Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:17:48.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On projecting grammatical persons into social neurocognition: A view from linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2013

Nicholas Evans
Nicholas Evans*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, School of Culture, History & Language, ANU College of Asia and The Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. nicholas.evans@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Though it draws on the grammatical metaphor of person (first, third, second) in terms of representations, Schilbach et al.'s target article does not consider an orthogonal line of evidence for the centrality of interaction to social cognition: the many grammatical phenomena, some widespread cross-linguistically and some only being discovered, which are geared to supporting real-time interaction. My commentary reviews these, and the contribution linguistic evidence can make to a fuller account of social cognition.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 419 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benveniste, E. (1971) Subjectivity in language: Problems in general linguistics, trans. Meek, M. E., pp. 223–30. University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C., eds. (2006) Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Berg.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2003) Context, culture and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology 32:13–40.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2006) View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 18–20, 2005, ed. Cover, R. & Kim, Y., pp. 93–120. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1):1–29.Google Scholar
Karcevski, S. (1941/1969) Introduction à l'étude de l'interjection. In: A Geneva school reader, ed. Godel, R.. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Landaburu, J. (2007) La modalisation du savoir en langue andoke (Amazonie Colombienne). In: Enonciation médiatisée et modalité epistémique, ed. Guéntcheva, Z. & Landaburu, J.. Peeters.Google Scholar
Özyürek, A. & Kita, S. (n.d.) Joint attention and distance in the semantics of Turkish and Japanese demonstrative systems. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Reesink, G. (1993) “Inner speech” in Papuan languages. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 24:217–25.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. (2010) What “You” and “I” mean to each other: Person marking, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language 86(2):332–65.Google Scholar