Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:1 (2017) ► pp.33–75

The epistemization of person markers in reported speech

| University of Zurich |
| University of Bern |
Egophoricity is a cross-linguistically rare grammatical phenomenon. While numerous descriptive studies have substantially improved our synchronic understanding of the category in recent years, we are still largely ignorant of the diachronic origins of egophoricity systems. In this article, we address this gap and discuss a diachronic process that transforms person agreement markers into egophoricity markers. Based on evidence from three Tibeto-Burman languages, we reconstruct the diachronic transformation and argue that the process starts out in reported speech clauses once the direct construal of the predicate is generalized. This generalization allows for the functional reanalysis of first and third person markers as egophoric and allophoric markers, while second person markers become functionally obsolete. Once person markers have undergone an epistemization in reported speech clauses, the innovative epistemic system is extended to simple declarative and interrogative clauses, where it gradually replaces the conservative person agreement system.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Preliminaries
    • 2.1Terminology
    • 2.2Defining egophoricity
    • 2.3Reported speech and deixis
  • 3.Person marking and epistemic marking in Bunan
    • 3.1An overview of the Bunan verbal system
    • 3.2The egophoricity system in the present tense
    • 3.3The second person forms
    • 3.4Diachronic considerations
  • 4.Comparative perspective
    • 4.1Dolakha Newar
    • 4.2Sunwar
  • 5.Reported speech constructions and the epistemization of person markers
    • 5.1Hybrid reported speech
    • 5.2The epistemization of person markers
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1The narrowing of the egophoric domain
    • 6.2The extension of epistemic marking
    • 6.3The loss of second person markers
    • 6.4Other possible starting point for the process
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 1 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
References (64)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Antonov, Anton & Guillaume Jacques. 2014. Semi-direct speech in Rtau . Paper presented at the conference Syntax of the World’s Languages VI, University of Pavia, September 8–10.
Atlas, Jay David & Stephen C. Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logial form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2012. Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language 36(1). 154–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 2nd edn., 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 1–14. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
Borchers, Dörte. 2008. A grammar of Sunwar: Descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5.7). Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie. 1993. Formal semantics. An introduction (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 1986. Reported speech: Some general issues. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 31), 1–28. de Gruyter: Berlin, New York & Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on so-called “egophoric/allophoric” systems . Paper presented at the conference Syntax of the World’s Languages III, Free University of Berlin, September 25–28. [URL] (accessed July 7 2016)
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals (2003 edn.) (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy J. 1997. A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An indigenous language of south-western Colombia. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 7(1). 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014. A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University dissertation.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. The historical status of the egophoric/allophoric pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 251. 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 161. 529–564.Google Scholar
. 2014. Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(1). 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2). 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Complex predicates in Tsafiki. Eugene: University of Oregon dissertation.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2012. Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical approach. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francke, August H. 1909. Tabellen der Pronomina und Verba in den drei Sprachen Lahoul’s: Bunan, Manchad und Tinan. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 631. 65–97.Google Scholar
1926. Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Part II. The chronicles of Ladakh and minor chronicles. Calcutta: Superintenden Government Printing.Google Scholar
1998. A history of western Tibet: One of the unknown empires. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (Original work published 1907).Google Scholar
2008. Die historischen und mythologischen Erinnerungen der Lahouler. In Tshering, Dorje & Tobdan (eds.), Moravian missionaries in western Trans-Himalaya (Lahul, Ladakh and Kinnaur), 155–179. New Delhi: Kaveri Books. (Original work published in 1907)Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1988. Notes on the structure of the Sunwari transitive verb. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11(2). 62–92.Google Scholar
. 1994. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect (Monumenta Serindica 24). Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar (Mouton Grammar Library 40). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2000. Internal reconstruction: As method, as theory. In Spike Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 43), 107–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grierson, George A. (ed.). 1909. Linguistic survey of India: Vol. III, Part I, Tibeto-Burman family: Tibetan dialects, the Himalayan dialects, and the North Assam group. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin & David Watters 1973. A survey of clause patterns. In Austin Hale & David Watters.(eds.), Clause, sentence, and discourse patterns in the languages of Nepal, Part II, Clause, 175–249. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
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
Haller, Felix & Chungda Haller. 2007. Einführung in das moderne Zentraltibetische. Auf Basis des Dialektes von Shigatse / westliches Zentraltibet ( Tsang ). Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Haller, Felix. 2000. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Shigatse (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 13). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
. 2004. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialekts aus Nord-Amdo (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 14). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David J. 1991. The concept of intentional action in the grammar of Kathmandu Newari. Eugene: University of Oregon Dissertation.Google Scholar
2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 51. 1–48.Google Scholar
Häsler, Kartin L 1999. A Grammar of the Tibetan Sde.dge Dialect. Berne: University of Berne dissertation.Google Scholar
Hein, Veronika. 2001. The role of the speaker in the verbal system of the Tibetan dialect of Tabo / Spiti. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1). 35–48.Google Scholar
. 2007. The mirative and its interplay with evidentiality in the Tibetan dialect of Tabo (Spiti). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30(2). 195–214.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action. Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huber, Brigitte. 2005. The Tibetan dialect of Lende: A grammatical description with historical annotations (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 15). Bonn: VGH Wissen-schaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Huber, Christian. 2013. Subject and object agreement in Shumcho. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 266), 221–274. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2007. Hybrid indirect speech in Rgyalrong. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Jäschke, Heinrich A. 1865. Note on the pronunciation of the Tibetan language. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 34(1). 91–100.Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio 1997. Territory of Information (Pragmatics & Beyond. New Series 48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshal, Sanyukta. 1979. Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Ping, Dicus Shizi. 2014. A grammar of Prinmi: Based on the dialect of northwest Yunnan, China (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5.14). Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google 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
Preiswerk, Thomas. 2011. Evidentiality as a grammatical category in the Tibetan dialect of Zanskar . Paper presented at the 17th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 6–9 September.
San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 161. 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharma, Suhnu Ram. 1996. Pronouns and agreement in West Himalayan Tibeto-Burman languages. Indian Linguistics 571. 81–104.Google Scholar
Slusser, Mary Shepherd. 1982. Nepal Mandala: A cultural study of the Kathmandu Valley, 2 vols1 Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 631. 945–1001.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Yoshiharu. 2001. A descriptive study of Kinnauri (Pangi dialect): A preliminary report. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), New research on Zhangzhung and related Himalayan languages (Bon Studies 3), 97–119. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas & Sange Dorje. 2003. Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and civilization. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1). 93–107.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. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnolinguistic handbook of the greater Himalayan region: Containing an introduction to the symbiotic theory of language, 2 vols. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. 2, Indien 10). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
David, E. Watters. 2006. The conjunct-disjunct distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics 221. 300–319.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2015. The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 287), 53–74. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. A grammar of Bunan (Mouton Grammar Library 71). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Zemp, Marius. 2014. A historical grammar of the Tibetan dialect spoken in Kargil (Purik). Berne: University of Berne dissertation.Google Scholar
Zoller, Claus P. 1983. Die Sprache der Rang pas von Garhwal (Raṅ Pɔ Bhāsa). Grammatik, Texte, Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Bergqvist, Henrik
2023. Seeing and knowing. Functions of Language 30:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Jacques, Guillaume
2022. Egophoric marking and person indexation in Japhug. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo
Grollmann, Selin
2020. Diachronic aspects of Bjokapakha epistemic verbal morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Song, Na
2019. Egophoric marking in a sinitic language: The case of baoding. Journal of Pragmatics 148 ► pp. 88 ff. DOI logo
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23:1 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Widmer, Manuel
2017. The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7:1-2 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Widmer, Manuel
2018. Transitivity markers in West Himalayish. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Widmer, Manuel & Fernando Zúñiga
2017. Egophoricity, Involvement, and Semantic Roles in Tibeto-Burman Languages. Open Linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
Zemp, Marius
2017. The Origin and Evolution of the Opposition between Testimonial and Factual Evidentials in Purik and Other Varieties of Tibetan. Open Linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
Zemp, Marius
2020. Evidentials and their pivot in Tibetic and neighboring Himalayan languages. Functions of Language 27:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 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.