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
  • [21] Selection demands vs. association strength in the verb generation task
    Cheng, Y
    Martin, R
    BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, 2005, 95 (01) : 193 - 194
  • [22] The great Plastic vs. Wax Foundation Debate
    Knox, L
    AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL, 2000, 140 (07): : 517 - 517
  • [23] Evaluation of Course Strategies: Face-to-Face vs. Online
    Basu, Debarati
    Gopalkrishna, Niveditha
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2020 ACM CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL COMPUTING EDUCATION RESEARCH, ICER 2020, 2020, : 313 - 313
  • [24] Information Literacy Successes Compared: Online vs. Face to Face
    Burkhardt, Joanna M.
    Kinnie, Jim
    Cournoyer, Carina M.
    JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION, 2008, 48 (3-4) : 379 - 389
  • [25] Face-to-face vs. Online learning in Engineering Courses
    Guadalupe Garcia-Castelan, Rosa Maria
    Gonzalez-Nucamendi, Andres
    Robledo-Rella, Victor
    Neri, Luis
    Noguez, Julieta
    2021 IEEE FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION CONFERENCE (FIE 2021), 2021,
  • [26] Narrowing power vs. efficiency in synchronous set agreement
    Mostefaoui, Achour
    Raynal, Michel
    Travers, Cotentin
    DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING AND NETWORKING, PROCEEDINGS, 2008, 4904 : 99 - 111
  • [27] Agreement between weekly vs. daily assessment of appetite
    Womble, LG
    Wadden, TA
    Chandler, JM
    Martin, AR
    APPETITE, 2003, 40 (02) : 131 - 135
  • [28] e-Sourcing Cluster Strategies: Empathy vs. Egoism
    Fuks, Konrad
    Kawa, Arkadiusz
    AGENT AND MULTI-AGENT SYSTEMS: TECHNOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS, PT II, PROCEEDINGS, 2010, 6071 : 312 - 320
  • [29] Who Has Heart? Vicarious Empathy vs. Residency Match
    Newton B.W.
    Clardy J.
    Barber L.
    Cleveland E.
    Medical Science Educator, 2014, 24 (1) : 45 - 50
  • [30] Residual vs. Inception vs. Classical Networks for Low-Resolution Face Recognition
    Herrmann, Christian
    Willersinn, Dieter
    Beyerer, Juergen
    IMAGE ANALYSIS, SCIA 2017, PT II, 2017, 10270 : 377 - 388