Volume 40, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartee, Ellen
    2011 The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds), Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax, 133–182. Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i‑322.45
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i-322.45 [Google Scholar]
  3. Caplow, Nancy J.
    2016 Inference and deferred evidence in Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds), Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages, 225–257. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Comrie, Bernard
    1976Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DeLancey, Scott
    1985 Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 65–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1990 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics1(3): 289–321. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003 Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 270–288. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Denwood, Philip
    1999Tibetan [London Oriental and African Language Library 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/loall.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Garrett, Edward J.
    2001Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gonzales, Geny & Martine Bruil
    2016 On the existence of egophoricity in Nam Trik. Paper presented atthe Symposium on Evidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement: Descriptive and Typological Perspectives, Stockholm, 17–18 March.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Hargreaves, David J.
    2005 Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal5: 1–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims
    2010Morphology, 2nd edn.London: Hodder Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language86(3): 663–687. doi: 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hein, Veronika
    2001 The role of the speaker in the verbal system of the Tibetan dialect of Tabo/Spiti. LTBA24(1): 35–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. 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: 10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos [Google Scholar]
  18. Rule, William. M.
    1977A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea. Sydney: University of Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. San Roque, Lila , Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2017 Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua, 120–143.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Tournadre, Nicholas & Sange Dorje
    2003Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and Civilization. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1991 The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. LTBA14(1): 93–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1996L’ergativité en Tibétain. Approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale 33]. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. van Driem, George
    1998Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Widmer, Manuel & Fernando Zúñiga
    2017 Egophoricity, involvement, and semantic roles in Tibeto-Burman languages. Person and knowledge: From participant-role to epistemic marking, special section ofOpen Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Widmer, Manuel
    2017A Grammar of Bunan [Mouton Grammar Library 71]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Yukawa, Yasutoshi (湯川恭敏)
    1975 チベット語の述部Chibettogo no jutsugo (The predicates of Tibetan). アジア・アフリカ文法研究Ajia Afurika bunpō kenkyū / Asian & African Linguistics4: 1–14. Tokyo: ILCAA.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Book Review
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