Cover not available

In:Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 473–494

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

Chapter 15
Self-ascription in conjunct-disjunct systems

 | The University of Texas
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.15wec
Abstract
Conjunct markers, in at least some languages, are analyzed here as grammatically specialized for the semantic function of self-ascription: such markers indicate that a participant in the described event ascribed to herself the property described in the sentence. The hypothesis proposed here is that grammatically enabled self-ascription is fundamental to such systems, and that mirativity, as well as various other observed factors such as speaker ignorance, volitionality, and irony, are secondary effects that follow from this self-ascription analysis.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conjunct-disjunct systems
  • 3.Previous accounts of conjunct-disjunct
  • 4.Conjunct morphology as indicator of self-ascription
  • 5.Event participant as self-ascriber
  • 6.Side-effects of self-ascription: Mirativity, intentionality, ignorance, and irony
  • 7.Conjunct-disjunct and the de se theory of person
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (32)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 1–14. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review 25: 203–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castaneda, Hector-Neri. 1966. ‘He’: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio 8: 130–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. STUF-Language Typology and Universals 61(4): 309–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2001. Why “first/non-first person”is not grammaticalized mirativity. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Keith Allan & John Henderson (eds). <[URL]>
. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3): 611–627. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 25: 39–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1): 33–52. .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
. 2011. Grammaticizing the knower in Tsafiki. Presented at the LSA Workshop The grammar of knowldedge asymmetries: Conjunct/disjunct alignment from a cross-linguistic perspective, University of Colorado at Boulder, July 13–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon. 2011. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Cha’palaa. Presented at the LSA Workshop The grammar of knowledge asymmetries: Conjunct/disjunct alignment from a cross-linguistic perspective, University of Colorado at Boulder, July 13–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1918. The thought: A logical enquiry, transl. by A.M. Quinton & Marcelle Quinton. Philosophical Logic, Oxford University Press (1967): 17–38.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. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973, The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965, Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Juwon. 2013. The direct evidential -te in Korean: Its interaction with person and experiencer predicates. Qualifying paper, University of Texas Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88: 513–543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne. [URL].
McCready, Eric. 2007. Context shifting in questions and elsewhere. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 433–447. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2011. Conjunct/disjunct patterns in Guambiano. Presented at the LSA Workshop The grammar of knowldedge asymmetries: Conjunct/disjunct alignment from a cross-linguistic perspective, University of Colorado at Boulder, July 13–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perry, John. 1979. The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs 13: 3–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2012. Evidentiality and the unprepared mind. <[URL]>
San Roque, Lila. 2011. An introduction to conjunct/disjunct alignment in Duna and Kaluli (Trans New Guinea). Presented at the LSA Workshop The grammar of knowldedge asymmetries: Conjunct/disjunct alignment from a cross-linguistic perspective, University of Colorado at Boulder, July 13–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 43]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy, Ch. 4: Verbs and Times. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and Theory of Mind. Language 86(2): 332–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Why ‘you’ and ‘I’ are special. Presented at the Structure and Evidence in Linguistics Workshop in honor of Ivan Sag, Stanford University, April 28–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1986. Interactions of tense and evidentiality: A study of Sherpa and English. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 188–2202. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Stegovec, Adrian
2020. Taking case out of the Person-Case Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38:1 ► pp. 261 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