Cover not available

Article published In: Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 2:1 (2022) ► pp.79–109

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions

Insights on conversational data from the Tibetan Plateau and the Amazonian Foothills

 | University of Helsinki
 | University of Valencia | Stockholm University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 22 August 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21014.san
Abstract
This article discusses how evidential and egophoric making is used to manage knowledge in interaction. To this end, it analyzes interactional data from Wutun (mixed Sinitic, Northwest China) and Upper Napo Kichwa (Quechuan, Ecuador). Wutun has an egophoric marking system, which, according to the definition of egophoricity, encodes involvement/lack of involvement in the described event. Upper Napo Kichwa has a set of evidentials, which, according to theory, encode the source of evidence for a given proposition. The two languages are typologically unrelated. However, when we look closely at how speakers of Wutun and Kichwa use epistemic markers, we discover functional similarities not predicted by the dominant definitions of epistemicity and evidentiality. In both languages, the use of the markers is conditioned by the interpersonal context of the interaction, and speakers use egophoric and evidential marking to signal their epistemic rights and responsibilities with respect to other speech-act participants.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidentiality and egophoricity
  • 3.Definitions of the relevant interactional concepts
  • 4.Egophoric marking and epistemic authority: The case study of Wutun
    • 4.1The paradigm of egophoric markers in Wutun
    • 4.2Interactional analysis of Wutun egophoric markers
  • 5.‘Evidentials’ as markers of epistemic authority: The case study of Upper Napo Kichwa
    • 5.1Meaning and interactional functions of UNK evidentials/epistemic markers
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Symbols used in transcripts
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (80)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Ed.), (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. vol. 11. Oxford, New York: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & LaPolla, R. J. (2007). New perspectives on evidentials: A view from Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30 (2). 1–12.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), (2014). The Grammar of Knowledge: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Explorations in Linguistic Typology 7. Oxford, New York: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bendix, E. (1992). The grammaticalization of responsibility and evidence: Interactional potential of evidential categories in Newari. In J. H. Hill & J. T. Irvine (Eds.) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse (pp. 226–247). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H. (2016). Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arawako-Chibchan). International Journal of American Linguistics 82(1), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The role of ‘perspective’ in epistemic marking. Lingua 186–1871, 5–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H. & Grzech, K. In Press. The role of pragmatics in the definition of evidentiality. STUF – Language Typology and Universals.
Bergqvist, H. & Kittilä, S. (2020). Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H. & Knuchel, D. (2017). Complexity in egophoric marking: From agents to attitude holders. Open Linguistics 31, 359–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(5), 569–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (2018). Evidentiality in Tibetic. In A. Y. Aikhenvald (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality Online. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dickinson, C. (2000). Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2), 379–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. & Floyd, S. (2014). Conversation across cultures. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman & J. Sidnell (Eds). Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, M. T. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD Thesis. Stanford University.
Floyd, R. (1997). La estructura categorial de los evidenciales en el quechua wanka. Serie Lingüística Peruana 44. Lima: SIL International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floyd, S. (2018). Chapter 9. Egophoricity and argument structure in Cha’palaa. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.) Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language 118 (pp. 269–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50(1), 219–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Dingemanse, M., Kendrick, K. H., Zinken, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2018). Universals and cultural diversity in the expression of gratitude. Royal Society Open Science 5(5), 180391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Enfield, N. J., Kendrick, K. H., Blythe, J., Zinken, J., Baranova, J. & Dingemanse, M. (2020). Getting others to do things. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, R. W. (2018). Chapter 7. Egophoricity in Mangghuer: Insights from pragmatic uses of the subjective/objective distinction. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.), Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language, vol. 1181 (pp. 197–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, E. J. (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Ph.D. Thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.
Gipper, S. (2011). Evidentiality and Intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: an Interactional Account. PhD Thesis. Nijmegen: MPI.
(2015). (Inter)subjectivity in interaction: Investigating (inter)subjective meanings in Yurakaré conversational data. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68(2), 211–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Conversational structure as evidence for regularity and variability in the use of epistemic markers: The case of Yurakaré. Presentation given at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Leipzig.
Grzech, K. (2016). Discourse enclitics in Tena Kichwa: A corpus-based account of information structure and epistemic meaning. PhD Thesis. SOAS, University of London. [URL] (access 01/02/2022).
(2017b). Autoridad epistémica y atenuación en Tena Kichwa: Análisis de enclítico =cha basado en el corpus. Normas 7(2), 48–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020a). Managing Common Ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evidential’ markers in Upper Napo Kichwa and their functions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 1681, 81–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Upper Napo Kichwa: a documentation of linguistic and cultural practices. London: SOAS. [URL]. SOAS, University of London, Endangered Languages Archive (15 December, 2020).
(2020c). Epistemic primacy, Common Ground management and the epistemic perspective domain. In H. Bergqvist & S. Kittilä (Eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 99 (pp. 23–60). Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Using discourse markers to negotiate epistemic stance: A view from situated language use. Journal of Pragmatics 1771, 208–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, A. (1980). Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In R. L. Trail (Ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 71. Pacific Linguistics Series A, 53. Canberra: Australian National University, 95–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 861, 663–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.). The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp.58–81). Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1985). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. (2012b). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1), 15–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, N. W. & Gawne, L. (2017). The contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of evidentiality. In N. W. Hill & L. Gawne (Eds.) Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 302 (pp. 1–37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hintz, D. J. & Hintz, D. M. (2017). The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua. Essays on Evidentiality 186–1871, 88–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
INEC, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (2010). Censo Nacional: Población Y Economía. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. [URL]. (Accessed 4 November 2015).
Janhunen, J. (2007). Typological interaction in the Qinghai linguistic complex. Studia Orientalia 1011, 85–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E. et al. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics 1681, 119–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loughnane, R. (2009). A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD Thesis. University of Melbourne.
Michael, L. D. (2008). Nanti Evidential Practice: Language, Knowledge, and Social Action in an Amazonian Society. PhD Thesis. University of Texas, Austin.
(2020). Rethinking the communicative functions of evidentiality: Event responsibility in Nanti (Arawakan) evidential practice. Cadernos de Etnolingüística 8(1), 95–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance: narrative retelling. Pragmatics & Beyond new ser. 87. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies 15(5), 627–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Editorial: Turn design and epistemic management in small communities. Journal of Pragmatics 1931, 21–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. (2014). A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin, Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity and evidentiality in Guambiano (Nam Trik). In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.), Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language 118 (pp. 305–345). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuckolls, J. B. & Michael, L. D. (Eds.). (2014). Evidentiality in interaction. John Benjamins Current Topics volume 63. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswalt, R. L. (1986). The evidential system of Kashaya. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology (pp. 29–45). Norwood, N.J., Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Actions (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). In G. Jefferson (Ed.). Lectures on conversation. Vol. 21. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
San Roque, L. (2015). Using you to get to me – Addressee perspective and speaker stance in Duna evidential marking. Language Typology and Universals, 187–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandman, E. (2016). A Grammar of Wutun. PhD Thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
(2018). Chapter 6. Egophoricity in Wutun. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.) Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language 118 (pp. 173–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Floyd, S. & Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity: An introduction. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.) Egophoricity. Typological Studies in Language 118 (pp. 1–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
San Roque, L. & Schieffelin, B. (2018). Chapter 14. Learning how to know: Egophoricity and the grammar of Kaluli (Bosavi, Trans New Guinea), with special reference to child language. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language, vol. 1181 (pp. 437–471). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, E. (2017). Shared vs. Primary Epistemic Authority in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open Linguistics 3(1), 178–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slater, K. W. (2003). A Grammar of Mangghuer. London, New York: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Introduction: Language contact in the Amdo Sprachbund. Himalayan Linguistics, Special Issue 20(3), 1–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, Ch., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., Levinson, Stephen C. (2009). Universality and cultural specificity in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 1061, 10587–10592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011a). The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011b). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, J. T.-S. (1993). Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63(4), 945–1001.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Evidentials and person. In A. Y. Aikhenvald (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality (pp. 47–64). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torero, A. (1964). Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Científicos de la Universidad Nacional Agraria, Lima, 446–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. (2008). Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/’disjunct’ in Tibetan. In B. Huber, M. Volkart, P. Widmer & P. Schwieger (Eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festscrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (pp. 281–308). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. & LaPolla, R. J. (2014). Towards a new approach to evidentiality: issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2), 240–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeisler, B. (2018). Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself! – Evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi. Himalayan Linguistics 17(1), 67–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Honkasalo, Sami
2025. Egophoricity in Central Stau copular clauses. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 88:2 ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Lucchini, Costanza, Andrea Rocci & Johanna Miecznikowski
2025. Managers see, analysts hear. Epistemic divide in financial dialogues. Journal of Pragmatics 248 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Khachaturyan, Maria, Erika Sandman & Thera Marie Crane
2024. Doing things with grammar. Functions of Language 31:2 ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue