1887
Volume 41, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Typological discussions of mirativity often consider the relationship between mirativity and evidentiality ( DeLancey 1997 , 2001 ; Aikhenvald 2004 ). However, in interaction speakers mobilize pragmatic extensions of miratives in ways that defy specific categorization. This study analyzes the function and distribution of the Navajo enclitic lá in a Navajo Conversational Corpus ( Mithun ed 2015 NSF-DEL project 0853598). The enclitic most frequently functions as an interrogative in information questions ( Young & Morgan 1987 ), but it also encodes mirative senses including surprise, counter-expectation, discovery, and reported speech. Though the two seem synchronically unrelated, an examination of the pragmatic functions, as well as consideration of comparative Athabaskan evidence, links the polysemous enclitics as metadiscourse markers signaling contrastive focus on the unexpectedness of a proposition. These data support the interactional relevance of the semantic domain of expectation, subsuming contrastive focus and surprise ( Behrens 2012 ).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16048.pal
2018-03-30
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2012 The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology16. 435–485. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barss, Andrew , Ken Hale , Ellavina Tsosie Perkins & Margaret Speas
    1992 In C. T. James Huang & Robert May (eds.), Logical structure and linguistic structure, 25–47. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3472‑9_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3472-9_2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Behrens, Leila
    2012 Evidentiality, modality, focus and other puzzles. In Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), Practical theories and empirical practice, 185–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.40.08beh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.40.08beh [Google Scholar]
  5. Bianchi, Valentina , Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Crushina
    2014Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and the evaluative dimension. Draft.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruil, Martine
    2014Clause-typing and evidentiality in Ecuadorian Siona. Leiden: Leiden University Ph.D. dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chafe, W.
    1979 The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 159–181. Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, Wallace
    1980The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistics aspects of narrative production. Advances in Discourse Processes, vol.3. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols
    (eds.) 1986Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1995 The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 349–388. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.32.15cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.15cha [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins, James
    1987 Reported speech in Navajo myth narratives. In J. Verschueren (ed.), Linguistic action: Some empirical-conceptual studies, 69–84. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Comrie, Bernard
    2000 Evidentials: semantics and history. In Lars Johanson and Bo Utas (eds.), Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, 1-12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  14. Croft, William
    2005 Modern syntactic typology. In Shibatani & Bynon (eds.), Approaches to language typology, 85–144. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cruschina, Silvio
    2012Discourse-related features and functional projections (Oxford Comparative Studies in Syntax). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. DeLancey, Scott
    1990 A note on evidentiality in Hare. International Journal of American Linguistics56. 152–158. doi: 10.1086/466142
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466142 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology1. 33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2001 The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics33(3). 371–384. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology16(3). 529–564. doi: 10.1515/lingty‑2012‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2012-0020 [Google Scholar]
  20. Du Bois, John , Stephan Schuetze-Coburn , Danae Paolina & Susanna Cumming
    1993 Outline of discourse transcription. InSanta Barbara papers in linguistics, Vol.4. Santa Barbara: University of California, Department of Linguistics; In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Elgin, Patricia Anne Suzette
    1973Some topics in Navajo syntax. San Diego: University of California, San Diego Ph.D. dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Field, Margaret
    2007 Increments in Navajo conversation. Pragmatics17(4). 637–646. doi: 10.1075/prag.17.4.07fie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.07fie [Google Scholar]
  23. Givón, Talmy
    2001Syntax: An introduction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gordon, Matthew
    2016Phonological typology: The cross-linguistic study of sound systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669004.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669004.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. de Haan, Ferdinand
    2008 Evidentiality in Athabaskan. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics16. 67–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2012 Evidentiality and mirativity. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0036
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0036 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heine, Bernd , Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer
    1991Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Holton, Gary
    2005 Pitch, tone and intonation in Tanacross. In Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 249–276. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.269.14hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.269.14hol [Google Scholar]
  29. Holton, Gary & Olga Lovick
    2008 Evidentiality in Dena’ina Athabaskan. Anthropological Linguistics50(3–4). 292–323.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kiss, Katalin É.
    1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language74(2). 245–273. doi: 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lazard, Gilbert
    1999 Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?Linguistic Typology3(1). 91–110. doi: 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91 [Google Scholar]
  33. Leer, Jeff
    2005 How stress shapes the stem-suffix complex in Athabaskan. In Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 278–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.269.17lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.269.17lee [Google Scholar]
  34. McDonough, Joyce
    2000 How to use Young and Morgan’s “The Navajo Language.” In K. M. Crosswhite & J. S. Magnuson (eds.), University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences1(2), 195–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2002 The prosody of interrogative and focus constructions in Navajo. In A. Carnie , M. Willie & H. Harley (eds.), Formal approaches to function in grammer, 191–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mithun, Marianne
    1986 Evidential diachrony in northern Iroquoian. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 89–112. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 What can revitalization work teach us about documentation?In Mihas, Elena , Bernard Perley , Gabriel Rei-Doval & Kathleen Wheatley (eds), Responses to language endangerment. In honor of Mickey Noonan. New directions in language documentation and language revitalization, 21–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.142.02mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.142.02mit [Google Scholar]
  38. (ed.) 2015Navajo conversational corpus, compiled with support from National Science Foundation DEL grant BCS-0853598.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Murray, Sarah E.
    2010 Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Ph.D. dissertation.
  40. Myhill, John & Janet Zhiqun Xing
    1996 Towards an operation definition of discourse contrast. Studies in Language20(2). 303–360. doi: 10.1075/sl.20.2.04myh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20.2.04myh [Google Scholar]
  41. Nuckolls, Janis & Lev Michael
    (eds.) 2014Evidentiality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.63
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.63 [Google Scholar]
  42. Olbertz, Hella
    2009 Mirativity and exclamatives in functional discourse grammar: Evidence from Spanish. In Evelien Keizer & Gerry Wanders (eds.), The London Papers I, Special Issue of Web Papers in Functional Grammar82, 66–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Palmer, F. R.
    2001 Problematizing Mirativity. Review of Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 312–342.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Peterson, Tyler
    . 2017. Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2010 Examining the mirative and nonliteral uses of evidentials. In Tyler Peterson & Uli Sauerland (eds.), Evidence from evidentials. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics28, 129–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Plungian, Vladimir A.
    2001 The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics33. 349–357. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00006‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0 [Google Scholar]
  47. Reichard, Gladys A.
    1951Navaho grammar. New York: Augustin.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. de Reuse, Willem Joseph
    2003 Evidentiality in western Apache (Athabaskan). In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies of evidentiality, 79–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54.07reu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.07reu [Google Scholar]
  49. Rice, Keren D.
    1986 Some remarks on direct and indirect speech in Slave (Northern Athapaskan). In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 47–76. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110871968.47
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.47 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rice, Keren
    1989A grammar of Slave. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110861822
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110861822 [Google Scholar]
  51. San Roque, Lila , Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2015 Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Saxon, Leslie
    1998 Complement clauses in Dogrib. In Pamela Munro & Leanne Hinton (eds.), Studies in American Indian languages: Description and theory, 204–211. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schauber, E.
    1975Theoretical reponses to Navajo questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Slobin, Dan I & Ayhan A. Aksu
    1982 In Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential [Typological Studies in Language], 185–200. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
  55. Watters, John Robert
    1979 Focus in Aghem. In Larry Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure, 137–197. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Willie, Mary Ann
    1991Navajo pronouns and obviation. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 1996 On the expression of modality in Navajo. In Eloise Jelinek (ed.), Athabaskan Language Studies: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Young, 331–347. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Witherspoon, Gary
    1977Language and art in the Navajo universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.9705
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9705 [Google Scholar]
  59. Young, Robert W. & William Morgan
    1987The Navajo language. A grammar and colloquial dictionary. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2000 The function and signification of certain Navaho particles. In Theodore B. Fernald & Paul R. Platero (eds.), The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a Native American language family, 288–319. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16048.pal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16048.pal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Athabaskan , corpora , discourse , mirativity , Navajo and semantics and pragmatics
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