Cover not available

In:Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 377–404

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 12
The evidential nature of conjunct-disjunct terms

Evidence from Oksapmin and Newar

Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.12lou
Abstract
Conjunct-disjunct person-marking systems, such as those found in Newar, mark first person in statements the same way as second person in questions, in contrast to second and third person in statements and first and third person in questions. In the Papuan language Oksapmin, the evidential system implies conjunct-disjunct subject person. In addition to tense, aspect and subject number, the past tense forms in Oksapmin are obligatorily marked for evidentiality: participatory versus visual evidence. Participatory evidential marking correlates with conjunct subject person; visual, with disjunct. Despite assertions by some researchers that conjunct-disjunct systems are not evidential in nature, Oksapmin is part of the growing body of evidence in favour of a link between evidential systems and conjunct-disjunct ‘person marking’.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The conjunct-disjunct distinction
    • 2.1Conjunct-disjunct alignment in Newar
  • 3.Evidence from Oksapmin: Oksapmin’s evidential system and the distribution of the participatory evidential
    • 3.1The Oksapmin language
    • 3.2Participatory versus visual evidentiality
    • 3.3Conjunct-disjunct alignment & the Oksapmin evidentials
      • 3.3.1Statements
        • 3.3.1.1First person statements
        • 3.3.1.2Second person statements
        • 3.3.1.3Third person statements
      • 3.3.2Questions
        • 3.3.2.1First person questions
        • 3.3.2.2Second person questions
        • 3.3.2.3Third person questions
        • 3.3.2.4Summary: Questions
      • 3.3.3Reported statements
        • 3.3.3.1Reported marker =li
        • 3.3.3.2Direct reported speech
        • 3.3.3.3Summary: Reported statements
      • 3.3.4Conjunct-disjunct alignment and the Oksapmin evidentials: Summary
  • 4.Discussion: Conjunct-disjunct as evidential
    • 4.1Visual and non-visual indicating non-volitionality
    • 4.2Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward H. 1992. The grammaticization of responsibility and evidence: Interactional manipulation of evidential categories in Newari. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, Jane H. Hill & Judith T. Irvine (eds), 226–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boram, Clifford & Marshall. Lawrence. 1977. Difficulties in communication and social perception in Oksapmin society. Oral History 5(1): 3–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on so-called “conjunct/disjunct” systems. Talk given at Syntax of the World’s Languages III conferene in Berlin, 25–28 September. <[URL]>
. 2011. Participles and finiteness: The case of Akhvakh. Linguistic Discovery 7(1): 106–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2002a. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40: 611–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002b. Evidentiality and me: The interaction of evidentials and first person. In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Cynthia Allen (ed.). <[URL]>
. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27(1): 39–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2011. Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. <[URL]>
DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics. 1–3, 289–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 357–404. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 7 [Pacific Linguistics Series A, 53], Ronald L. Trail (ed.), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 1990. Indexical functions and grammatical sub-systems in Kathmandu Newari. Chicago Linguistic Society 26(1): 179–193.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. The conceptual structure of intentional action: Data from Kathmandu Newari. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 379–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Kathmandu Newar (Nepal Bhasa). In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Thurgood, Graham & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 371–384. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1971[1957]. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings, II: Word and Language, 130–147. The Hague: MoutonGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Evidentiality in Qiang. In Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 63–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lawrence, Helen. 1972. Viewpoint and location in Oksapmin. Anthropological Linguistics 114(8): 311–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lawrence, Marshall. 1971. Oksapmin clause structure. Kivung 4: 111–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1972a. Oksapmin sentence structure. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics Pacific Linguistics A-34(16): 17–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1972b. Structure and function of Oksapmin verbs. Oceanic Linguistics 11(1): 47–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977a. Quotations in Oksapmin. In Miscellaneous Papers in P.N.G. Linguistics 22, Richard Loving (ed.), 87–98. Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977b. Verb morphology and discourse prosodies. In Proceedings of the S.I.L. Consultants Seminar, Ukarumpa, 1976 [Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 20], Richard Loving & David D. Thomas (eds), 143–52 Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. Viewpoint in Oksapmin. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 16: 54–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. Oksapmin Dictionary [Dictionaries of Papua New Guinea 13]. Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Oksapmin Dictionary (Oksap Ire Nitat Win Aripti Ohe Meng Oh). Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Oksapmin Dictionary [Dictionaries of Papua New Guinea 13], 2nd edn. Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loeweke, Eunice & May, Jean. 1980. General grammar of Fasu (Namo Me). In Grammatical studies in Fasu and Mt. Koiali [Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 27], Don Hutchisson (ed.), 5–106. Ukarumpa: SIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn. 2007. Expanding the typology of evidentiality: The participatory/factual in Oksapmin. Paper read at the Seventh Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Paris.
. 2009. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne. <[URL]>
Loughnane, Robyn & Fedden, Sebastian. 2011. Is Oksapmin Ok?–A study of the genetic relationship between Oksapmin and the Ok languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31: 1–42. <
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
>
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L. 1986. The evidential system of Kashaya. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 29–45. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 333: 349–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Types of verbal evidentiality marking: An overview. In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds), 15–58. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Papuan Pasts: Cultural, Linguistic and Biological Histories of Papuan-speaking Peoples, Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds), 15–65. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rule, William Murray. 1977 A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea [Oceania Linguistic Monographs 20]. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Loughnane, Robyn. 2012a. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1): 111–167. <
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
>
San Roque, Lila and Robyn Loughnane. 2012b. Inheritance, contact and change in the New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Language & Linguistics in Melanesia: 387–427. <[URL]>
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2001. From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 339–464. <
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
>
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1996. Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains (Tibétain Central, Ladakhi, Dzongkha et Amdo). In L'Énonciation Médiatisé, Zlatka Guentcheva (ed.), 195–213. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Against the concept of ‘Conjunct’/’Disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 281–308. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

San Roque, Lila
2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 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