1887
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper focuses on a specific type of perspective-indexing constructions in Tibetic and neighboring languages, namely a type of verbal marker that is consistently construed from the perspective of the speaker in statements, the addressee in questions, and the source (= the original/reported speaker) in reported speech clauses. As these markers indicate how one obtained the information profiled in a sentence and may thus be viewed as a type of evidential, they cannot at the same time establish reference to any participant of the current speech act and thus by default reflect the perspective of the ‘informant’ of the respective sentence type. If we define the encountered distinctions in relation to a cause-effect vector in the sense of DeLancey (1986), these languages all contain what we may call an ‘insider’ marker indicating access to the entire vector including its causal origin and an ‘outsider’ marker indicating access only to its effect end. Whereas the insider markers typically occur when the informant is the subject and the outsider markers when s/he is not, the present paper discusses the different ways in which Tibetic and neighboring languages deviate from this basic pattern, and argues that these differences reflect the fact that the markers in the latter languages were only secondarily evidentialized in reported speech clauses, likely due to contact with Tibetic.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20003.zem
2020-04-15
2020-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonov, Anton & Guillaume Jacques
    2014Semi-direct speech in Rtau. Paper presented at theconference Syntax of the World’s Languages VI, University of Pavia, September 8–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel, Balthasar
    2008 Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. InBrigitte 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]
  4. Bielmeier, Roland
    2000 Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area23(2). 79–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, Franz
    1910Kwakiutl. An illustrative sketch. Washington: Government Printing Office.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Borchers, Dörte
    2008A grammar of Sunwar: Descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5.7). Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols
    (eds.) 1986Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Creissels, Denis
    2008 Remarks on so-called “conjunct/disjunct” systems. Paper presented at theconference Syntax of the World’s Languages III, Free University of Berlin, September 25–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Curnow, Timothy
    1997 A grammar of Awa Pit. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis.
  10. Daudey, Henriëtte
    2014 Volition and control in Wǎdū Pǔmǐ. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(1). 75–103. 10.1075/ltba.37.1.03dau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.1.03dau [Google Scholar]
  11. DeLancey, Scott
    1986 Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In: Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), 203–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1992 The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia25. 39–62. 10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277 [Google Scholar]
  13. Evans, Nicholas
    2012 Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach. InDunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque
    2017 The grammar of engagement. Language and Cognition10(1). 110–170. 10.1017/langcog.2017.21
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.21 [Google Scholar]
  15. Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe, & Lila San Roque
    (eds.) 2018Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118 [Google Scholar]
  16. Garrett, Edward John
    2001 Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California PhD thesis.
  17. Genetti, Carol
    1994A descriptive and historical account of Dolakha Newari dialect (Monumenta Serindica 24). Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007A grammar of Dolakha Newar (Mouton Grammar Library 40). Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110198812
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198812 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 Tense-aspect morphology from nominalizers in Newar. InTim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwen Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey, 195–220. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.103.10gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.10gen [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, Austin
    1971 Person markers: conjunct and disjunct forms. (Topics in Newari Grammar I.) SIL mimeograph.
  21. 1980 Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. InStephen A. Wurm (ed.), Papers in South East Asian Linguistics7 (Pacific Linguistics A 53), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Haller, Felix
    2000Dialekt und Erzählungen von Shigatse (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 13). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2004Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialekts aus Nord-Amdo (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 14). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hargreaves, David J.
    2005 Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal5. 1–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Häsler, Katrin
    1999A Grammar of the Tibetan Dege Dialect. Zürich: Inauguraldissertation der Philosophisch-historischen Fakultät der Universität Bern zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2001 An empathy-based approach to the description of the verb system of the Dege dialect of Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area24(1). 1–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacques, Guillaume
    2007 Hybrid indirect speech in Rgyalrong. Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jäschke, Heinrich August
    1881A Tibetan-English dictionary. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Koshal, Sanyukta
    1979Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kretschmar, Monika
    1995Erzählungen und Dialekt aus Südmustang. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Südmustang-Dialekts (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 12/1). Bonn: Vereinigung für Geisteswissenschaften Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2012 Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology16. 233–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. . This issue. Logophoricity and shifts of perspective: New facts and a new account.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane
    2012 The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology16(1). 111–167. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
    2019 Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology23(1). 119–159. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sun, Jackson T.-S.
    1993 Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica63(4). 143–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Takahashi, Yoshiharu
    2001 A descriptive study of Kinnauri (Pangi dialect): A preliminary report. InYasuhiko 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]
  37. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1991 The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area14. 93–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy LaPolla
    2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(2). 240–263. 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
  39. Volkart, Marianne
    2000 The meaning of the auxiliary ’dug in the aspect systems of some Central Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area23(2). 127–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticizations of evidentiality. Studies in Language12. 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  41. Widmer, Manuel
    2017A grammar of Bunan (Mouton Grammar Library 71). Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Widmer, Manuel & Zemp
    2017 The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language41(4). 33–75. 10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid [Google Scholar]
  43. Willet, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language12(1). 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  44. Woodbury, A. C.
    1986 Interactions of tense and evidentiality: A study of Sherpa and English. InWallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), 188–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zemp, Marius
    2016 A functional reconstruction of the Proto-Tibetan verbal system. Himalayan Linguistics15(2). 88–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2017a Evidentiality in Purik. InNathan Hill & Lauren Gawne (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 261–96. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110473742‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-009 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2017b The origin and evolution of the opposition between testimonial and factual evidentials in Purik and other varieties of Tibetan. Open Linguistics3(1). 631–637. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0031 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2018A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004366312
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004366312 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2019 The genesis of evidentiality in Tibetan. Paper presented in the workshop ‘Evidentiality in Tibetic languages and beyond – a closer look’, Tübingen, Feb.16–17. Available online athttps://www.academia.edu/38439855/The_genesis_of_evidentiality_in_Tibetan.pdf
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20003.zem
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20003.zem
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error