Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself!

References

1. Aikhenvald, A.
   (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aikhenvald, A.
   (2012) The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–485. doi: 10.1515/lingty‑2012‑0017 (accessed2 May 2013).
   https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
3. Bashir, E.
   (2010) Traces of mirativity in Shina. Himalayan Linguistics, 9(2), 1–55. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3bk2d2s6 (last accessed6 January 2015).
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bielmeier, R.
   (2000) Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. In B. Bickel (Ed.), Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Part I. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 23 (2), 79–125.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Chang, K. , & Shefts, B.
   (1964) A manual of spoken Tibetan. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. De Haan, F.
   (1999) Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 83–101.
   [Google Scholar]
7. De Haan, F.
   (2001) The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft, 9, 201–216.
   [Google Scholar]
8. De Haan, F.
   (2008) Evidentiality in Athabaskan. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 67–81. coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/CPXVI/6.deHaan.pdf (accessed5 May 2014).
   [Google Scholar]
9. De Haan, F.
   (2012) Evidentiality and Mirativity. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp.1–28). Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0036 (accessed22 July 2014).
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0036 [Google Scholar]
10. DeLancey, S.
    (1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1, 33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
11. DeLancey, S.
    (2001) The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
12. DeLancey, S.
    (2012) Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 529–564. doi: 10.1515/lingty‑2012‑0020 (accessed2 May 2013).
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2012-0020 [Google Scholar]
13. Friedman, V. A.
    (1986) Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp.168–187). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Friedman, V. A.
    (2012) Perhaps mirativity is phlogiston, but admirativity is perfect: On Balkan evidential strategies. Linguistic Typology, 16, 505–527. doi: 10.1515/lingty‑2012‑0019 (accessed2 May 2013).
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2012-0019 [Google Scholar]
15. Guentchéva, Z.
    (this volume). An enunciative account of admirativity in Bulgarian.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hill, N. W.
    (2012) “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 389–433. doi: 10.1515/lingty‑2012‑0016 (accessed2 May 2013).
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
17. Hill, N. W.
    (2013) Contextual semantics of ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan evidentials. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 10.3, 47–54. www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL24/pdf_doc/03.pdf (accessed30 April 2014).
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hill, N. W.
    (2015) Hare lõ: The touchstone of mirativity. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 13(2), 24–31. www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL28/pdf_doc/03.pdf (accessed30 June 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
19. Koshal, S.
    (1979) Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Peterson, T.
    (2008) Examining the mirative and nonliteral uses of evidentials. In R. M. Déchaine , T. Peterson , U. Sauerland , & M. Schenner (Eds.), Evidence from evidentiality (pp.1–31). University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics (UBCWPL).
    [Google Scholar]
21. Peterson, T.
    (2013) Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. semarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/Archive/2FkYTg4O/Rethinking_Mirativity.pdf (accessed27 February 2014).
22. Peterson, T.
    (2016) Mirativity as surprise: Evidentiality, information, and deixis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 1327–1357. doi: 10.1007/s10936‑015‑9408‑9. AccessedJune 2017.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9408-9 [Google Scholar]
23. Peterson, T.
    (this volume). Problematizing mirativity.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Sánchez López, Cristina
    . (this volume). Mirativity in Spanish: The case of the particle mira .
    [Google Scholar]
25. Smith, C.
    (1991) The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7911‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7 [Google Scholar]
26. Sprigg, R. K.
    (2002) Balti-English English-Balti dictionary. London, N.Y.: Routledge Curzon.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Tournadre, N.
    (1994) Personne et médiatifs en tibétain. Faits de Langues, 3, 149–158. doi: 10.3406/flang.1994.918 (accessed13 July 2014).
    https://doi.org/10.3406/flang.1994.918 [Google Scholar]
28. Tournadre, N.
    (2014) The Tibetic languages and their classification. In T. Owen-Smith & N. W. Hill (Eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics. Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area (pp.105–129). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Trotzke, A.
    (this volume). Mirative fronting in German: Experimental evidence.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Weinrich, H.
    (1964) Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt. 4. Aufl. 1985. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Zeisler, B.
    (2000) Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. In B. Bickel (Ed.), Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Part I. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 23(2), 39–77.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Zeisler, B.
    (2004) Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages. A comparative study. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110908183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908183 [Google Scholar]
33. Zeisler, B.
    (2011) Kenhat, the dialects of Upper Ladakh and Zanskar. In M. Turin & B. Zeisler (Eds.), Himalayan languages and linguistics: Studies in phonology, semantics, morphology and syntax (pp.235–301). Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i‑322.69
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i-322.69 [Google Scholar]
34. Zeisler, B.
    (2012a) Practical issues of pragmatic case marking variations in the Kenhat varieties of Ladakh. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 35(1), 75–106.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Zeisler, B.
    (2012b) Evidentiality and inferentiality: Overlapping and contradictory functions of the so-called evidential markers in Ladakhi (West Tibetan). Extended handout: media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/zeisler-bettina-handout.pdf (last accessed: 9 October 2017).
36. Zeisler, B.
    (2014) Modal verbs and modal constructions in Ladakhi. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 1(1), 31–57. doi: 10.1515/jsall‑2014‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2014-0003 [Google Scholar]
37. Zeisler, B.
    (In press) Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in Tibetan. In A. Foolen , H. de Hoop , and G. Mulder (Eds.), Empirical evidence for evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. A handout is available under: www.ru.nl/publish/pages/720339/zeisler_evidence_for_the_development_of_evidentiality_as_a_grammatical_category_in_tibetan.pdf (last accessed9 October 2017).
38. Zwicky, A. M.
    (1978) On markedness in morphology. Die Sprache, 24, 129–143.
    [Google Scholar]