Abstract
The paper explores engagement as a linguistic category by discussing its defining characteristics. Following work by Evans and colleagues (2018a, b), we discuss issues of scope and the intersubjective distribution of information, as central to the definition of engagement. In addition, we examine the notion of access as a crucial component of engagement marking and we attempt to distinguish access from epistemic authority, which we argue is a prerequisite for the existence of engagement as a linguistic category. Both access and epistemic authority appear central to an analysis of engagement marking, as found in the literature and in the languages of this Special Issue. From an interactional point of view, engagement may be viewed as a form of “stance” (Du Bois 2007), in that it primarily positions the speech participants with respect to talked about events from the point of view of the speaker.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1977. Partiklarna ju och väl. Nysvenska studier 57. 205-216.Search in Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty. A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198928Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London, New York: RoutledgeSearch in Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1946. Other Minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 20. 148–187.Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. under review. Dialogicity, alignment, and epistemic authority. In Van linden, A., Spronck, S., Gentens, C. & M. S. Sansiñena (eds). Special Issue: Notes from the field on perspective-indexing constructions: Irregular shifts and perspective persistence. Functions of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2019. Engagement and the Swedish modal particles ju and väl. Paper presented at SCOPIC 2019, 8-12 April, Stockholm University.Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2018a. The role of sentence type in Ika (Arwako) egophoric marking. In San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd, and Elisabeth Norcliffe, (eds.), Egophoricity (TSL 118), 347-375. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.118.11berSearch in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2018b. Intersubjectification revisited: a cross-categorical perspective. In Guentcheva, Zlatka (ed.), Epistemic modalities and evidentiality in cross-linguistic perspective. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 59), 319-345. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110572261-015Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2018c. Evidentiality as stance: Event types and speaker roles. In Foolen, Ad, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder (eds.), Evidence for Evidentiality (Human Cognitive Processing 61), 19-43. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.61.02berSearch in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2017a. The role of ‘perspective’ in epistemic marking. Lingua 186. 5–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.00810.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.008Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2017b. Time and commitment: the grammaticalization of uúch in Lakandon Maya. Journal de la Société des américanistes. Société des américanistes, 259-284.Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2016. Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics 82(1). 1-34.10.1086/684422Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2015. Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: an introduction. Special Issue: Epistemic marking in typological perspective, Bergqvist, Henrik and Lila San Roque (eds.), Language typology and universals (STUF), 123-141.Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2012. Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language (News from the field) 36(1). 151-178.10.1075/sl.36.1.05berSearch in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2008. Temporal reference in Lakandon Maya: Speaker- and Event-perspectives. PhD thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, Endangered Languages Academic Programme: University of London.Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik and Seppo Kittilä. 2017. Person and Knowledge: Introduction. Open Linguistics 3. 18–30.10.1515/opli-2017-0002Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik and Dominique Knuchel. 2017. Complexity in Egophoric Marking: From Agents to Attitude Holders. Open Linguistics 3. 359–377.10.1515/opli-2017-0018Search in Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas. 2003. Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: the case of the Jahai demonstrative ton. Pragmatics 13. 363–379.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Perkins, Revere and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: form, function, and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 42). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489.Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Engelbretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139-182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359-410.10.1515/cog-2014-0024Search in Google Scholar
Evans Nicholas R. 2012. Nen assentives and the problem of dyadic parallelisms. In Schalley, Andrea C. (ed.), Practical Theories and Empirical Practice: Facets of a Complex Interaction, 159–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.40.07evaSearch in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018a. The grammar of engagement I: framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10(1). 110–140.10.1017/langcog.2017.21Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018b. The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10(1). 141–170.10.1017/langcog.2017.22Search in Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity (Typological Studies in Language 118). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.118Search in Google Scholar
Gipper, Sonja. 2018. Evidentiality and Subjectivity in Yurakaré: An Interactional Account. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.50Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grzech, Karolina. 2016. Discourse enclitics in Tena Kichwa: A corpus-based account of information structure and epistemic meaning. PhD thesis. London: SOAS, University of London, 2016.Search in Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1989. ‘Sure, sure’: Evidence and Affect. Text 9(1). 27-68.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1986. Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological linguistics 28(4). 485-508.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies 7(2). 173-192.10.1177/1461445605050365Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In: Roman Jakobson (ed.), Selected Writings, Vol. 2, 130–47. Den Haag: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110873269.130Search in Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1994. The Territory of Information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 21(1). 67–100.10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7Search in Google Scholar
Knuchel, Dominique. 2019. Kogi demonstratives and engagement. Open Linguistics 5(1).10.1515/opli-2019-0034Search in Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2007. Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1, 276-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619427.005Search in Google Scholar
Kratochvil, František. 2011. Discourse-structuring functions of Abui demonstratives. In F. H. Yap, K. Grunow-Hårsta, & J. Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: diachronic and typological perspectives, 757–788. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.96.26kraSearch in Google Scholar
Landaburu, Jon. 2007. La modalisation du savoir en langue andoke (Amazonie colombienne). In Z. Guentchéva & J. Landaburu (eds.), L’énonciation médiatisée II: Le traitement épistémologique de l’information; Illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes, 23–47. Leuven: Peeters.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., Sarah Cutfield, Michael J. Dunn, Nick J.Enfield & Sérgio Meira (eds.). 2018. Demonstratives in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Language Culture and Cognition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108333818Search in Google Scholar
Mansfield, John. 2019. Epistemic authority and sociolinguistic stance in an Australian Aboriginal language. Open Linguistics 5(1). 25–48.10.1515/opli-2019-0002Search in Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/hcp.5Search in Google Scholar
Olsson, Bruno. 2019. The Absconditive revealed: Attention alignment in the grammar of Coastal Marind. Open Linguistics 5(1). 136–155.10.1515/opli-2019-0009Search in Google Scholar
Özyürek, Aslı, & Sotaro Kita. n.d. Joint attention and distance in the semantics of Turkish and Japanese demonstrative systems. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan. 2019. Intersubjectivity and engagement in Ku Waru. Open Linguistics 5(1). 49–68.10.1515/opli-2019-0003Search in Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan. 1982. An Intra-Sentence Grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila. 2008. An introduction to Duna grammar. PhD Thesis, Canberra: The Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila. 2015. Using you to get to me: addressee perspective and speaker stance in Duna evidential marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 68(2). 187–210.10.1515/stuf-2015-0010Search in Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd, and Elisabeth Norcliffe. 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua 186. 120-143.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003Search in Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Lauren Gawne, Darja Hoenigman, Julia C. Miller, Alan Rumsey, Stef Spronck, Alice Carroll and Nicholas Evans. 2012. Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Language documentation and conservation 12. 135–174.Search in Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank (2003) Encoding shape: Formal means and semantic distinctions. In Nick Enfield (ed.), Field research manual 2003 part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation, 57–59. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Sillitoe, Paul. 2010. Trust in development: some implications of knowing in indigenous knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16, 16, 12–30.Search in Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef. 2019. Grammar and levels of addressivity: Exploring Ungarinyin engagement. Open Linguistics 5(1).10.1515/opli-2020-0001Search in Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.). 2011. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674Search in Google Scholar
White, Peter R. R. 2003. Beyond Modality and Hedging: A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance. Text 23(2). 259–284.10.1515/text.2003.011Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Henrik Bergqvist et al., published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
