Article published In:
The Functions of Evidentiality
Edited by Eric Mélac and Pascale Leclercq
[Functions of Language 31:1] 2024
► pp. 3462
References (31)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M. W. Dixon. 2016. The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–51. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In David Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, 1–71. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2001. Introducing interactional linguistics. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2000. Why “first/non-first person” is not grammaticalized mirativity. In Keith Allan & John Henderson (eds.), Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 203–300. Available at [URL]
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11. 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 235–256. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2018. Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 580–594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George. 1991. Guide to official Dzongkha romanization. Gaylegphug, Bhutan: Sherab Lham Press.Google Scholar
van Driem, George & Karma Tshering. 1998. A grammar of Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Elizabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering. 2017. An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 351–365. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2018. Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp. In Simeon Floyd, Elizabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in Action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 451. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirby, James & Gwendolyn Hyslop. 2019. Phonetic structures of Dzongkha obstruents. In Sasha Calhoun, Paola Escudero, Marija Tabain & Paul Warren (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 3607–3611. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mélac, Eric. 2014. L’évidentialité en anglais. Approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus anglais-tibétain. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 PhD thesis.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elizabeth Norcliffe. 2018. Egophoricity: an introduction. In Simeon Floyd, Elizabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), 1–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje. 2005. Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and civilization. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2013. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 105–130. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy J. LaPolla. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 371. 240–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2023. The Tibetic languages. Villejuif: LACITO-Publications.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2009. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Watters, Stephen. 1996. A preliminary study of prosody in Dzongkha. Arlington, TX: University of Texas at Arlington Master’s thesis.
. 2018. A grammar of Dzongkha (dzo): Phonology, words, and simple clauses. Houston, TX: Rice University PhD thesis.
. 2021. Honorification in Dzongkha. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon & Nerida Jarkey (eds.), The integration of language and society: A cross-linguistic typology, 91–109. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha S. 2021. A descriptive grammar of Denjongke. Himalayan Linguistics 201. 50–87.Google Scholar