1887
Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Bjokapakha belongs to the Tshangla cluster of the Trans-Himalayan (Tibeto-Burman) language family and is spoken in Central Bhutan. Like many languages of the Himalayan region, Bjokapakha exhibits a rich system of epistemic functions, centering around the notion of personal or subjective knowledge (a.k.a. egophoricity, conjunct-disjunct or mirativity). Morphosyntactically, the epistemic categories of Bjokapakha are expressed by constructions involving combinations of nominalisers and copulas which exhibit varying degrees of grammaticalisation. This paper presents the epistemic categories of Bjokapakha and examines the genesis of the Bjokapakha epistemic verbal system from a comparative perspective drawing on insights from other varieties of the Tshangla cluster. Furthermore, a first reconstruction of the nominalisers and copulas of Proto-Tshangla is proposed. It will become evident that nominalisers and copulas have played a crucial role in the emergence of epistemic verbal morphology of Bjokapakha and still constitute productive means for the grammaticalisation of new epistemic categories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.18017.gro
2020-08-28
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andvik, Erik
    2010A Grammar of Tshangla. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.5, 10). 10.1163/ej.9789004178274.i‑490
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004178274.i-490 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benedict, Paul K.
    1972Sino-Tibetan. A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753541
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753541 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bickel, Balthasar
    2000 Introduction. Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area23.2.1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bodt, Tim
    2012The new lamp clarifying the history, peoples, languages and traditions of Eastern Bhutan and Eastern Mon. Wageningen: Monpasang Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2014 Tshangla phonology and a Standard Tshangla orthography. InNathan W. Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith (eds.), Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, 393–435. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol.266).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, G.
    1874Specimens of languages of India, including those of the aboriginal tribes of Bengal, the central provinces, and the eastern frontier. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chakravarty, L. N.
    1953Dictionary of sentences. Monpa. Dirang area. Shillong: North East Frontier Ageny.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Das Gupta, K.
    1968An introduction to Central Monpa. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DeLancey, Scott
    1986 Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. InWallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality. The Linguistic coding of epistemology, 203–213. Norwood: Ablex. (Advances in Discourse Processes, vol.20).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1990 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics1.3.289–321. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1992 The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hajhiensia26. 39–62. 10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1997 Mirativity. The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology1.33–52. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2001 The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics33. 369–382. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2002 Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. InPatrick Chew (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2003 Lhasa Tibetan. InGraham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 270–288. London/New York: Routledge. (Routledge Language Family Series).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2011 Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. InFoong, Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages. Diachronic and typological perspectives, 343–359. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. (Typological Studies in Language, vol.96). 10.1075/tsl.96.12del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.96.12del [Google Scholar]
  18. 2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology16. 529–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2018 Evidentiality in Tibetic. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dixon, R. M. W.
    2010Basic linguistic theory. Grammatical topics. Vol.2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Egli-Roduner, Susanna
    1987Handbook of the Sharchhokpa-lo/Tsangla (language of the people of Eastern Bhutan). Thimpu: Helvetas. Swiss Association for Development and Cooperation.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Genetti, Carol
    1994A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa. (Monumenta Serindica, vol. 24).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gerber, Pascal
    (2020) Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Monpa phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area43.1.55-86. 10.1075/ltba.18015.ger
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.18015.ger [Google Scholar]
  24. Grollmann, Selin
    2013 A sketch grammar of Bjokapakha. Bern: Master’s Thesis, University of Bern.
  25. (in press). A grammar of Bjokapakha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.24.) 10.1163/9789004435230
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004435230 [Google Scholar]
  26. Grollmann, Selin & Pascal Gerber
    (forthcoming). Some innovations of the Tshangla subgroup of Trans-Himalayan.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Grunow-Hårsta, Karen
    2007 Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30.2.151–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hale, Austin
    1980 Person markers. Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. InStephen A., Wurm (ed.), Papers in South East Asian Linguistics, 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hargreaves, David
    2005 Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics5.1–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hill, Nathan W.
    2012 “Mirativity” does not exist, ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology16. 389–433. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hill, Nathan W. & Lauren Gawne
    2017 The contribution of Tibetan Languages to the study of evidentiality. InLauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Vol.302, 1–38. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs). 10.1515/9783110473742‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hofrenning, Ralph W.
    1959First Bhutanese Grammar. ms.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hoshi, Michiyo
    1987A Sharchok vocabulary. A language spoken in Eastern Bhutan. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa (ILCAA).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Huber, Brigitte
    2002 The Lende subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan. A Grammatical description and historical annotations. Bern: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bern.
  35. Hyslop, Gwendolyn
    2011 Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Languages4.1. 43–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2018 Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp. InSimeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 109–137. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol.118). 10.1075/tsl.118.03hys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.03hys [Google Scholar]
  37. Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering
    2017 An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. InLauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Vol.302, 351–365. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs). 10.1515/9783110473742‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-011 [Google Scholar]
  38. LaPolla, Randy
    2003 Evidentiality in Qiang. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol.54). 63–78. 10.1075/tsl.54.06lap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.06lap [Google Scholar]
  39. Lazard, Gilbert
    1999 Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?InLinguistic Typology3. 91–109. 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91 [Google Scholar]
  40. Matisoff, James A.
    2003Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol.135).
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001Mood and Modality (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  42. Plaisier, Heleen
    2007A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.5).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Post, Mark
    2013 Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo. Historical origins and functional motivation. InTim Thornes (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation. In honor of Scott DeLancey, 107–130. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol.103). 10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos [Google Scholar]
  44. Robinson, William
    1849 Notes on the languages spoken by various tribes inhabitating the valley of Assam and its mountain confines. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal March 1849 183–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Stack, E.
    1897Some Tsangla-Bhutanese sentences. Part III. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Printing Office.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sun, Jackson T. S.
    1993 Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica63. 945–1001.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Thurgood
    1982 The Sino-Tibetan copula *way. Cahiers de linguistique Asie Orientale11.1. 65–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tournadre, Nicolas
    2008 Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/’disjunct’ in Tibetan. InBrigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolungma, Demawend und Kasbek. Festschrift fur Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Vol.I, Chomolangma, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan/Buddhist Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2017 A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. InLauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 95–129. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, vol.302). 10.1515/9783110473742‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-004 [Google Scholar]
  50. Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy LaPolla
    2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Issues and directions for research. 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]
  51. van Driem, George
    1993A grammar of Dumi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol.10). 10.1515/9783110880915
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880915 [Google Scholar]
  52. 1998Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.1).
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2007 A holistic approach to the fine art of grammar writing. The Dallas Manifesto. InNovel Kishore Rai (eds.), Recent Studies in Nepalese Linguistics, 93–184. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wangdi, Pema
    2004 Sharchokpa-lo phonology and morphosyntax. Canberra: Master’s Sub-Thesis, Australian National University.
  55. Watters, David E.
    2006 The Conjunct-Disjunct Distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics22.300–319.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Widmer, Manuel
    2015 The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking, evidence from Tibeto-Burman. InJürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective, 53–73. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol.287). 10.1515/9783110399967‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110399967-004 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2017 The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas. The case of Bunan. Journal of Historical Linguistics7.1–2.246–275.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp
    2017 The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Languages41.4.33–75. 10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid [Google Scholar]
  59. Yangzom, Deki & Marlen Arkesteijn
    1996Khengkha lessonbook. SNV Thimphu: Unpublished Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhāng, J.
    1986Sketch grammar of Cang Luo Menba. Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.18017.gro
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.18017.gro
Loading

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