Cover not available
Review published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 40:2 (2017) ► pp.285–303
Book review

Review of Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill. (eds). 2016. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages

Reviewed by
| University of Zurich
Article outline
  • 1.Tibetan evidentiality systems and their relevance for the typology of evidentiality
  • 2.General introduction
  • 3.Papers on typology and history
  • 4.Lhasa and Diasporic Tibetan
  • 5.Papers on other Tibetan languages
  • 6.Remarks on the terms “conjunct/disjunct” and “egophoricity”
  • 7.Summary
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.00002.wid
References (28)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bartee, Ellen. 2011. The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds), Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax, 133–182. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplow, Nancy J. 2016. Inference and deferred evidence in Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds), Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages, 225–257. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 65–72.Google Scholar
. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 270–288. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan [London Oriental and African Language Library 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward J. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Gonzales, Geny & Martine Bruil. 2016. On the existence of egophoricity in Nam Trik. Paper presented at the Symposium on Evidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement: Descriptive and Typological Perspectives, Stockholm, 17–18 March.
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite egophoric and allophoric verb forms in Newari. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), Papers in South East Asian Linguistics 7 [Pacific Linguistics A 53], 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David J. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 51: 1–48.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims. 2010. Morphology, 2nd edn. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hein, Veronika. 2001. The role of the speaker in the verbal system of the Tibetan dialect of Tabo/Spiti. LTBA 24(1): 35–48.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher. 2015. Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics 53(3): 479–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2013. Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. In Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds), Functional-historical Approaches to Explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey [Typological Studies in Language 103], 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rule, William. M. 1977. A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 161: 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe. 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua, 120–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas & Sange Dorje. 2003. Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and Civilization. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. LTBA 14(1): 93–107.Google Scholar
. 1996. L’ergativité en Tibétain. Approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale 33]. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2008. Arguments against the concept of “egophoric” / “allophoric” in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds), Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281–308. Halle: International Insitute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 1998. Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel & Fernando Zúñiga. 2017. Egophoricity, involvement, and semantic roles in Tibeto-Burman languages. Person and knowledge: From participant-role to epistemic marking, special section of Open Linguistics.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2017. A Grammar of Bunan [Mouton Grammar Library 71]. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yukawa, Yasutoshi (湯川恭敏). 1975. チベット語の述部 Chibettogo no jutsugo (The predicates of Tibetan). アジア・アフリカ文法研究 Ajia Afurika bunpō kenkyū / Asian & African Linguistics 41: 1–14. Tokyo: ILCAA.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chen, Hao, Yonghao Liu, Hong Li & Suonan Jiancuo
2020. Research on Tibetan Language Resource Construction Based on Tibetan Natural Language Processing. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1648:2 ► pp. 022079 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.