Cover not available
Article published In:
The Linguistic Expression of Mirativity
Edited by Agnès Celle and Anastasios Tsangalidis
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:2] 2017
► pp. 515–539

Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself!

Evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi

 | University of Tübingen
A speaker may conceptualise a situation from three different modal ‘perspectives’: epistemic, evidential, and attitudinal. Languages differ in which of these concepts they perspectivise and how a grammaticalised concept may be extended to the other two. ‘Lesser-known’ languages tend to be misrepresented in the typological literature. E.g., the Modern Tibetic languages, including the Ladakhi dialects, are said to have grammaticalised the concept of evidentiality. However, their ‘evidential’ systems differ from the cross-linguistically acknowledged evidential systems, in that speaker attitude is co-grammaticalised and knowledge based on perception shares properties with knowledge based on inferences. DeLancey therefore claimed that these systems also encode mirativity. The starting point for the development of these typologically rather uncommon ‘evidential’ systems was a lexical marker for non-commitment (or admirativity): the auxiliary ḥdug.
Keywords: admirative, evidentiality, speaker attitude, Ladakhi, Tibetan, language history
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hill vs. DeLancey: Is mirativity a (universally valid) grammatical category?
  • 3.Chinese whispers: Conceptual fuzziness and the ‘lesser known’ languages
  • 4.Definitions
  • 5.The auxiliary systems of modern Tibetic languages, in particular Ladakhi
    • 5.1Mirative and not-so-mirative usages of the auxiliary ḥdug in Ladakhi
    • 5.2Other ways of expressing surprise and/or emotional involvement in Tibetic languages
      • 5.2.1Iconic marking
      • 5.2.2Exclamatives and explicit references to surprises
      • 5.2.3And surprise: there is a marker for surprise or counterexpectation
    • 5.3The historical dimension: ḥdug as a marker of non-commitment
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.09zei
References (38)
References
Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–485. DOI logo (accessed 2 May 2013).Google Scholar
Bashir, E. (2010). Traces of mirativity in Shina. Himalayan Linguistics, 9(2), 1–55. [URL] (last accessed 6 January 2015).
Bielmeier, R. (2000). Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. In B. Bickel (Ed.), Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Part I. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 23 (2), 79–125.Google Scholar
Chang, K., & Shefts, B. (1964). A manual of spoken Tibetan. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
De Haan, F. (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 181, 83–101.Google Scholar
(2001). The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft, 91, 201–216.Google Scholar
(2008). Evidentiality in Athabaskan. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics, 161, 67–81. [URL] (accessed 5 May 2014).
(2012). Evidentiality and Mirativity. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp. 1–28). Oxford Handbooks Online. DOI logo (accessed 22 July 2014).Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 11, 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 529–564. DOI logo (accessed 2 May 2013).Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. (1986). Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 168–187). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2012). Perhaps mirativity is phlogiston, but admirativity is perfect: On Balkan evidential strategies. Linguistic Typology, 161, 505–527. DOI logo (accessed 2 May 2013).Google Scholar
Guentchéva, Z. (this volume). An enunciative account of admirativity in Bulgarian.
Hill, N. W. (2012). “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 389–433. DOI logo (accessed 2 May 2013).Google Scholar
(2013). Contextual semantics of ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan evidentials. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 10.31, 47–54. [URL] (accessed 30 April 2014).
(2015). Hare lõ: The touchstone of mirativity. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 13(2), 24–31. [URL] (accessed 30 June 2016).
Koshal, S. (1979). Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. (2008). Examining the mirative and nonliteral uses of evidentials. In R. M. Déchaine, T. Peterson, U. Sauerland, & M. Schenner (Eds.), Evidence from evidentiality (pp. 1–31). University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics (UBCWPL).Google Scholar
(2013). Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. [URL] (accessed 27 February 2014).
(2016). Mirativity as surprise: Evidentiality, information, and deixis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 451, 1327–1357. DOI logo. Accessed June 2017.Google Scholar
(this volume). Problematizing mirativity.
Sánchez López, Cristina. (this volume). Mirativity in Spanish: The case of the particle mira .
Smith, C. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprigg, R. K. (2002). Balti-English English-Balti dictionary. London, N.Y.: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. (1994). Personne et médiatifs en tibétain. Faits de Langues, 31, 149–158. DOI logo (accessed 13 July 2014).Google Scholar
(2014). The Tibetic languages and their classification. In T. Owen-Smith & N. W. Hill (Eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics. Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area (pp. 105–129). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trotzke, A. (this volume). Mirative fronting in German: Experimental evidence.
Weinrich, H. (1964). Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt. 41. Aufl. 1985. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Zeisler, B. (2000). Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. In B. Bickel (Ed.), Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Part I. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 23(2), 39–77.Google Scholar
(2004). Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages. A comparative study. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Kenhat, the dialects of Upper Ladakh and Zanskar. In M. Turin & B. Zeisler (Eds.), Himalayan languages and linguistics: Studies in phonology, semantics, morphology and syntax (pp. 235–301). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012a). Practical issues of pragmatic case marking variations in the Kenhat varieties of Ladakh. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 35(1), 75–106.Google Scholar
(2012b). Evidentiality and inferentiality: Overlapping and contradictory functions of the so-called evidential markers in Ladakhi (West Tibetan). Extended handout: [URL] (last accessed: 9 October 2017).
(2014). Modal verbs and modal constructions in Ladakhi. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 1(1), 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(In press). Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in Tibetan. In A. Foolen, H. de Hoop, and G. Mulder (Eds.), Empirical evidence for evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. A handout is available under: [URL] (last accessed 9 October 2017).
Zwicky, A. M. (1978). On markedness in morphology. Die Sprache, 241, 129–143.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Mélac, Eric & Joanna Bialek
2024. Evidentiality as a grammaticalization passenger. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 638 ff. DOI logo
Depraz, Natalie & Agnès Celle
2019. Introduction. In Surprise at the Intersection of Phenomenology and Linguistics [Consciousness & Emotion Book Series, 11], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
San Roque, Lila
2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo
Brosig, Benjamin
2018. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian. In Evidence for Evidentiality [Human Cognitive Processing, 61], ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Celle, Agnès
2018. Questions as indirect speech acts in surprise contexts. In Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality [Studies in Language Companion Series, 197], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Zeisler, Bettina
2017. The emergence of the Ladakhi inferential and experiential markers from a marker for admirativity (non-commitment): the case ofḥdugandsnaŋ. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 4:2 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Zeisler, Bettina
2018. Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in the Tibetic languages. In Evidence for Evidentiality [Human Cognitive Processing, 61], ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 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.