The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams
This article argues that the evidential system of Khams Tibetan, a cluster of Tibetic languages spoken in the
south-eastern Tibetosphere, should be considered a verb paradigm. We propose a paradigm with six evidential categories (egophoric,
statemental, visual sensory, nonvisual sensory, sensory inferential, and logical inferential) for all the verb classes. We focus
on two varieties – rGyalthang and Lhagang – and examine how these evidential categories are encoded with distinct morphemes. We
then discuss the main evidential forms of the copulative and existential verbs available in Khams Tibetan varieties as a whole, as
well as their morphological relationship. Our analyses lead us to argue against a differential treatment of evidentiality
depending on verb categories. The article concludes that describing the evidential paradigm may be the first essential task in
writing a grammar of a Tibetic language.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical frameworks and definition of the paradigm
- 2.1Inconsistencies in previous descriptions
- 2.2Current approach to the paradigm and framework
- 3.Shaping a ‘paradigm’: The cases of rGyalthang and Lhagang
- 3.1rGyalthang Tibetan
- 3.2Lhagang Tibetan
- 4.Discussions
- 4.1Morphemic contrast of the main evidential forms in Khams Tibetan
- 4.2A critique of a differential model of evidential categories depending on verb types
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
References
References (81)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.). 2018a. The Oxford
handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2018b. Evidentiality: The
framework. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The
Oxford handbook of
evidentiality, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bartee, Ellen Lynn. 2007. A grammar of Dongwang
Tibetan. Santa Barbara: University of California at Santa Barbara PhD dissertation.
Bartee, Ellen Lynn. 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, 131–182. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Caplow, Nancy J. 2017. Inference and deferred evidence
in Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential
systems in Tibetan
languages, 225–257. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Causemann, Margret. 1989. Dialekt
und Erzählungen der Nangchenpas. Bonn: Vereinigung für Geschichtswissenschaft Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chang, Betty Shefts & Kun Chang. 1984. The
certainty hierarchy among spoken Tibetan verbs of being. Bulletin of the Institute of History
and Philology, Academia
Sinica 55(4). 603–634.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeLancey, Scott. 1992. Ergativity
and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive
Linguistics 1(3). 289–321. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity:
the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic
Typology 11. 33–52. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Driem, George. 1998. Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ebihara, Shiho. 2017. Evidentiality
of the Tibetan verb snang
. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential
systems in Tibetan
languages, 41–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ebihara, Shiho. 2019.
Amudo-Tibettogo bunpoo
[Grammar of Amdo
Tibetan]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gawne, Lauren. 2016. A
sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University. URI: [URL]
Gawne, Lauren. 2017. Egophoric
evidentiality in Bodish languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential
systems in Tibetan
languages, 61–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gawne, Lauren. 2021. Reported
evidentiality in Tibeto-Burman languages. Himalayan
Linguistics 20(1). 80–115. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gawne, Lauren & Nathan W. Hill (eds.). 2017. Evidential
systems in Tibetan languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2008. Typological
approaches to modality. In William Frawley (ed.), The
expression of
modality, 27–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haller, Felix. 2004. Dialekt
und Erzählungen von Themchen: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialektes aus
Nord-Amdo. Bonn: Vereinigung für Geschichtswissenschaft Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Häsler, Katrin Louise. 1999. A grammar of the Tibetan Dege (Sde
dge)
dialect. Zürich: Selbstverlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hill, Nathan W. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist:
ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic
Typology 161. 389–433. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hill, Nathan W. 2013. ḥdug as a testimonial marker in
Classical and Old Tibetan. Himalayan
Linguistics 12(1). 1–16. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hill, Nathan W. & Lauren Gawne. 2017. The
contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of
evidentiality. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential
systems in Tibetan
languages, 1–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 1993. Evidentials
in Tibetan: A dialogic study of the interplay between form and
meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University PhD dissertation.
Hoshi, Izumi. 2003.
Gendai Tibettogo doosi ziten (Rasa hoogen)
[Verb
dictionary of Modern Tibetan (Lhasa
dialect)]. Fuchu: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoshi, Izumi. 2016.
Koten Tibettogo bunpoo: Ootoomeikyooki (14 seiki) ni
motoduite
[A grammar of Classical Tibetan based on the
Clear Mirror of Royal Genealogies (the 14th
century)]. Fuchu: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, Chenglong. 2013. Zangmianyu cunzailei dongci de gainian jiegou [Conceptual
structure of existential verbs in Tibeto-Burman]. Minzu
Yuwen 21. 31–48.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huber, Brigitte. 2005. The
Tibetan dialect of Lende (Kyirong): A grammatical description with historical
annotations. Bonn: Vereinigung für Geschichtswissenschaft Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kalsang, Jay Garfield, Margaret Speas & Jill de Villiers. 2013. Direct
evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan: evidence for a general theory of the semantics of
evidential. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 31(2). 517–561. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med & sKal-bzang
dByangs-can. 2002. Zangyu fangyan
gailun [An introduction to Tibetan
dialects]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matsubara, Julie. 2017. The
semantics and pragmatics of the Japanese evidentials -rashii, -sooda, and -yooda: An experimental
investigation. Evanston: Northwestern University doctoral dissertation.
Mélac, Éric. 2014. L’évidentialité
en anglais – approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus
anglais-tibétain. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD
dissertation. URI: [URL]
Mélac, Éric. 2023. The
pragmatic differences between grammatical and lexical evidentiality: A corpus-based study of Tibetan and
English. Journal of
Pragmatics 2101. 143–156. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mélac, Éric & Joanna Bialek. Forthcoming. Evidentiality as a grammaticalization passenger: An investigation of evidential
developments in Tibetic languages and beyond. Studies in
Language.
de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, René. 1956. Oracles
and demons of Tibet: The cult and iconography of the Tibetan protective
deities. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oisel, Guillaume. 2013. Morphosyntaxe
et sémantique des auxiliaires et des connecteurs du tibétain littéraire : étude diachronique et
synchronique. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation. URI: [URL]
Oisel, Guillaume. 2017. Re-evaluation
of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan
Linguistics 16(2). 90–128. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roche, Gerald & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2018. Tibet’s
minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern Asian
Studies 52(4). 1227–1278. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shao, Mingyuan. 2014. Anduo Zangyu Arouhua de shizheng fanchou [Evidential
system of the Arig dialect of Amdo
Tibetan]. Tianjin: Nankai University PhD dissertation.
Shao, Mingyuan. 2016a. Cong quxiang dongci dao shizheng biaoji: Zangyuzu yuyan shizheng biaoji thal de
yufahua [From a direction verb to an evidential marker: Grammaticalisation
of thal, an evidential marker in Tibetic languages]. Zangxue
Xuekan 141. 226–249.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shao, Mingyuan. 2016b. Zangyuzu xidongci red de yufahua [The grammaticalisation
of the copula verb red in Tibetic languages]. Language and
Linguistics 17(5). 679–715. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shao, Mingyuan. 2018. Hexi Zoulang binwei Zangyu Dongnahua yanjiu [Study on the
mDungnag dialect, an endangered Tibetan language in Hexi
Corridor]. Guangzhou: Zhongshan Daxue Chubanshe.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shao, Mingyuan. 2019. Guzangwen de xidongci [The copula verbs in Old
Tibetan]. Language and
Linguistics 20(3). 417–450. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo
Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia
Sinica 631. 944–1001.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sun, Kai. 2019. Yushu Zangyu fangyan (Labuhua) yanjiu [Study on Yulshul
Tibetan (Lab variety)]. Tianjin: Nankai Daxue Doctoral dissertation.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011. Dialectal
particularities of Sogpho Tibetan: An introduction to the “Twenty-four villages’
patois”. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds.), Himalayan
languages and linguistics: Studies in phonology, semantics, morphology and
syntax, 55–73. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012. Multiple
usages of the verb snang in Gagatang Tibetan (Weixi, Yunnan). Himalayan
Linguistics 11(1). 1–16. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017. The
evidential system of Zhollam Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential
systems in Tibetan
languages, 423–444. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2022. Geolinguistics
in the eastern Tibetosphere: An
introduction. Tokyo: Geolinguistic Society of Japan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. forthcoming. Functional
transition from ‘hear’ to nonvisual sensory and hearsay evidential categories: A case study of rGyalthang
Tibetan.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2017a. Language
evolution and vitality of Lhagang Tibetan: A Tibetic language as a minority in Minyag
Rabgang. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 2451. 63–90. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2017b. King’s
pig: A story in Lhagang Tibetan with a grammatical analysis in a narrative mode. Himalayan
Linguistics 16(2). 129–163. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2018. Kamutibettogo Tagong [Lhagang] hoogen no zyutubu ni hyoozi sareru syookosei [Evidentiality marked in predicates of the Lhagang dialect of Khams
Tibetan]. Journal of
Kijutsuken 101. 13–42. URI: [URL]
Suzuki, Hiroyuki, Sonam Wangmo & Tsering Samdrup. 2021. A
contrastive approach to the evidential system in Tibetic languages: Examining five varieties from Khams and
Amdo. Gengo
Kenkyu 1591. 69–101. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Tashi Nyima. 2021. Evidential
system of copulative and existential verbs in Lamo. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Takumi Ikeda (eds.), Grammatical
phenomena of Sino-Tibetan languages 4: Link languages and their archetypes in
Tibeto-Burman, 259–287. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University. URI: [URL]
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito. 2015. The
function of auxiliary verbs in Tibetan predicates and their historical development. Revue
d’études
tibétaines 311. 401–415. Available
at: [URL] (last
access 27 October
2023)
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito. 2021. History
of the Tibetan language. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Takumi Ikeda (eds.), Grammatical
phenomena of Sino-Tibetan languages 4: Link languages and archetypes in
Tibeto-Burman, 303–323. Kyoto: Research Institute for Humanities, Kyoto University. URI: [URL]
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments
against the concept of ‘conjunct/disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolangma,
Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag, 281–308. Bonn: Wissenschaftsverlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2014. The
Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan
linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan
area, 105–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2017. A
typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic
languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential
systems in Tibetan
languages, 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tournadre, Nicolas & Konchok Jiatso. 2001. Final
auxiliary verbs in Literary Tibetan and Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman
Area 24(1). 49–111. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tournadre, Nicolas, Françoise Robin, Camille Simon, Chabdra Lhamo Kyab, Nyima Dorjee, Bora Sherab, Sonam Gyaltsen & Thubten Rigzin. 2018. EESTAC
questionnaire (rGyab-ljongs-dang gnas-stangs-kyi brda-sprod/ Bho-Ti’i skad-rigs nang gnas-tshul-gyi khungs-dang go-ba
len-thabs/ The-tshom bcas ston-pa’i tshig-grogs). Unpublished
manuscript.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje. 2003. Manuel
de tibétain standard: langue et civilisation. 2nd
edn. Paris: L’Asiathèque.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tournadre, Nicolas & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2023. The
Tibetic languages: An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old
Tibetan. Villejuif: LACITO Publications. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Tshe-ring gYang-sgron
(Cilinyangzhen). 2021. Dongwang Zangyu cankao
yufa [A reference grammar of gTorwarong
Tibetan]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue PhD dissertation.
Tshe-skyid dBang-mo
(Caijiwenmao). 2020. Zangyu Kangfangyan Chengduohua de
shizheng fanchou [Evidential category in Chengduo variety of Khams
Tibetan]. Minzu
Yuwen 11. 27–37. Available
at: [URL] (last access 27 October 2023)
Vokurková, Zuzana. 2008. Epistemic
modalities in Spoken Standard Tibetan. Praha / Paris: Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Karlovy – Université Paris 8 PhD dissertation. URI: [URL]
Yliniemi, Juha. 2019. A
descriptive grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese
Bhutia). Helsinki: Helsingin Yliopisto PhD thesis. URI: [URL]
Zeisler, Bettina. 2004. Relative
tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative
study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeisler, Bettina. 2018a. Don’t
believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself! Evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi
(extended version). Himalayan
Linguistics 17(1). 67–130. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zemp, Marius. 2018. A
grammar of Purik
Tibetan. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
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.