Attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia)
Juha Yliniemi | University of Helsinki, Sikkim University
This paper describes the attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke, a Tibetic language spoken in Sikkim, India. The presence of the attention marker, which may be either speaker or addressee-oriented, indicates that something is brought to the forefront of the speaker’s or the addressee’s attention. The attention marker =ɕo occurs in declarative uses postposed to a verb, and in interrogative uses postposed to other parts of speech (verbless uses). The attention in verbal uses, which resemble the notion “mirativity”, is either speaker or addressee-oriented, whereas verbless uses, which resemble the notion “contrastive focus”, are always addressee-oriented. When occurring with copulas, the function of =ɕo as either speaker or addressee-oriented is partly dependent on the evidentiality of the copulas. With other verbs, the orientation of =ɕo is dependent on other contextual factors. After describing the verbal and verbless uses of =ɕo, the article concludes by showing why the categories focus and mirativity are problematic for describing =ɕo. Existing definitions of mirativity by DeLancey (1997), Peterson (2013), Dickinson (2000), Hyslop (2011b), Hengeveld & Olbertz (2012) and Aikhenvald (2012) are shown to fail to accommodate the range of uses of =ɕo. The concept of attention, on the other hand, not only describes the Denjongke data more comprehensively but also helps understand the interface between mirative-like and focus-like phenomena. The last section illustrates the similarity of =ɕo to exclusively addressee-oriented morphemes in Nepali, Japanese (Davis 2011) and Ingush (Nichols 2011), suggesting that the concept of attention may prove useful for describing exclusively addressee-oriented phenomena, which have rarely been associated with “mirativity”.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 435–485.
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan & Slobin, Dan I. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentiality, the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 159–167. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
Bhutia, Karma Lobsang. 2013. རྣ་གསུང་ དང་ གཏམ་བཤད་ (Sikkimese Bhutia oral stories and moral dialects). Gangtok: Bhutia Kayrab Yargay Tsogpo.
Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. LTBA 23(2):79–125.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Crystal, David. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davis, Christopher M. 2011. Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11: 33–52.
DeLancey, Scott. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistics Typology 16(3): 529–564.
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Denzongpo, Tashi, Tsichudarpo, Bhaichung & Takchungdarpo, Pema Rinzing. 2011. ལྷོ་ཡིག་ སློབ་དེབ་ བདུན་པོ་ [Class 7 Denjongke Textbook]. Gangtok: Human Resource Development, Government of Sikkim.
Dokhangba, Sonam Gyatso. 2001. སྦར་ཕུང་ ལིང་དམ་ འགྲོ་ལིས་ (Sikkimese marriage custom and rites). Siliguri: Amit Offset Press.
Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Gundel Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Wardn (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687.
Hengeveld, Kees & Olbertz, Hella. 2012. Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist!Linguistic Typology 16(3): 487–503.
Häsler, Katrin1999. A Grammar of Tibetan Sde.dge (སྡེ་དགེ) Dialect. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.
Hill, W. Nathan. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 389–433.
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 30(2):17–44.
Huber, Brigitte2002. The Lende subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan: A Grammatical Description with Historical Annotations. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.
Hyslop, Gwendylon. 2011a. A Grammar of Kurtöp. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon at Eugene.
Hyslop, Gwendylon. 2011b. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4(1): 43–60.
Hyslop, Gwendylon & Tshering, Karma. 2010. Preliminary notes on Dakpa (Tawang Monpa). In North East Indian Linguistics 21, Stephen Morey & Mark Post (eds). New Delhi: Foundation/Cambridge University Press.
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of pragmatics 331: 359–367.
Mazaudon, Martine. 2003. From discourse to grammar in Tamang: Topic, focus, intensifiers and subordination. In Language Variation: Papers on Variation and Change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in Honour of James A. Matisoff [Pacific Linguistics], David Bradley, Randy Lapolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds), 145–158. Canberra: Australian National University.
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1996. L’inférentiel du népali. In L’Énonciation médiatisée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale], Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 109–123. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar [University of California Publications in Linguistics 143]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Nishiguchi, Sumiyo. 2014. Mirative past in Japanese. Semantics-Syntax Interface 1(2): 118–132. <[URL]> (2 June 2015).
Nguyen, Tam Thi Minh. 2013. A Grammar of Bih. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Peterson, John. 2000. Evidentials, inferentials and mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 23(2): 13–37.
Peterson, Tyler. 2013. Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. Ms.<[URL]}> (6 May 2015)
Post, Mark William. 2007. A Grammar of Galo. PhD disseration, La Trobe University.
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Sprigg, R.K. 1991. The spelling-style pronunciation of Written Tibetan, and the hazards of using citation forms in the phonological analysis of spoken Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 14(2): 93–131.
Talmy, Leonard. 2007. Attention phenomena. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Hubert Cuyckens & Dirk Geeraerts (eds), 264–293. Oxford: OUP.
Tomlin, Russell S., Forrest, Linda, Ming Ming Pu & Myung Hee Kim. 2011. Discourse semantics. In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd edn, Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), 37–63. London: Sage.
Tournadre, Nicholas. (2008). Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag 1 (Beiträge zur Zentralasienforschung 12), Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds), 281–308. Saale: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.
Tournadre, Nicholas. 2010. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area [Trends in Linguistics 266], Nathan W. Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith (eds), 105–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Watters, Stephen2007. The nature of narrative text in Dzongkha: Evidence from deixis, evidentiality, and mirativity. In Linguistics of the Himalayas and Beyond, Roland Bielmeier & Felix Haller (eds), 381–397. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zeisler, Bettina. 2000. Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 23(2): 39–77.
Yliniemi, Juha. To appear. Copulas in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). In Evidentiality in Tibetic Languages, Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Yliniemi, Juha
2023. Similarity of mirative and contrastive focus: three parameters for describing attention markers. Linguistic Typology 27:1 ► pp. 77 ff.
EVANS, NICHOLAS, HENRIK BERGQVIST & LILA SAN ROQUE
2018. The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10:1 ► pp. 141 ff.
Ozerov, Pavel
2018. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138 ► pp. 77 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.