Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 20:4 (2019) ► pp.515–534

Egophoric marking and person indexation in Japhug

| Southwest University (ICLD) | CNRS (CRLAO)
Japhug, like other Gyalrong languages, is one of the very few languages with both a full-fledged person indexation system and an egophoric evidential category. A detailed account of the uses and meanings of the Egophoric and its interaction with person is thus of interest to the typology of evidential systems. This paper describes the uses of Egophoric marking in Japhug and of the other two evidential categories with which it contrasts (Factual and Sensory), as well as their interaction with person indexation. Due to the limited distribution of the Egophoric in Japhug (it only occurs in present contexts), the present paper exclusively focuses on the uses of evidentials with stative verbs in present (imperfective) contexts, where minimal pairs are available in the corpus.
Keywords: Egophoric, Factual, Sensory, mirative, Hybrid Indirect Speech, conjunct/disjunct, person indexation
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Morphological categories
    • 1.1The tripartite system
    • 1.2Person indexation
  • 2.Declarative clauses
    • 2.1Factual
    • 2.2Sensory
    • 2.3Egophoric
    • 2.4Japhug and Tibetan
    • 2.5The expression of surprise
  • 3.Interrogative clauses
  • 4.Reported speech
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 24 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00047.jac
References (37)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology 19(2). 239–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bendix, Edward. 1974. Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman contact as seen through Nepali and Newari verb tenses. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 3(1). 42–59.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61(4). 309–325.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct systems in Barbacoan languages. In Castillo, Jeannie (ed.), Proceedings from the fourth Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 11), 3–12. Santa Barbara: UCSB, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014. Volition and control in Wadu Pumi. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(1). 75–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 529–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon. 2018. Egophoricity and argument structure in Cha’palaa. In Floyd, Simeon & Norcliffe, Elisabeth & San Roque, Lila (eds.), Egophoricity, 269–304. Amsterdam: Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon & Norcliffe, Elisabeth & San Roque, Lila (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward & Bateman, Leah. 2007. Symbiosis between documentary linguistics and linguistic pragmatics. In Austin, Peter K. & Bond, Oliver & Nathan, David (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, 83–93. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2013. Lamjung Yolmo copulas in use: Evidentiality, reported speech and questions. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
. 2017. Egophoric evidentiality in Bodish languages. In Hill, Nathan W. & Gawne, Lauren (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 61–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Trail, R. L. (ed.), Papers in South-East Asian linguistics, vol.71, 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist: hdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 389–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. & Gawne, Lauren. 2017. The contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of evidentiality. In Hill, Nathan W. & Gawne, Lauren (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 1–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2012. Agreement morphology: The case of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics 13(1). 83–116.Google Scholar
. 2014. Clause linking in Japhug Rgyalrong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 264–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Complementation in Japhug. Linguistics of the Tibeto Burman Area 39(2). 222–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. From ergative to comparee marker: Multiple reanalyses and polyfunctionality. Diachronica 33(1). 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Japhug. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 614–634. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Antonov, Anton & Lai, Yunfan & Nima, Lobsang. 2017. Stau (Ergong, Horpa). In Thurgood, Graham & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 597–613. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lin, Youjing. 2003. Tense and aspect morphology in the Zhuokeji rGyalrong verb. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale 32(2). 245–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd & Mazaudon, Martine & Michaud, Alexis & Guillaume, Séverine & François, Alexandre & Adamou, Evangelia. 2014. Documenting and researching endangered languages: The Pangloss Collection. Language Documentation and Conservation 81. 119–135.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Floyd, Simeon & Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua 186–1871. 120–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Loughnane, Robin. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1). 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2000. Parallelisms in the Verb Morphology of Sidaba rGyalrong and Lavrung in rGyalrongic. Language and Linguistics 1(1). 161–190.Google Scholar
2003. Caodeng rGyalrong. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 490–502. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2018. Evidentials and person. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra (ed.), Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 47–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1996. L’ergativité en tibétain [Ergativity in Tibetan]. Louvain: Péeters.Google Scholar
. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/ ‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Huber, Brigitte & Volkart, Marianne & Widmer, Paul (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag [Chomolangma, Demawend and Kasbek: Festschrift for Roland Bielmeier on his 65th birthday], 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 240–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Driem, George. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widmer, Manuel & Zemp, Marius. 2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41(1). 33–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yukawa, Yasutoshi. 1971. Chibettogo no jutsubu no rinkaku [Outline of Tibetan predicates]. Gengogaku no kihon mondai [Basic problems in linguistics], 178–204. Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Drolma, Dawa & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2024. The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 723 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Yang & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2022. Evidentiality in Selibu. Diachronica 39:2 ► pp. 268 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.