Face vs. empathy: the social foundation of Maithili verb agreement

被引:22
|
作者
Bickel, B
Bisang, W
Yadava, YP
机构
[1] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Inst Allgemeine & Vergleichende Sprachwissensch, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
[2] Univ Calif Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[3] Univ Zurich, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland
[4] Tribhuvan Univ, Kathmandu, Nepal
[5] Royal Nepal Acad Kathmandu, Kathmandu, Nepal
关键词
D O I
10.1515/ling.37.3.481
中图分类号
H0 [语言学];
学科分类号
030303 ; 0501 ; 050102 ;
摘要
Maithili features one of the most complex agreement systems of any Indo-Aryan language. Not only nominative and non-nominative subjects, but also objects, other core arguments, and even nonarguments are cross-referenced, allowing for a maximum of three participants encoded by the verb desinences. The categories reflected in the morphology ave person, honorific degree, and, in the case of third persons, gentler, spatial distance, and focus. However, not all combinations of category choices are equally represented, and there are many cases of neutralization. We demonstrate that the paradigm structure of Maithili verb agreement is not arbitrary but can be predicted by two general principles of interaction in Maithil society: a principle of social hierarchy underlying the evaluation of people's "face" (Brown and Levinson 1987[1978]), and a principle of social solidarity defining degrees of "empathy" (Kuno 1987) to which people identify with others. Maithili verb agreement not only reflects a specific style of social cognition bur also constitutes a prime means of maintaining this style by requiring constant attention to its defining parameters. In line with this, we find that the system is partly reduced by uneducated, so-called lower-caste speakers, who are least interested in maintaining this style, especially its emphasis on hierarchy.
引用
收藏
页码:481 / 518
页数:38
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Agreement in social contract theories: Locke vs. Rawls
    Cushing, S
    TECHNOLOGY, MORALITY, AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1998, 18 : 349 - 371
  • [2] The relationship between trait empathy and memory formation for social vs. non-social information
    Ullrich Wagner
    Lisa Handke
    Henrik Walter
    BMC Psychology, 3 (1)
  • [3] Impact of social anxiety on communication skills in face-to-face vs. online contexts
    Lacombe, Corina
    Elalouf, Karine
    Collin, Charles
    COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR REPORTS, 2024, 15
  • [4] Social anxiety and physiological arousal during computer mediated vs. face to face communication
    Shalom, Jonathan G.
    Israeli, Haggar
    Markovitzky, Omer
    Lipsitz, Joshua D.
    COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2015, 44 : 202 - 208
  • [5] Rule vs. rote in Japanese verb inflection
    Batchelder, EO
    Ohta, A
    LACUS FORUM XXVI: THE LEXICON, 2000, 26 : 55 - 66
  • [6] Face to face: The neural basis of social mirroring and empathy
    Iacoboni, Marco
    PSYCHIATRIC ANNALS, 2007, 37 (04) : 236 - 241
  • [7] ON PROTOLINGUISTIC "FOSSILS": SUBJECT-VERB VS. VERB-SUBJECT STRUCTURES
    Casielles, Eugenia
    Progovac, Ljiljana
    EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE, PROCEEDINGS, 2010, : 66 - +
  • [8] Survey incentives: Cash vs. in-kind; face-to-face vs. mail; Response rate vs. nonresponse error
    Ryu, E
    Couper, MP
    Marans, RW
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH, 2006, 18 (01) : 89 - 106
  • [9] Verb classes in Adyghe: Derivational vs. nonderivational criteria
    Letuchiy, Alexander
    LINGUISTICS, 2013, 51 (04) : 729 - 766
  • [10] The age of technology: skype vs. face to face teaching
    Bhandari, Trupti
    HAEMOPHILIA, 2018, 24 : 140 - 140