Volume 7, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2210-2116
  • E-ISSN: 2210-2124
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The epistemic verbal categories “evidentiality” and “egophoricity” play an important role in the verbal systems of many Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas. In the course of the past decades, our synchronic understanding of those grammatical categories has been considerably enhanced by numerous descriptive studies. However, little is still known about the diachronic processes that give rise to evidentiality and egophoricity. The article addresses this gap by discussing evidence from Bunan, a Tibeto-Burman language, for which the development of evidentiality and egophoricity in its past tense system can be reconstructed in detail. It is argued that the evolution of the two categories can be explained by reference to two processes: (i) the reanalysis of a resultative construction as an inferential past tense and (ii) the reanalysis of third person agreement markers as allophoric markers. In addition, it is maintained that the concept of Scalar Quantity Implicature is crucial to account for the evolution of the two categories.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Atlas, Jay David & Stephen C. Levinson
    1981It-clefts, Informativeness, and Logical Form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole , 1–61. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel, Balthasar
    1996Aspect, Mood, and Time in Belhare: Studies in the semantics-pragmatics interface of a Himalayan language (Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 15). Zürich: Universität Zürich.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Creissels, Denis
    2008Remarks on So-Called “Conjunct/Disjunct” Systems . Paper presented at theconference Syntax of the World’s Languages III , Free University of Berlin, September 25–28. Available online atwww.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-conj.disj.pdf (accessedJune 22 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, William
    2000Explaining Language Change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dahl, Östen
    2000 Egophoricity in Discourse and Syntax. Functions of Language7:1.37–77. doi: 10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah [Google Scholar]
  7. Daudey, Henriëtte
    2014A Grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DeLancey, Scott
    2010 Towards a History of Verb Agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics9:1.1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dickinson, Connie
    2000 Mirativity in Tsafiki. Linguistic Typology24:2.379–421.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Francke, August H.
    1909 Tabellen der Pronomina und Verba in den drei Sprachen Lahoul’s: Bunan, Manchad und Tinan. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft63.65–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Genetti, Carol
    2007A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110198812
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198812 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 Logic and Conversation. Speech Actsed. by Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan , 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grierson, George A.
    ed. 1909Linguistic 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]
  14. Hale, Austin
    1980 Person Markers: Finite egophoric and allophoric verb forms in Newari. Papers in South East Asian Linguistics 7 (Pacific Linguistics A 53), ed. by Stephen A. Wurm , 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haller, Felix & Chungda Haller
    2007Einführung in das moderne Zentraltibetische. Auf Basis des Dialektes von Shigatse / westliches Zentraltibet (Tsang). Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Haller, Felix
    2000 Verbal Categories of Shigatse Tibetan and Themchen Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area23:2.175–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hargreaves, David J.
    2005 Agency and Intentional Action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal5.1–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haspelmath, Martin
    2008 Framework-Free Grammatical Theory. The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Analysised. by Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog , 341–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hengeveld, Kees & Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher
    2015 Four Types of Evidentiality in the Native Languages of Brazil. Linguistics53:3.479–524. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Horn, Laurence R.
    1972On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. University of California, Los AngelesPhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huber, Christian
    2013 Subject and Object Agreement in Shumcho. Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan areaed. by Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill , 221–274. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110310832.221
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110310832.221 [Google Scholar]
  22. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000Presumptive Meaning: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001 [11986] Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  24. Post, Mark W.
    2013 Person-Sensitive TAME Marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In honor of Scott DeLanceyed. by Tim Thornes , Erik Andvik , Gwendolyn Hyslop , & Joana Jansen , 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos [Google Scholar]
  25. San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane
    2012 The New Guinea Highlands Evidentiality Area. Linguistic Typology16.111–167. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0003 [Google Scholar]
  26. San Roque, Lila , Simeon Floyd , & Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2015 Evidentiality and Interrogativitiy. Lingua186/187.120–143. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Sharma, Devidatta
    1989Tribal Languages of Himachal Pradesh, Part I. Delhi: Mittal.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sharma, Suhnu Ram
    2007Byangsi Grammar and Vocabulary. Pune: Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1991 The Rhetorical Use of the Tibetan Ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area14:1.93–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1996L’ergativité en Tibétain. Approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy J. LaPolla
    2014 Towards a New Approach to Evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37:2.240–263. doi: 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
  32. Widmer, Manuel
    2015 The Transformation of Verb Agreement into Epistemic Marking: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. Agreement from a Diachronic Perspectiveed. by Jürg Fleischer , Elisabeth Rieken , & Paul Widmer , 53‒73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110399967‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110399967-004 [Google Scholar]
  33. . Forthcoming. A Grammar of Bunan. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Widmer, Manuel & Fernando Zúñiga
    . Forthcoming. Egophoricity, involvement, and semantic roles in Tibeto-Burman languages. Open Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp
    . 2017. The Epistemization of Person Markers in Reported Speech. Studies in Language41:1.33–75. doi: 10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid [Google Scholar]
  36. Willis, Christina M.
    2007A Descriptive Grammar of Darma: An endangered Tibeto-Burman language. Austin: University of Texas PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Zemp, Marius
    2014A Historical Grammar of the Tibetan Dialect Spoken in Kargil (Purik). University of Bern PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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