Evidentials and their pivot in Tibetic and neighboring Himalayan languages
This paper focuses on a specific type of perspective-indexing constructions in Tibetic and neighboring languages,
namely a type of verbal marker that is consistently construed from the perspective of the speaker in statements, the addressee in
questions, and the source (= the original/reported speaker) in reported speech clauses. As these markers indicate how one obtained
the information profiled in a sentence and may thus be viewed as a type of evidential, they cannot at the same time establish
reference to any participant of the current speech act and thus by default reflect the perspective of the ‘informant’ of the
respective sentence type. If we define the encountered distinctions in relation to a cause-effect vector in the sense of
DeLancey (1986), these languages all contain what we may call an ‘insider’ marker
indicating access to the entire vector including its causal origin and an ‘outsider’ marker indicating access only to its effect
end. Whereas the insider markers typically occur when the informant is the subject and the outsider markers when s/he is not, the
present paper discusses the different ways in which Tibetic and neighboring languages deviate from this basic pattern, and argues
that these differences reflect the fact that the markers in the latter languages were only secondarily evidentialized in reported
speech clauses, likely due to contact with Tibetic.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Tibetic evidentials
- 2.1Purik Tibetan existential copulas: Factual jot vs. direct evidential duk
- 2.2Prospective Purik V-et ‘will V’ vs. V-(t/n)uk ‘might V’
- 2.3A third existential in Ladakhi: Non-visual rak
- 2.4Equative yin vs. rak in Southern Mustang: ‘Personal engagement vs. neutral’
- 2.5Amdo: Direct evidential (past) -tʰæ vs. inferential -zəç
- 2.6Hybrid reported speech
- 3.Conjunct/disjunct markers in neighboring Himalayan languages
- 3.1The evidentialization of person markers in reported speech clauses
- 3.2Sunwar first vs. third person of the past tense
- 3.3Dolakha first/second vs. third person of the future tense
- 3.4Bunan first vs. third person of the present tense
- 3.5Kathmandu Newar conjunct vs. disjunct past forms
- 4.Concluding remarks
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
References
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.
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.
Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2). 79–126.
Boas, Franz. 1910. Kwakiutl. An illustrative sketch. Washington: Government Printing Office.
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.
Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
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.
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In: Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), 203–213.
DeLancey, Scott. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 251. 39–62.
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.
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2017. The grammar of engagement. Language and Cognition 10(1). 110–170.
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe, & Lila San Roque (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Garrett, Edward John. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California PhD thesis.
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.
Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar (Mouton Grammar Library 40). Berlin: Mouton.
Hale, Austin. 1971. Person markers: conjunct and disjunct forms. (Topics in Newari Grammar I.) SIL mimeograph.
Hale, Austin. 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.
Haller, Felix. 2000. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Shigatse (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 13). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
Haller, Felix. 2004. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialekts aus Nord-Amdo (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 14). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
Hargreaves, David J. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 51. 1–48.
Häsler, Katrin. 1999. A Grammar of the Tibetan Dege Dialect. Zürich: Inauguraldissertation der Philosophisch-historischen Fakultät der Universität Bern zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde.
Häsler, Katrin. 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.
Jacques, Guillaume. 2007. Hybrid indirect speech in Rgyalrong. Unpublished manuscript.
Jäschke, Heinrich August. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Koshal, Sanyukta. 1979. Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
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.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012. Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology 161. 233–263.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 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.
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1). 119–159.
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63(4). 143–188.
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.
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 141. 93–107.
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.
Widmer, Manuel. 2017. A grammar of Bunan (Mouton Grammar Library 71). Berlin: Mouton.
Woodbury, A. C. 1986. Interactions of tense and evidentiality: A study of Sherpa and English. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), 188–202.
Zemp, Marius. 2016. A functional reconstruction of the Proto-Tibetan verbal system. Himalayan Linguistics 15(2). 88–135.
Zemp, Marius. 2017a. Evidentiality in Purik. In Nathan Hill & Lauren Gawne (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 261–96. Berlin: Mouton.
Zemp, Marius. 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.
Zemp, Marius. 2018. A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden: Brill.
Zemp, Marius. 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
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.