1887
Volume 39, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper describes the attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke, a Tibetic language spoken in Sikkim, India. The presence of the attention marker, which may be either speaker or addressee-oriented, indicates that something is brought to the forefront of the speaker’s or the addressee’s attention. The attention marker =ɕo occurs in declarative uses postposed to a verb, and in interrogative uses postposed to other parts of speech (verbless uses). The attention in verbal uses, which resemble the notion “mirativity”, is either speaker or addressee-oriented, whereas verbless uses, which resemble the notion “contrastive focus”, are always addressee-oriented. When occurring with copulas, the function of =ɕo as either speaker or addressee-oriented is partly dependent on the evidentiality of the copulas. With other verbs, the orientation of =ɕo is dependent on other contextual factors. After describing the verbal and verbless uses of =ɕo, the article concludes by showing why the categories focus and mirativity are problematic for describing =ɕo. Existing definitions of mirativity by DeLancey (1997), Peterson (2013), Dickinson (2000), Hyslop (2011b), Hengeveld & Olbertz (2012) and Aikhenvald (2012) are shown to fail to accommodate the range of uses of =ɕo. The concept of attention, on the other hand, not only describes the Denjongke data more comprehensively but also helps understand the interface between mirative-like and focus-like phenomena. The last section illustrates the similarity of =ɕo to exclusively addressee-oriented morphemes in Nepali, Japanese (Davis 2011) and Ingush (Nichols 2011), suggesting that the concept of attention may prove useful for describing exclusively addressee-oriented phenomena, which have rarely been associated with “mirativity”.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.39.1.05yli
2016-06-27
2019-07-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2012 The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology16(3): 435–485. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan & Slobin, Dan I
    1986 A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. InEvidentiality, the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 159–167. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhutia, Karma Lobsang
    2013རྣ་གསུང་ དང་ གཏམ་བཤད་ (Sikkimese Bhutia oral stories and moral dialects). Gangtok: Bhutia Kayrab Yargay Tsogpo.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bielmeier, Roland
    2000 Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. LTBA23(2):79–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Comrie, Bernard
    1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Crystal, David
    1997A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Davis, Christopher M
    2011 Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
  8. DeLancey, Scott
    1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology1: 33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistics Typology16(3): 529–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Denwood, Philip
    1999Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/loall.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Denzongpo, Tashi , Tsichudarpo, Bhaichung & Takchungdarpo, Pema Rinzing
    2011ལྷོ་ཡིག་ སློབ་དེབ་ བདུན་པོ་ [Class 7 Denjongke Textbook]. Gangtok: Human Resource Development, Government of Sikkim.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dickinson, Connie
    2000 Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language24(2): 379–421. doi: 10.1075/sl.24.2.06dic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.2.06dic [Google Scholar]
  13. Dokhangba, Sonam Gyatso
    2001སྦར་ཕུང་ ལིང་དམ་ འགྲོ་ལིས་ (Sikkimese marriage custom and rites). Siliguri: Amit Offset Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Garrett, Edward
    2001Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gundel Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein
    2004 Topic and focus. InHandbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Wardn (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86(3): 663–687. doi: 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hengeveld, Kees & Olbertz, Hella
    2012 Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist!Linguistic Typology16(3): 487–503. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  18. Häsler, Katrin
    1999 A Grammar of Tibetan Sde.dge (སྡེ་དགེ) Dialect. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.
  19. Hill, W. Nathan
    2012 “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology16(3): 389–433. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hongladarom, Krisadawan
    2007 Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area30(2):17–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huber, Brigitte
    2002 The Lende subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan: A Grammatical Description with Historical Annotations. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.
  22. Hyslop, Gwendylon
    2011a A Grammar of Kurtöp. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon at Eugene.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011b Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics4(1): 43–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyslop, Gwendylon & Tshering, Karma
    2010 Preliminary notes on Dakpa (Tawang Monpa). InNorth East Indian Linguistics2, Stephen Morey & Mark Post (eds). New Delhi: Foundation/Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lambrecht, Knud
    2000 When subjects behave like objects: an analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language24(3): 611–682. doi: 10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam [Google Scholar]
  26. Lazard, Gilbert
    1999 Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?Linguistic Typology3: 91–109. doi: 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2001 On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of pragmatics33: 359–367. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00008‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00008-4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mazaudon, Martine
    2003 From discourse to grammar in Tamang: Topic, focus, intensifiers and subordination. InLanguage Variation: Papers on Variation and Change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in Honour of James A. Matisoff [Pacific Linguistics], David Bradley , Randy Lapolla , Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds), 145–158. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Michailovsky, Boyd
    1996 L’inférentiel du népali. InL’Énonciation médiatisée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale], Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 109–123. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nichols, Johanna
    2011Ingush Grammar [University of California Publications in Linguistics 143]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nishiguchi, Sumiyo
    2014 Mirative past in Japanese. Semantics-Syntax Interface1(2): 118–132. semantics-syntax.ut.ac.ir/downloads/Nishiguchi.SSI1(2).2014.pdf (2 June 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Nguyen, Tam Thi Minh
    2013 A Grammar of Bih. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
  33. Peterson, John
    2000 Evidentials, inferentials and mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area23(2): 13–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Peterson, Tyler
    2013 Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. Ms.semanticsarchive.net/Archive/2FkYTg4O/Rethinking_Mirativity.pdf}> (6 May 2015)
  35. Post, Mark William
    2007A Grammar of Galo. PhD disseration, La Trobe University.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Shafer, Robert
    1974Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sprigg, R.K
    1991 The spelling-style pronunciation of Written Tibetan, and the hazards of using citation forms in the phonological analysis of spoken Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area14(2): 93–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Talmy, Leonard
    2007 Attention phenomena. InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Hubert Cuyckens & Dirk Geeraerts (eds), 264–293. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tomlin, Russell S. , Forrest, Linda , Ming Ming Pu & Myung Hee Kim
    2011 Discourse semantics. InDiscourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd edn, Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), 37–63. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tournadre, Nicholas
    (2008) Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. InChomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift für Roland Bielmeierzu seinem 65. Geburtstag 1 (Beiträge zur Zentralasienforschung 12), Brigitte Huber , Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds), 281–308. Saale: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2010 The Tibetic languages and their classification. InTrans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area [Trends in Linguistics 266], Nathan W. Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith (eds), 105–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Tsichudarpo, Bhaichung
    1996[2003]རེ་ཆེ་ (Hope). Gangtok: Kwality.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 1997 [2003]རྣམ་རྟོག་ (Superstition). Gangtok: Kwality.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Watters, Stephen
    2007 The nature of narrative text in Dzongkha: Evidence from deixis, evidentiality, and mirativity. InLinguistics of the Himalayas and Beyond, Roland Bielmeier & Felix Haller (eds), 381–397. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zeisler, Bettina
    2000 Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area23(2): 39–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Yliniemi, Juha
    . To appear. Copulas in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). InEvidentiality in Tibetic Languages, Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.39.1.05yli
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attention , discourse , focus , mirative , pragmatics , Tibetic and Tibeto-Burman
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