Respectable uncertainty and pathetic truth in Amazonian Quichua-speaking culture

Abstract

It is argued in this chapter, on the basis of evidence from grammar, discourse, and verbal art, that for Amazonian Quichua speakers, there is a cultural preference for expressing uncertainty, which is linked with animistic perspectivism. Animistic perspectivism endows nonhumans with subjectivity and implies that there is an infinite multiplicity of perspectives, thereby making a single, totalizing truth impossible. Respectable uncertainty is also apparent in the system of evidentiality, in speech reports, echo questions, and verbal art, all of which emphasize perspective over certainty. A type of certainty that Runa do value, however, and which would not be valid within a rational framework of inquiry, is that of emotional truth, involving feelings of empathy for others, including nonhumans. Emotional truth, then, provides an exception to the preference for uncertainty, and may lead people to confidently reason about ethical matters.​

Curiosity as a metacognitive feeling

“…is not to know where the salt is, but to request the salt: it expresses a desire rather than curiosity. In Quichuan as in most other languages, questions can be used to emphasize doubt to serve rhetorical purposes rather than request information (Nuckolls & Swanson, 2018). Thus, S may question R because she wants to know something from R (curiosity-driven, epistemic questions), because she wants to deny the relevance of a potential objection (pragmatic goal-driven, rhetorical questions), or more simply, because she wants something from R (utility-driven questions) 1 .…”

An argument for sparsity

“…It is likely that the Tower of Babel would have had something like bamboo scaffolding. Should an engineer be asked to reconsider its rebuilding, this piece may form part of the preface from their report.2 I take the term from Anna Wierzbicka, whose work is discussed below.3 To be explicit, I take the readers of this article (and this journal) to be academic anthropologists and their students, my colleagues at large.4 A point made forcibly by Richard Handler(2009: 638).5 This was one of Charles Hockett's (controversial) language 'design features'; he calls it 'reflexiveness' (1977: 173) Nuckolls & Swanson (2018). stress variation in meta-linguistic resources and reflexivity (see also other chapters in Proust & Fortier 2018).6 Translated into American English as the Dictionary of untranslatables(Cassin 2014(Cassin [2004), and now also available in several other languages, not only European ones.Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute (N.S.)…”

“…55This was one of Charles Hockett's (controversial) language ‘design features’; he calls it ‘reflexiveness’ (1977: 173). Nuckolls & Swanson (2018) stress variation in meta‐linguistic resources and reflexivity (see also other chapters in Proust & Fortier 2018). …”