Article published In:
Notes from the field on perspective-indexing constructions: Irregular shifts and perspective persistence
Edited by Stef Spronck, An Van linden, Caroline Gentens and María Sol Sansiñena
[Functions of Language 27:1] 2020
► pp. 2954
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Antonov, Anton & Guillaume Jacques. 2014. Semi-direct speech in Rtau. Paper presented at the conference Syntax of the World’s Languages VI, University of Pavia, September 8–10.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 1–14. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2). 79–126.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1910. Kwakiutl. An illustrative sketch. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Borchers, Dörte. 2008. A grammar of Sunwar: Descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5.7). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on so-called “conjunct/disjunct” systems. Paper presented at the conference Syntax of the World’s Languages III, Free University of Berlin, September 25–28.
Curnow, Timothy. 1997. A grammar of Awa Pit. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014. Volition and control in Wǎdū Pǔmǐ. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(1). 75–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In: Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), 203–213.Google Scholar
. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 251. 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2012. Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2017. The grammar of engagement. Language and Cognition 10(1). 110–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe, & Lila San Roque (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward John. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1994. A descriptive and historical account of Dolakha Newari dialect (Monumenta Serindica 24). Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar (Mouton Grammar Library 40). Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Tense-aspect morphology from nominalizers in Newar. In Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwen Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey, 195–220. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1971. Person markers: conjunct and disjunct forms. (Topics in Newari Grammar I.) SIL mimeograph.Google Scholar
. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), Papers in South East Asian Linguistics 71 (Pacific Linguistics A 53), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Haller, Felix. 2000. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Shigatse (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 13). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
. 2004. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialekts aus Nord-Amdo (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 14). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David J. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 51. 1–48.Google Scholar
Häsler, Katrin. 1999. A Grammar of the Tibetan Dege Dialect. Zürich: Inauguraldissertation der Philosophisch-historischen Fakultät der Universität Bern zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde.Google Scholar
. 2001. An empathy-based approach to the description of the verb system of the Dege dialect of Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1). 1–34.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2007. Hybrid indirect speech in Rgyalrong. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Jäschke, Heinrich August. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Koshal, Sanyukta. 1979. Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Kretschmar, Monika. 1995. Erzählungen und Dialekt aus Südmustang. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Südmustang-Dialekts (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 12/1). Bonn: Vereinigung für Geisteswissenschaften Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012. Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology 161. 233–263.Google Scholar
. This issue. Logophoricity and shifts of perspective: New facts and a new account.
San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1). 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1). 119–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63(4). 143–188.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Yoshiharu. 2001. A descriptive study of Kinnauri (Pangi dialect): A preliminary report. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), New research on Zhangzhung and related Himalayan languages (Bon Studies 3), 97–119. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 141. 93–107.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy LaPolla. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 240–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volkart, Marianne. 2000. The meaning of the auxiliary ’dug in the aspect systems of some Central Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2). 127–153.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticizations of evidentiality. Studies in Language 121. 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2017. A grammar of Bunan (Mouton Grammar Library 71). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel & Zemp. 2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41(4). 33–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willet, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1). 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, A. C. 1986. Interactions of tense and evidentiality: A study of Sherpa and English. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), 188–202.Google Scholar
Zemp, Marius. 2016. A functional reconstruction of the Proto-Tibetan verbal system. Himalayan Linguistics 15(2). 88–135.Google Scholar
. 2017a. Evidentiality in Purik. In Nathan Hill & Lauren Gawne (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 261–96. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. The origin and evolution of the opposition between testimonial and factual evidentials in Purik and other varieties of Tibetan. Open Linguistics 3(1). 631–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The genesis of evidentiality in Tibetan. Paper presented in the workshop ‘Evidentiality in Tibetic languages and beyond – a closer look’, Tübingen, Feb. 16–17. Available online at [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Spronck, Stef & Daniela Casartelli
2021. In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.