The functions of evidentiality

References

1. Adelaar, Willem F. H.
   2013 A Quechuan mirative?InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Anne Storch (eds.), Perception and cognition in language and culture, 95–110. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004210127_005
   https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004210127_005 [Google Scholar]
2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
   2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
   2012 The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology16(3). 435–485. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
   https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
4. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
   2018a Evidentiality: The framework. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 1–43. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1 [Google Scholar]
5. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
   (ed.) 2018b The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
6. AnderBois, Scott
   2014 On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. Proceedings of SALT241. 234–254. 10.3765/salt.v24i0.2424
   https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2424 [Google Scholar]
7. AnderBois, Scott
   2018 Illocutionary revelations: Yucatec Maya bakáan and the typology of miratives. Journal of Semantics351. 171–206. 10.1093/jos/ffx019
   https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffx019 [Google Scholar]
8. Arslan, Seçkin, Roelien Bastiaanse & Claudia Felser
   2015 Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology61. 1387. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387
   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387 [Google Scholar]
9. Arslan, Seçkin
   2020 When the owner of information is unsure: Epistemic uncertainty influences evidentiality processing in Turkish. Lingua2471. 102989. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102989
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102989 [Google Scholar]
10. Boye, Kasper
    2018 Evidentiality: The notion and the term. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 261–272. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.13
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.13 [Google Scholar]
11. Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder
    2009 Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language161. 9–43. 10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy [Google Scholar]
12. Cornillie, Bert
    2007 The continuum between lexical and grammatical evidentiality: A functional analysis of Spanish parecer. Italian Journal of Linguistics191. 109–128.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Cornillie, Bert
    2009 Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language161. 44–62. 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
14. DeLancey, Scott
    1997 Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology11. 33–52. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
15. DeLancey, Scott
    2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology161. 529–564. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0020 [Google Scholar]
16. Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
    (eds.) 2010 Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. New York, NY: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110223972
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972 [Google Scholar]
17. Driem, George van & Karma Tshering
    1998 A Grammar of Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque
    (eds.) 2018 Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118 [Google Scholar]
19. Hengeveld, Kees & Hella Olbertz
    2012 Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist!Linguistic Typology161. 487–503. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
20. Heritage, John
    2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction451. 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
21. Hill, Nathan
    2012 “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology161. 389–433. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
22. Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering
    2017 An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. InLauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 351–365. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110473742‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-011 [Google Scholar]
23. Hyslop, Gwendolyn
    2018 Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp. InSimeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), 109–137. 10.1075/tsl.118.03hys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.03hys [Google Scholar]
24. Kaltenböck, Gunter, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva
    2011 On thetical grammar. Studies in Language351. 848–893. 10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal [Google Scholar]
25. Kittilä, Seppo, Lotta Javala & Erika Sandman
    2018 What do different methods of data collection reveal about evidentiality?InAd Foolen, Gijs Mulder & Helen Hoop (eds.), Evidence for evidentiality, 291–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.61.12kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.12kit [Google Scholar]
26. Leclercq, Pascale & Eric Mélac
    2021 Second language acquisition of evidentiality in French and English in a narrative task. Language, Interaction and Acquisition121. 251–283. 10.1075/lia.20025.lec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.20025.lec [Google Scholar]
27. Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Gerda Hassler & Marta Carretero
    (eds.) 2017 Evidentiality revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.271
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271 [Google Scholar]
28. Mélac, Eric
    2014 L’évidentialité en anglais: Approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus anglais-tibétain. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Mélac, Eric
    2022 The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language & Linguistics261. 331–359. 10.1017/S1360674321000101
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674321000101 [Google Scholar]
30. Mélac, Eric
    2023 The pragmatic differences between grammatical and lexical evidentiality: A corpus-based study of Tibetan and English. Journal of Pragmatics2101. 143–156. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.03.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.03.017 [Google Scholar]
31. Mélac, Eric
    2024 Position paper: The links between evidentiality, modality, and grammaticalization. Studies in Language. Online First.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Mélac, Eric & Joanna Bialek
    2024 Evidentiality as a grammaticalization passenger: An investigation of evidential developments in Tibetic languages and beyond. Studies in Language. Online First. 10.1075/sl.23009.mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23009.mel [Google Scholar]
33. Mexas, Haris
    2016 Mirativity as realization marking: A cross-linguistic study. Leiden: Leiden University Unpublished Master’s thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Nuyts, Jan
    2016 Analyses of the modal meanings. InJan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), 31–49.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Nuyts, Jan & Johan van der Auwera
    (eds.) 2016 The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Papafragou, Anna, Peggy Li, Youngon Choi & Chung-hye Han
    2007 Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition1031. 253–299. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.001 [Google Scholar]
37. Peterson, Tyler
    2017 Problematizing mirativity. Review of Cognitive Linguistics151. 312–342. 10.1075/rcl.15.2.02pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.02pet [Google Scholar]
38. San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2018 Egophoricity: An introduction. InSimeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), 1–78. 10.1075/tsl.118.01san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.01san [Google Scholar]
39. Simon, Camille
    2021 La catégorie égophorique dans les langues de l’Amdo (Tibet). Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris1161. 281–326.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Squartini, Mario
    2016 Interactions between modality and other semantic categories. InJan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), 50–67.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1992 La déixis en tibétain. InMary-Annick Morel & Laurent Danon-Boileau (eds.), La deixis, 197–208. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy J. LaPolla
    2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area371. 240–263. 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
43. Tournadre, Nicolas & Hiroyuki Suzuki
    2023 The Tibetic languages: An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan. Villejuif: LACITO Publications. 10.5281/zenodo.10026628
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10026628 [Google Scholar]
44. Wiemer, Björn
    2018 Evidentials and epistemic modality. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 124–147. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.4
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.4 [Google Scholar]
45. Wiemer, Björn & Juana I. Marín-Arrese
    (eds.) 2022 Evidential marking in European languages: Toward a unitary comparative account. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110726077
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110726077 [Google Scholar]
46. Zeisler, Bettina
    2011 Kenhat, the dialects of Upper Ladakh and Zanskar. InMark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds.), Himalayan languages and linguistics, 235–319. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i‑322.69
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i-322.69 [Google Scholar]