1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
  4. Volume 49, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 49, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This preliminary study argues that the Lhasa Tibetan (LT) evidential category is fundamentally polysemous. Aside from capturing the category’s full semantic range, a polysemous account of Factive also resolves apparent contradictions in prior descriptions and better predicts its distribution in discourse and narration. Drawing on elicited scenarios and consultant judgments, I show that the uses of Factive constructions cluster into three related but distinct functions — , , and — which vary along two dimensions: (i) whether a specific perceptual act is construed and (ii) how knowledge is distributed between interlocutors. These dimensions yield predictable, context-specific effects on the tense-aspect and discourse-pragmatic interpretations of a sentence indicating systematic polysemy, rather than semantic vagueness (Geeraerts 1993: 223–272). Diachronically, LT Factive forms derive from two constructions, * and * (Shao 2016). Although both contain the element *, they entered the Sentence Ending paradigm (the morphosyntactic paradigm that encodes epistemic-evidential contrasts) with distinct connotations which were later aligned as a single category. This Factive category serves as an effective strategy for negotiating interlocutors’ “territories of information” (Kamio 1994, 1997): speakers use Factive to signal contextually varying values of knowledge ownership, epistemic proximity and perceived reliability. Consequently, the category’s polysemy has the paradigmatic effect of increasing the number of available epistemic-evidential contrasts, giving the Sentence Ending paradigm greater expressive reach.

© 2026 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.25004.tri
2026-02-16
2026-03-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ltba.25004.tri
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acuo, Yixi-Weisa/Yeshes Vodgsal Atshogs (意西微萨·阿错/ཡེ་ཤེས་འོད་གསལ་ཨ་ཚོགས)
    2007, December. 藏语汉语和阿尔泰语之间的“一向关系”Zàng yǔ, hàn yǔ hé ā ěr tài yǔ zhí jián de “yì xiàng guān xì” wèn tí [The problem of the “strange relationship” between Tibetan, Chinese and Altaic]. Paper presented at2nd National Conference on Altaic Scholarship and Research. Hohhot: University of Inner Mongolia.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Agha, Asif
    1993 Structural form and utterance context in Lhasa Tibetan: Grammar and indexicality in a non-configurational language. (Monographs in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language 2). New York: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Apresjan, Juri
    1974 Regular polysemy. Linguistics1421. 5–32. 10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Balk, Nathan
    2005 On letters, words, and syllables. Transliteration and romanization if the Tibetan script. https://staatsbibliothekberlin.de/fileadmin/user_upload/zentrale_Seiten/ostasienabteilung/bilder/Letters__Words_and_Syllables.pdf (accessed02.11.2019).
  6. Bartee, Ellen L.
    2011 The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. InMark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds.), Himalayan languages and linguistics, 131–182. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i‑322.45
     https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i-322.45 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergqvist, Henrik & Karolina Grzech
    2023 The role of pragmatics in the definition of evidentiality. Language Typology and Universals76(1). 1–30. 10.1515/stuf‑2023‑2004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2023-2004 [Google Scholar]
  8. Caplow, Nancy
    2017 Inference and deferred evidence in Tibetan. InLauren Gawne & Nathan Hill (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 225–260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110473742‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson, Gregory N.
    1977 References to kinds in English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Ph.D dissertation.
  10. Carston, Robyn
    2012 Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review29(4). 607–623. 10.1515/tlr‑2012‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, Wallace
    1986 Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. InWallace Chafe & Joanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang, Betty Shefts & Kun Chang
    1984 The certainty hierarchy among Spoken Tibetan verbs of being. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica551. 603–635.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Creissels, Denis
    2008 Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung61(8). 309–325.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cruse, D. Alan
    1986 Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dag.yig.sar.bsgrigsདག་ཡིག་སར་བསྒྲིགས། [New Dag Yig Dictionary] 1989 [2009] Xining: Qinghai Nationalities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dawa, Tsering
    2023a Colloquial Tibetan grammar book: Volume I. New Delhi: Chaman Enterprises.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2023b Colloquial Tibetan grammar book: Volume II. New Delhi: Chaman Enterprises.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2024 Colloquial Tibetan grammar book: Volume III. New Delhi: Chaman Enterprises.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Deane, Paul
    1988 Polysemy and cognition. Lingua75(4). 325–361. 10.1016/0024‑3841(88)90009‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(88)90009-5 [Google Scholar]
  20. DeLancey, Scott
    1986 Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. InWallace Chafe & Joanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 203–212. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. 2001 The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics33(3). 371–384. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2018 Evidentiality in Tibetic. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.27
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.27 [Google Scholar]
  24. Denwood, Philip
    1999 Tibetan (London Oriental and African Language Library 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/loall.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dor.zhi Dong.drug Snyems.blo (དོར་ཞི་དོང་དྲུག་སྙེམ་བློ) 1987 བརྡ་སྤྲོད་རིག་པའི་དོ་པའི་དོ་འགྲེལ་ཕྱོགས་བསྒྲིགས།Brda.sprod rig,pavi do.vgrel phyogs.bsrgigs [Meaning and methods of grammatical study (of Tibetan)]. Lanzhou: Gansu Nationalities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ebihara, Shiho
    2011 Amdo Tibetan. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Grammatical Sketches from the Field, 41–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Garrett, Edward
    2001 Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of California Ph.D dissertation.
  28. Geeraerts, Dirk
    1993 Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics4(3). 223–272. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1997 Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198236528.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236528.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2009 Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldstein, Melvyn C., Gelek Rimpoche & Lobsang Phuntsog
    1991 Essentials of Modern Literary Tibetan: A reading course and reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520911840
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520911840 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haller, Felix
    2000 Verbal categories of Shigatse Tibetan and Them chen Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area23(4). 175–191. 10.32655/LTBA.23.2.07
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.23.2.07 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2004 Dialekt und Erzahlungen von Themchen: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialektes aus Nord-Amdo. Bonn: Vereinigung für Geschichtswissenschaft Hochasians Wissenchaftsverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Heritage, John
    2012 Epistemics in action Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hill, Nathan
    2010 A note on the phonetic evolution of yod-pa-red in Central Tibet. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area33(1). 93–94. 10.32655/LTBA.33.1.04
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.33.1.04 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2012 ‘Mirativity’ does not exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology16(3). 389–434. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013a ḥdug as a testimonial marker in Classical and Old Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics12(1). 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2013b Contextual semantics of ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan evidentials. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics10(3). 47–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2017 Perfect experiential constructions: the inferential semantics of direct evidence. InNathan Hill & Lauren Gawne (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 131–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110473742‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hongladarom, Krisadawan
    1992 Semantic peculiarities of Tibetan verbs of being. InS. Luksaneeyanawin (ed.), Pan-Asiatic Linguistics, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Language and Linguistics31. 1151–1162.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 2007 Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30(2).17–44. 10.32655/LTBA.30.2.02
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.30.2.02 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hu, Tan, Bsod.nams Sgrol.dkar & Luo Bingfen (胡坦, བསོད་ནམས་སྒྲོལ་དཀར & 罗秉芬)
    1989 拉萨口语读本Lā sà kǒu yǔ dú běn [Primer on Lhasa Tibetan]. Beijing: Nationalities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Jiang, Di & Ming Yue
    2007 Tenses, aspects and categories of evidentiality and egopcentricity in Spoken Lhasa Tibetan. Macrolinguistics11. 104–129. 10.26478/ja2007.1.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.26478/ja2007.1.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jin, Peng (金鹏)
    1979 论藏语拉萨口语动词的特点与语法结构的关系Lùn zàng yǔ lāsà kǒu yǔ dòng cí de tè diǎn yǔ yǔ fǎ jié gòu de guān xì (On the relations between the characteristics of the verb and the syntactic structure in Spoken Tibetan (Lhasa dialect)). 民族语文Minzu Yuwen31. 173–181.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2001 [1954] 西藏现代口语动词的时态及其表达方法Xī zàng xiàn dài kǒu yǔ dòng cí de shí tài jí qí biǎo dá fāng fǎ [Tenses and expressions of verbs in modern colloquial Tibetan]. In金鹏民族研究文集Jīn péng mín zú yān jiū wén jí [Jin Peng: Collected writings on minorities research], 241–252. Beijing: Nationalities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kalsang, Jay Garfield, Margaret Speas & Jill de Villiers
    2013 Direct evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan: Evidence for a general theory of the semantics of evidential. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory311. 517–561. 10.1007/s11049‑013‑9193‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9193-9 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kamio, Akio
    1994 The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics211. 67–100. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90047‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7 [Google Scholar]
  48. 1997 Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.48
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky
    1970 Fact. InManfred Bierswisch & Karl Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 143–173. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111350219.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111350219.143 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kratzer, Angelika
    1995 Stage-level and individual-level predicates. InGregory Carlson & F. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lasersohn, Peter
    1999 Pragmatic halos. Language75(3). 522–551. 10.2307/417059
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417059 [Google Scholar]
  53. Li, Huaping
    2020 The structure and hierarchy of sentence-endings in Tibetan language. Macrolinguistics8(2). 28–43. 10.26478/ja2020.8.13.2
     https://doi.org/10.26478/ja2020.8.13.2 [Google Scholar]
  54. Macy, Shayleen J.
    2023 Recentering language authorities in linguistics: A qualitative inquiry of Victoria Howard in Clackamas Chinook texts. Living Languages2(1). 68–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Menn, Lise
    1980 Child phonology and phonological theory. InGrace Yeni-Komshian, James Kavanaugh & Charles Ferguson (eds.), Child phonology: Perception and production, Vol. I, 23–42. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑770601‑6.50008‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-770601-6.50008-5 [Google Scholar]
  56. Mushin, Ilana
    2001 Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.87
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rdo.rje, Don.grub (རྡོ་རྗེ་དོན་གྲུབ)
    2004 安多藏语自主非自主动词与格的关系Ān duō zàng yǔ zì zhǔ fēi zì zhǔ dòng cí yǔ gé de guān xì [A brief study of controllable verbs and non-controllable verbs in the Amdo dialect of Tibetan]. Journal of the Central University for Nationalities1(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2022 ཏུན་ཧོང་ཡིག་རྙིང་དང་ཨ་མདོའི་ཡུལ་སྐད་གྙིས་ལས་ཚིག་གི་རིམ་སྐོར་གླེཉ་བ།Tun.hong yig.rnying dang A.mdovi yul.skad gnyis.las tshig.gi rim.skor gleng.ba [Comparisons between archaic Tibetan texts of the Dunhuang Caves and Amdo dialect]. མཚོ་སྔོན་མི་རིག་སློབ་ཆེན་རིག་དེབ།Mtsho.sngon Mi.rigs Slob.chen Rig.deb [Journal of Qinghai Minzu University] 41.145–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane
    2012 The New Guinea highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology161. 111–167. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0003 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sangsrgyas Tshering
    Sangsrgyas Tshering 2023 Egophoricity and evidentiality in Thebo Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics22.(3). 34–56. 10.5070/H922358997
     https://doi.org/10.5070/H922358997 [Google Scholar]
  61. Shao, Mingyuan (绍明圆)
    2014 安多藏语阿柔话的示证范畴Ān duō zàng yǔ ā róu huà de shì zhèng fān chóu [Evidentiality in A-rig dialect of Amdo Tibetan]. Tianjin: Nankai University Ph.D dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2016 藏语系动词RED的语法化Zàng yǔ xì dòng cí RED de yǔ fǎ huà [The grammaticalization of the copula red in Tibetan]. Language and Linguistics17(5). 679–715.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Sidnell, Jack
    2012 Who knows best? Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Pragmatics and Society3(2). 294–320. 10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid [Google Scholar]
  64. Simon, Camille
    2021 La catégorie égophorique dans les langues de l’Amdo (Tibet). Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris116(1). 281–326.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Sun, Jackson T.-S.
    1993 Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology.945–1001.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Sung, Kuo-ming & Lha Byams Rgyal
    2005 Colloquial Amdo Tibetan: A complete guide for adult English speakers. Beijing: Chinese Tibetology Publishing House.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Suzuki, Hiroyuki
    2024 Shaping rGyalthangic: A historical account of Yunnan Khams. InTakumi Ikeda (ed.), Grammatical phenomena of Sino-Tibetan languages61, 87–108. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Dawa Drolma
    2024 The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams. Studies in Language48(3). 723–752. 10.1075/sl.23006.dro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23006.dro [Google Scholar]
  69. Sweetser, Eve
    1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1991 The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area14(1). 93–107. 10.32655/LTBA.14.1.04
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.14.1.04 [Google Scholar]
  71. 1995 Tibetan ergativity and the trajectory model. InJames Matisoff, Yasuhiko Nagano & Yasumoto Nishi (eds.), New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax. Senri Ethnological Studies411, 261–275. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 2008 Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. InBrigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbeck: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 2017 A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. InLauren Gawne & Nathan Hill (eds.), Evidential Systems in Tibetan languages, 95–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110473742‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-004 [Google Scholar]
  74. 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]
  75. Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje
    2003 Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and civilization. Ithaca: Snow Lion.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Tournadre, Nicolas & Hiroyuki Suzuki
    2023 The Tibetic languages: An introduction the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan. Paris: CNRS.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Tribur, Zoe
    2017 Social network structure and language change in Amdo Tibetan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language2017(245). 169–206. 10.1515/ijsl‑2017‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2017-0007 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2019 Verbal morphology of Amdo Tibetan. Eugene: University of OregonPh.D. dissertation. ProQuest: 22623552. Available from Publicly Available Content Database. (2309795193). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/verbal-morphologyamdo-tibetan/docview/2309795193/se-2?accountid=14433
  79. Vokurková, Zuzana
    2008 Epistemic modalities in Spoken Standard Tibetan. Paris: Karel University and University of Paris 8Ph.D dissertation. URI: hdl.handle.net/20.500.11956/18016
  80. Widmer, Manuel
    2020 Same same but different: On the relationship between egophoricity and evidentiality. InHenrik Bergqvist & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement, 263–287. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1996 Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700029.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700029.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language121. 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  83. Wylie, Turrell
    1959 A Standard system of Tibetan transcription. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies221. 261–267. 10.2307/2718544
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2718544 [Google Scholar]
  84. Yliniemi, Juha
    2017 Copulas in Denjongke or Sikkimese Bhutia. InLauren Gawne & Nathan Hill (eds.), Evidential Systems in Tibetan languages, 297–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110473742‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-010 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2021 A descriptive grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). PhD thesis, University of Helsinki & Sikkim University. [Revised version]. Himalayan Linguistics Archive10. i–xxx, 1–687. 10.5070/H920146466
     https://doi.org/10.5070/H920146466 [Google Scholar]
  86. Zeisler, Bettina
    2004 Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative study. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908183 [Google Scholar]
  87. 2018 Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in the Tibetic languages. InAd Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.), Evidence for evidentiality, 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.61.10zei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.10zei [Google Scholar]
  88. 2023 Beyond evidentiality: the case of Ladakhi inok and siblings. Himalayan Linguistics131, 1–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 2024 Facts and attitudes: on the so-called ‘factual’ markers of the modern Tibetic languages. Himalayan Linguistics14(i–ii). 1–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. . Forthcoming. Once again on the evidence for ‘evidentiality’ in Classical Tibetan — meanings and functions of ḥdug.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Zhou, Jiwen & Xie Houfang (周季文 & 谢后芳)
    (eds.) 2003 藏语拉萨话语法Zàng yǔ lā sà huà yǔ fǎ [Grammar of Lhasa dialect of Tibetan]. Beijing: Nationalities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.25004.tri
Loading
A polysemous analysis of ‘Factive’ evidence markers in Lhasa Tibetan
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 49, 107 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.25004.tri
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.25004.tri
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.25004.tri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): epistemological stance; evidentiality; Factive; Lhasa Tibetan; polysemy; territory of information

Most Cited

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