007) A semantic framework for analyzing tense, aspect, and mood: An application to the ranges of polysemy of -xr, -dir, -iyor and -∅ in Turkish. Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit Antwerpen.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Watters, D. E.
    (2002) A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486883
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486883 [Google Scholar]
  32. Wiklund, A. L.
    (2009) The syntax of surprise: Unexpected event readings in complex predication. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 84, 181–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Zúñiga, F.
    (2000) Mapudungun. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): entailment; Gitksan; implicature; semantic and pragmatic fieldwork; surprise
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