Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 39:1 (2016) ► pp.105160
References (46)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bhutia, Karma Lobsang. 2013. རྣ་གསུང་ དང་ གཏམ་བཤད་ (Sikkimese Bhutia oral stories and moral dialects). Gangtok: Bhutia Kayrab Yargay Tsogpo.Google Scholar
Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. LTBA 23(2):79–125.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistics Typology 16(3): 529–564.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dokhangba, Sonam Gyatso. 2001. སྦར་ཕུང་ ལིང་དམ་ འགྲོ་ལིས་ (Sikkimese marriage custom and rites). Siliguri: Amit Offset Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gundel Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Wardn (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Olbertz, Hella. 2012. Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology 16(3): 487–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Häsler, Katrin 1999. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 30(2):17–44.Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte 2002. 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.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4(1): 43–60.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 31: 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of pragmatics 331: 359–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1996. L’inférentiel du népali. In L’Énonciation médiatisée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale], Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 109–123. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar [University of California Publications in Linguistics 143]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nishiguchi, Sumiyo. 2014. Mirative past in Japanese. Semantics-Syntax Interface 1(2): 118–132. <[URL]> (2 June 2015).Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2007. Attention phenomena. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Hubert Cuyckens & Dirk Geeraerts (eds), 264–293. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Tsichudarpo, Bhaichung. 1996[2003]. རེ་ཆེ་ (Hope). Gangtok: Kwality.Google Scholar
. 1997 [2003]. རྣམ་རྟོག་ (Superstition). Gangtok: Kwality.Google Scholar
Watters, Stephen 2007. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2000. Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 23(2): 39–77.Google Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha. To appear. Copulas in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). In Evidentiality in Tibetic Languages, Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Lozong Lhamo
2021. /ka-/ negative prefix of Choswateng Tibetan of Khams (Shangri-La, Yunnan). Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 22:4  pp. 593 ff. DOI logo
EVANS, NICHOLAS, HENRIK BERGQVIST & LILA SAN ROQUE
2018. The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10:1  pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2018. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138  pp. 77 ff. DOI logo

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.