1932

Abstract

Human societies show a deep concern with how people know things and how relationships to knowledge are constructed and portrayed in talk. The term evidentiality refers to particular linguistic resources for talking about knowledge and especially to grammaticalized markers that indicate knowledge sources. Evidential marking is found in diverse languages around the world. This review discusses cross-linguistic evidential meanings and examines research on evidentials in practice, with a focus on their interpretation as stance markers and deictic elements. Evidentiality is a fascinating accomplishment in language structure, meaning, and use and can tell us about shared and disparate visions of knowledge and sociality across cultures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011243
2019-10-21
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/48/1/annurev-anthro-102218-011243.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011243&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agha A. 2007. Language and Social Relations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  2. Aikhenvald AY. 2004. Evidentiality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  3. Aikhenvald AY. 2018a. Evidentiality and language contact. See Aikhenvald 2018c 148–72
  4. Aikhenvald AY. 2018b. Evidentiality: the framework. See Aikhenvald 2018c 1–43
  5. Aikhenvald AY 2018c. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  6. Aikhenvald AY, Dixon RMW 2003. Studies in Evidentiality Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  7. Aikhenvald AY, Storch A 2013. Perception and Cognition in Language and Culture Leiden, Neth: Brill
  8. Aksu-Koç AA, Slobin DI. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. See Chafe & Nichols 1986 159–67
  9. Alcázar A. 2018. Dizque and other emergent evidential forms in Romance languages. See Aikhenvald 2018c 725–40
  10. Anderson LB. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. See Chafe & Nichols 1986 273–312
  11. Arrese JIM, Haßler G, Carretero M 2017. Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  12. Barnes J. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 50:255–71
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Basso EB. 2008. Epistemic deixis in Kalapalo. Pragmatics 18:215–52
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bendix EH. 1993. The grammaticalization of responsibility and evidence: interactional manipulation of evidential categories in Newari. See Hill & Irvine 1993 226–47
  15. Bergqvist H. 2018. Evidentiality as stance: event types and speaker roles. See Foolen et al. 2018 19–43
  16. Blain EM, Dechaine R-M. 2007. Evidential types: evidence from Cree dialects. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 73:3257–91
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bloch M. 2008. Truth and sight: generalizing without universalizing. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 14:S22–32
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Boas F. 1911. Kwakiutl. Handbook of American Indian languages, Part 1 F Boas 423–557 Smithson. Inst. Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull. 40 Washington, DC: GPO
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Boas F. 1938. Language. General Anthropology F Boas 124–45 Boston/New York: D. C. Heath
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Boye K. 2012. Epistemic Meaning: A Cross-Linguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
  21. Boye K. 2018. Evidentiality: the notion and the term. See Aikhenvald 2018c 261–72
  22. Boye K, Harder P. 2009. Evidentiality: linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions Lang 16:19–43
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Brosig B. 2018. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khlaka Mongolian. See Foolen et al. 2018 45–75
  24. Bruil M. 2015. When evidentials are not evidentials: the case of the Ecuadorian Siona reportative. Linguist. Typol. 19:3385–423
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cardona G. 1997. Pāṇini: His Work and Traditions, Vol. 1: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
  26. Carlin EB. 2018. Evidentiality and the Cariban languages. See Aikhenvald 2018c 315–32
  27. Chafe W. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. See Chafe & Nichols 1986 261–72
  28. Chafe W, Nichols J 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology Norwood, NJ: Ablex
  29. Classen C. 1997. Foundations for an anthropology of the senses. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 49:401–12
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohen G, Chuakaw C, Small J 2010. Waking the language of dreamers: a survey of evidentiality in dreams. Evidence from Evidentials T Peterson, U Sauerland 41–73 Vancouver, BC: Univ. B. C. Work. Pap. Linguist. 28 http://www.public.asu.edu/∼trpete13/papers/evidentials.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cook HM. 2012. Language socialization and stance-taking practices. The Handbook of Language Socialization A Duranti, E Ochs, BB Schieffelin 296–321 Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Courtney EH. 1999. Child acquisition of Quechua affirmative suffix. Proceedings from the Second Workshop on American Indigenous Languages30–41 Santa Barbara: Univ. Calif. Pap. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Curnow TJ. 2002. Types of interaction between evidentials and first-person subjects. Anthropol. Linguist. 44:178–96
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Curnow TJ. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Stud. Lang. 27:39–59
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dankoff R 1982. Mahmud al Kasyari, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Diwan Luyat-at-Turk), Part 1, transl with J Kelly Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  36. Danziger E, Rumsey A. 2013. Introduction: from opacity to intersubjectivity across languages and cultures. Lang. Commun. 33:3247–50
    [Google Scholar]
  37. de Haan F. 2000. Evidentiality in Dutch. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society74–85 Berkeley: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. de Haan F. 2001. The place of inference within the evidential system. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 67:2193–219
    [Google Scholar]
  39. de Haan F. 2005. Encoding speaker perspective: evidentials. Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories Z Frajzyngier, A Hodges, DS Roods 379–97 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  40. de Hoop H, Foolen A, Mulder G, van Mulken V 2018. I think and I believe: evidential expressions in Dutch. See Foolen et al. 2018 77–97
  41. de Reuse WJ. 2003. Evidentiality in Western Apache (Athabaskan). See Aikhenvald & Dixon 2003 79–100
  42. de Villiers J, Garfield J, Gernet-Girard H, Roeper T, Speas M 2009. Evidentials in Tibetan: acquisition, semantics, and cognitive development. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2009:12529–47
    [Google Scholar]
  43. del Mar Vanrell M, Armstrong ME, Prieto P 2017. Experimental evidence for the role of intonation in evidential marking. Lang. Speech 60:2242–59
    [Google Scholar]
  44. DeLancey S. 1997. Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguist. Typol. 1:133–52
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Dendale P, Tasmowski L. 2001. Introduction: evidentiality and related notions. J. Pragmat. 33:339–48
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Dickinson C. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Stud. Lang. 24:2379–421
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Diewald G, Smirnova E. 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
  48. Du Bois JW. 2007. The stance triangle. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction R Engelbretson 139–82 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Duranti A. 2010. Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropol. Theory 10:1–216–35
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Eberhard DM. 2018. Evidentiality in Nambikwara languages. See Aikhenvald 2018c 333–56
  51. Epps P. 2005. Areal diffusion and the development of evidentiality: evidence from Hup. Stud. Lang. 29:3617–50
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Evans N. 2007. View with a view: towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society93–120 Berkeley: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Evans N, Bergqvist H, San Roque L 2018. The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony. Lang. Cognit. 10:141–70
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Evans N, Wilkins DP. 2000. In the mind's ear: the semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76:3546–92
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Faller M. 2002a. Remarks on evidential hierarchies. The Construction of Meaning DI Beaver, LD Casillas Martínez, BZ Clark, S Kaufmann 89–111 Stanford, CA: Cent. Stud. Lang. Inf. (CSLI)
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Faller M. 2002b. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua PhD Diss., Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
  57. Faller M. 2004. The deictic core of ‘non-experienced past’ in Cuzco Quechua. J. Semantics 21:45–85
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Fitneva SA. 2009. Evidentiality and trust: the effect of informational goals. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2009:12549–61
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Fleck DW. 2007. Evidentiality and double tense in Matses. Language 83:589–614
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Floyd S. 2018. Egophoricity and argument structure in Cha'palaa. See Floyd et al. 2018 269–304
  61. Floyd S, Norcliffe E, San Roque L 2018. Egophoricity Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  62. Foolen A, de Hoop H, Mulder G 2018. Evidence for Evidentiality Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
  63. Fox B. 2001. Evidentiality: authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 11:2167–92
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Friedman VA. 1999. Evidentiality in the Balkans. Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik U Hinrichs 519–44 Wiesbaden, Ger: Harrassowitz
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Friedman VA. 2018. Where do evidentials come from?. See Aikhenvald 2018c 124–47
  66. Garrett EJ. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan PhD Diss., Univ. Calif Los Angeles:
  67. Gawne L. 2013. Lamjung Yolmo copulas in use: evidentiality, reported speech and questions PhD Diss., Univ. Melb.
  68. Gillespie K, San Roque L 2011. Music and language in Duna pikono. Sung Tales from the Papua New Guinea Highlands: Studies in Form, Meaning and Sociocultural Context A Rumsey, D Niles 49–63 Canberra: Aust. Natl. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Gipper S. 2011. Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: an interactional account PhD Diss., Radboud Univ. Nijmegen
  70. Givón T. 1982. Evidentiality and epistemic space. Stud. Lang. 6:23–49
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Goffman E. 1981. Forms of Talk Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
  72. Gopnik A, Graf P. 1988. Knowing how you know: young children's ability to identify and remember the sources of their beliefs. Child Dev 59:51366–71
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Grice PH. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech Acts P Cole, JL Morgan 41–58 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Hanks WF. 1984. The evidential core of deixis in Yucatec Maya. Papers from the Twentieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society J Drogo 154–72 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Hanks WF. 1992. The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  76. Hanks WF. 2005. Explorations in the deictic field. Curr. Anthropol. 46:191–220
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hardman-De-Bautista MJ. 1982. The mutual influence of Spanish and the Andean languages. Word 33:143–57
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Hargreaves D. 1991. The conceptual structure of intentional action: data from Kathmandu Newari. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society379–89 Berkeley: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Hargreaves D. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himal. Linguist. 5:1–48
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Haviland JB. 1987. Fighting words: evidential particles, affect, and argument. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society343–54 Berkeley: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Hengeveld K, Hattnher MMD. 2015. Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics 53:3479–524
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Heritage J. 2012. Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 45:1–29
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Heritage J. 2018. The ubiquity of epistemics: a rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ group. Discourse Stud 20:114–56
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Heritage J, Stivers T. 1999. Online commentary in acute medical visits: a method of shaping patient expectations. Soc. Sci. Med. 49:1501–17
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Hill JH. 1995. The voices of Don Gabriel: responsibility and self in a modern Mexicano narrative. The Dialogic Emergence of Culture D Tedlock, B Mannheim 97–147 Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Hill JH, Irvine JT 1993. Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  87. Hill NW. 2017. Perfect experiential constructions: the inferential semantics of direct evidence. Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages L Gawne, NW Hill 131–59 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Hintz DJ, Hintz DM. 2017. The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua 186/187 88–109
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Howes D 1991. The Varieties of Sensory Experience: A Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press
  90. Hyslop G. 2018. Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp. See Floyd et al. 2018 109–37
  91. Jacobsen WH. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. Chafe & Nicholls 1986 3–28
  92. Jacques G. 2018. Non-propositional evidentiality. See Aikhenvald 2018c 109–23
  93. Jacques G, Lahaussois A. 2014. The auditory demonstrative in Khaling. Stud. Lang. 38:393–404
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Jakobson R. 1990. 1957. Shifters and verbal categories. On Language LR Waugh, Monique Monville-Burston 386–92 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Jarvella RJ, Klein W. 1982. Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics New York: Wiley
  96. Jespersen O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar London: Allen & Unwin
  97. Johanson L. 2000. Turkic indirectives. See Johanson & Utas 2000 61–87
  98. Johanson L, Utas B 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and Neighbouring Languages Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  99. Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS 1993. Source monitoring. Psychol. Bull. 114:3–28
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Junker M-O, Quinn CM, Valentine JR 2018. Evidentiality in Algonquian. See Aikhenvald 2018c 431–62
  101. Kamio A. 1997. Territory of Information Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
  102. Kockelman P. 2004. Stance and subjectivity. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 14:2127–50
    [Google Scholar]
  103. König C. 2013. Source of information and unexpected information in !Xun—evidential, mirative, and counter-expectation markers. See Aikhenvald & Storch 2013 69–94
  104. Koring L, de Mulder H 2015. Understanding different sources of information: the acquisition of evidentiality. J. Child Lang. 42:947–68
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Kroeker M. 2001. A descriptive grammar of Nambikuara. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 67:1–87
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Laughlin RM. 1977. Of Cabbages and Kings: Tales from Zinacantán Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
  107. Lazard G. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?. Linguist. Typol. 3:91–109
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Lee DD. 1938. Conceptual implications of an Indian language. Philos. Sci. 5:89–102
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Lempert M. 2008. The poetics of stance: text metricality, epistemicity, interaction. Lang. Soc. 37:569–92
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Levinson SC. 1983. Pragmatics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  111. Levinson SC. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman's participation framework. Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order P Drew, A Wootton 161–227 Oxford, UK: Polity
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Lidz LA. 2007. Evidentiality in Yongning Na (Mosuo). Linguist. Tibeto-Burman Area 30:245–88
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Lindström J, Karlsson S. 2016. Tensions in the epistemic domain and claims of no-knowledge: a study of Swedish medical interaction. J. Pragmat. 106:129–47
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Loughnane R. 2009. A grammar of Oksapmin PhD Diss., Univ. Melb.
  115. Loughnane R. 2018. The evidential nature of conjunct-disjunct systems: evidence from Oksapmin and Newar. See Floyd et al. 2018 377–404
  116. Lucy JA. 1993a. Metapragmatic prepresentationals: reporting speech with quotatives in Yucatec Maya. See Lucy 1993b 91–125
  117. Lucy JA 1993b. Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  118. Lyons J. 1977. Deixis, space and time. Semantics636–724 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Matthewson L, Davis H, Rullmann H 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: evidence from St'át'imcets. Linguist. Var. Yearb. 7:201–54
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Michael L. 2012. Nanti self-quotation: implications for the pragmatics of reported speech and evidentiality. Pragmat. Soc. 3:2321–57
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Michael L. 2015. The cultural bases of linguistic form: the development of Nanti quotative evidentials. Language Structure and Environment: Social, Cultural and Natural Factors R de Busser, RJ LaPolla 99–130 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Mithun M. 1986. Evidential diachrony in Northern Iroquoian. See Chafe & Nichols 1986 89–112
  123. Mizumoto M, Stich S, McCready E 2017. Epistemology for the Rest of the World Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  124. Montgomery-Anderson B. 2008. A reference grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee PhD Diss., Univ. Kans .
  125. Munro R, Ludwig R, Sauerland U, Fleck DW 2012. Reported speech in Matses: perspective persistence and evidential narratives. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 78:41–75
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Murray SE. 2016. Evidentiality and illocutionary mood in Cheyenne. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 82:4487–517
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Murray SE. 2017. The Semantics of Evidentials Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  128. Mushin I. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  129. Mushin I. 2012. “Watching for witness”: evidential strategies and epistemic authority in Garrwa conversation. Pragmat. Soc. 3:2270–93
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Mushin I. 2013. Making knowledge visible in discourse: implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Stud 15:5627–45
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Norcliffe E. 2018. Egophoricity and evidentiality in Guambiano (Nam Trik). See Floyd et al. 2018 305–45
  132. Nuckolls J. 1993. The semantics of certainty in Quechua and its implications for a cultural epistemology. Lang. Soc. 22:235–55
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Nuckolls JB. 2008. Deictic selves and others in Pastaza Quichua evidential usage. Anthropol. Linguist. 50:167–89
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Nuckolls JB. 2018. The interactional and cultural pragmatics of evidentiality in Pastaza Quichua. See Aikhenvald 2018c 202–21
  135. Oswalt RL. 1986. The evidential system of Kashaya. See Chafe & Nichols 1986 29–45
  136. Plungian VA. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. J. Pragmatics 33:349–57
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Pomerantz A. 1980. Telling my side: “limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociol. Inq. 50:3186–98
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Post MW. 2013. Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: historical origins and functional motivation. Functional–Historical Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey T Thornes, E Andvik, G Hyslop, J Jansen, pp. 107–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Proust J, Fortier M 2018. Metacognitive Diversity: An Interdisciplinary Approach Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  140. Pulte W. 1985. The experienced and nonexperienced past in Cherokee. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 51:4543–44
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Robbins J, Rumsey A. 2008. Introduction: cultural and linguistic anthropology and the opacity of other minds. Anthropol. Q. 81:2407–20
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Roseano P, González M, Borràs-Comes J, Prieto P 2016. Communicating epistemic stance: how speech and gesture patterns reflect epistemicity and evidentiality. Discourse Process 53:3135–74
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Rule J. 2001. Beyond the Limestone Barrier Tamworth, UK: DSAMC Educ.
  144. Rule WM. 1977. A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli, and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea Sydney: Univ. Sydney
  145. San Roque L. 2008. An introduction to Duna grammar PhD Diss., Aust. Natl. Univ Canberra:
  146. San Roque L. 2015. Using you to get to me: addressee perspective and speaker stance in Duna evidential marking. STUF-Lang. Typol. Universals 68:2187–210
    [Google Scholar]
  147. San Roque L, Floyd S, Norcliffe E 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua 186–187:120–43
    [Google Scholar]
  148. San Roque L, Floyd S, Norcliffe E 2018. Egophoricity: an introduction. See Floyd et al. 2018 1–78
  149. San Roque L, Loughnane R 2012a. Inheritance, contact and change in the New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Lang. Linguist. Melanesia 2012:Spec. Issue, Part II397–427
    [Google Scholar]
  150. San Roque L, Loughnane R 2012b. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguist. Typol. 16:111–67
    [Google Scholar]
  151. San Roque L, Schieffelin BB 2018. Learning how to know: egophoricity and the grammar of Kaluli (Bosavi, Trans New Guinea), with special reference to child language. See Floyd et al. 2018 437–71
  152. Sandman E. 2018. Egophoricity in Wutun. See Floyd et al. 2018 173–96
  153. Sarvasy HS. 2014. A grammar of Nungon: a Papuan language of the Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea PhD Diss., James Cook Univ., Cairns, Qld Aust .
  154. Schieffelin BB. 1986. The acquisition of Kaluli. The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition DI Slobin 525–93 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Schieffelin BB. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  156. Schieffelin BB. 1996. Creating evidence: making sense of the written word in Bosavi. Interaction and Grammar E Ochs, EA Schegloff, SA Thompson 435–60 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Schieffelin BB. 2007. Found in translating: reflexive language across time and texts in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea. Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies M Makihara, BB Schieffelin 140–65 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Schieffelin BB. 2008. Speaking only your own mind: reflections on talk, gossip, and intentionality in Bosavi (PNG). Anthropol. Q. 81:2431–41
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Schieffelin BB, Ochs E 1986. Language Socialization Across Cultures Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  160. Schlichter A. 1986. The origins and deictic nature of Wintu evidentials. See Chafe & Nichols 1986 46–59
  161. Schultze-Berndt E. 2017. Shared versus primary epistemic authority in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open Linguist 3:178–218
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Sidnell J. 2005. Talk and Practical Epistemology: The Social Life of Knowledge in a Caribbean Community Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  163. Sillitoe P. 2010. Trust in development: some implications of knowing in indigenous knowledge. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 16:12–30
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Simpson J. 2004. From common ground to syntactic construction: associated path in Warlpiri. Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture NJ Enfield 287–307 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Skribnik E, Seesing O. 2014. Evidentiality in Kalmyk. The Grammar of Knowledge. A Cross-Linguistic Typology AY Aikhenvald, RMW Dixon 148–70 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Slobin DI. 2016. Thinking for speaking and the construction of evidentiality in language contact. Exploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan M Güven, D Akar, B Öztürk, M Kelepir 105–20 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Speas M. 2004. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114:255–76
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Sperber D, Clément F, Heintz C, Mascaro O, Mercier H et al. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind Lang 25:359–93
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Squartini M 2007. Evidentiality Between Lexicon and Grammar. Spec. Issue. It. J. Linguist. 19:1)
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Squartini M. 2018. Extragrammatical expression of information source. See Aikhenvald 2018c 273–85
  171. Stivers T, Mondada L, Steensig J 2011. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  172. Storch A. 2018. Evidentiality and the expression of knowledge: an African perspective. See Aikhenvald 2018c 610–28
  173. Tournadre N. 1996. Comparaison des systemes mediatifs de quatre dialectes Tibétains: Tibetain Central, Ladakhi, Dzongkha et Amdo Louvain, Belg: Peeters
  174. Ünal E, Papafragou A. 2018. Relations between language and cognition: evidentiality and sources of knowledge. Topics Cogn. Sci. 2018:1–21
    [Google Scholar]
  175. Valenzuela PM. 2003. Evidentiality in Shipibo-Konibo, with a comparative overview of the category in Panoan. See Aikhenvald & Dixon 2003 33–61
  176. Visser E. 2015. Tensed evidentials: a typological study. Linguist. Typol. 19:279–325
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Ward SM. 2016. Knowing, experiencing, and reporting: grammar and participant roles in a Tibetan woman's oral history. Lang. Commun. 49:19–35
    [Google Scholar]
  178. Widmer M. 2014. A descriptive grammar of Bunan PhD Diss., Univ. Bern
  179. Wilkins D. 1986. Particle/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda). J. Pragmat. 10:575–596
    [Google Scholar]
  180. Willett TL. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Stud. Lang. 12:51–97
    [Google Scholar]
  181. Willett T. 1991. A Reference Grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan Dallas: Summer Inst. Linguist., Univ. Tex. Arlington
  182. Woodbury AC. 1986. Interactions of tense and evidentiality: a study of Sherpa and English. See Chafe & Nichols 1986 188–202
  183. Zeisler B. 2017. Don't believe in a paradigm that you haven't manipulated yourself! Evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi. Rev. Cogn. Linguist. 15:2515–39
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011243
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011243
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error