image of The functions of evidentiality
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this online first article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adelaar, Willem F. H.
    2013 A Quechuan mirative?InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Anne Storch (eds.), Perception and cognition in language and culture, –. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004210127_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004210127_005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2012 The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology(). –. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2018a Evidentiality: The framework. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), –. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. (ed.) 2018bThe 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 SALT. –. 10.3765/salt.v24i0.2424
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2424 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2018 Illocutionary revelations: Yucatec Maya bakáan and the typology of miratives. Journal of Semantics. –. 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 Psychology. . 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. Lingua. . 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.), –. 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 Language. –. 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 Linguistics. –.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2009 Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language. –. 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 Typology. –. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology. –. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0020 [Google Scholar]
  16. Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
    (eds.) 2010Linguistic 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
    1998A 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.) 2018Egophoricity. 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 Typology. –. 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 Interaction. –. 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 Typology. –. 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, –. 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.), –. 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 Language. –. 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, –. 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 Acquisition. –. 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.) 2017Evidentiality 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
    2014L’évidentialité en anglais: Approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus anglais-tibétain. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2022 The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language & Linguistics. –. 10.1017/S1360674321000101
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674321000101 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2023 The pragmatic differences between grammatical and lexical evidentiality: A corpus-based study of Tibetan and English. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.03.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.03.017 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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
    2016Mirativity 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.), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Nuyts, Jan & Johan van der Auwera
    (eds.) 2016The 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. Cognition. –. 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 Linguistics. –. 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.), –. 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 Paris. –.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Squartini, Mario
    2016 Interactions between modality and other semantic categories. InJan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1992 La déixis en tibétain. InMary-Annick Morel & Laurent Danon-Boileau (eds.), La deixis, –. 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 Area. –. 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
  43. Tournadre, Nicolas & Hiroyuki Suzuki
    2023The 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.), –. 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.) 2022Evidential 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, –. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i‑322.69
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i-322.69 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review 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