<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Date: April 25-26, 2024<br>
Place: Tübingen, Germany<br>
<br>
Last date for abstract submissions: October 31, 2023<br>
<br>
Contact: Bettina Zeisler<br>
Department of Indology<br>
Eberhard Karl Universtät Tübingen<br>
zeis[at]uni-tuebingen.de<br>
<br>
Workshop description:<br>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">Evidentiality
is
commonly described as the marking of <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">source</i>
of information (firsthand vs. non-firsthand) or also as the
discrimination
between direct knowledge through sense perception, on the one
hand, and
indirect knowledge, namely hearsay <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">and</i>
inference, on the other.</span><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">The
modern
Tibetic languages are known to have developed quite a particular
type of
‘evidential’ marking. The basic principles have been described
for quite a few
of the Tibetic languages, see here the volume <i>Evidential
Systems of Tibetan
Languages</i>, ed. by Lauren Gawne and Nathan W. Hill. (TiLSM
302, Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton, 2017) as well as the earlier collection in <i>Person
and
evidence in Himalayan languages</i>, ed. by Balthasar Bickel.
(<i>Linguistics
of the Tibeto-Burman Area</i>, 23.1-2, 2000). One of the key
features is the
subjective involvement of the epistemic <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">origo</i>
(the speaker in statements and the addressee in questions plus
the original
speaker in reported speech) in the events reported. The ‘system’
is thus also
known under the key terms of ‘egophoricity’ and
‘conjunct/disjunct’, both
concepts often mistaken for a somewhat weird syntactic person
category (ego vs.
non-ego). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">However,
at a
closer look, the ‘system’ is extremely flexible, allowing, in
principle, most if
not all forms for all persons, albeit in different frequencies
and for
different motivations. It further does not only deal with the
source of
information (firsthand vs. second-hand/hearsay) or the access
channels
(self-centred knowledge, perception, and inferences), but also
or even
predominantly with the subjective assessment of the situation
and/or the
socio-pragmatic situation. The pragmatic factors appear to be
related to a
speaker’s rights to treat a particular piece of knowledge as
belonging to his
or her ‘territory of information’, this also means that
speaker-hearer
(a)symmetries may play a crucial role. Apart from epistemic
rights, other key
words may be ‘empathy hierarchy’ and ‘engagement’.</span><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">Another
key term,
used for languages outside the realm of the Tibetic languages
(and those
languages under their immediate influence), is participatory
knowledge.
Nothing, has been yet said about how flexible such systems are
in the languages
so described.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">The
workshop aims
at discussing the ‘unsystematic’ aspects of ‘ego’-evidentiality
or
participatory knowledge marking. The main questions are:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"
style="margin-top:6.0pt;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:
exactly"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext" lang="EN-GB">–<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">What are the various motivations for using
the ‘egophoric’ marker(s)
for a person other than the epistemic <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">origo</i>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"
style="margin-top:6.0pt;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:
exactly"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext" lang="EN-GB">–<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">What are the various motivations for using
any other than the
‘egophoric’ markers for the epistemic origo, and are there
differences between
the three types of epistemic origo?</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"
style="margin-top:6.0pt;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:
exactly"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext" lang="EN-GB">–<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">How common, predictable, or even regular
are such ‘deviations’ from, or
‘transgressions’ of, the underlying paradigm?</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"
style="margin-top:6.0pt;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:
exactly"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext" lang="EN-GB">–<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">Are the speakers merely ‘playing’ with the
system, ‘manipulating’ it
for their subjective needs or is exactly this subjectivity or
the speaker’s
attitude towards the communicated content and towards the
addressee part of, or
underlying, the grammaticalised system?</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"
style="margin-top:6.0pt;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:
exactly"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext" lang="EN-GB">–<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">Which role does the so-called factual
marker of the Tibetic languages
play with respect to the question of a speaker’s attitudes and/
or rights. Does
it, as often has been stated, present the respective information
in a way that
the addressee simply has to accept it, that is, in quite an
authoritative
manner? Or could its usage, by contrast, be described as a
strategy for
downgrading one’s authority?</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"
style="margin-top:6.0pt;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:
exactly"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext" lang="EN-GB">–<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">How helpful is the notion of territory of
information for explaining at
least part of the observable flexibility.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"
style="line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">We
invite papers
for presentations of 30min plus 15min discussion. The
presentations should
specifically address some of the above questions. Expressive
abstracts may be
up to 4 pages including examples and references (A4, Times Roman
12pt, overall
margins 2.5 cm). Presentations about languages outside the realm
of the Tibetic
languages, inclusively languages where evidential strategies are
not grammaticalised, are very welcome. Abstracts that do not
address any of the above
questions will not be considered. Exceptions can be made for
first descriptions
of threatened languages, if the pardigm described shows some
interesting
features related to the main topic. In such cases, presenters
will have a
standard time slot of 20min plus 10 min discussion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">The
workshop will
be hold in physical presence.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">Invited
speakers:
<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><br>
Ilana Mushin, Professor of Linguistics, Deputy Head of School,
Linguistics
Major Convener, </span><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span style="font-size:11.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
11.0pt" lang="EN-GB">School of Languages and Cultures,
University of Queensland, Australia.</span><span
style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" lang="EN-GB"><br>
Nicolas Tournadre,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>Professor emeritus, Department of Linguistics and
Aix-Marseille
University and CNRS, France.</span><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bettina Zeisler<br>
</p>
DfG Project <br>
<strong>Evidentiality, epistemic modality, and speaker attitude in
Ladakhi - <br>
Modality and the interface for semantics, pragmatics, and grammar</strong><br>
Department of Indology<br>
<strong></strong>Eberhard Karl Universtät Tübingen<br>
zeis[at]uni-tuebingen.de<br>
</body>
</html>