1887
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

A speaker may conceptualise a situation from three different modal ‘perspectives’: epistemic, evidential, and attitudinal. Languages differ in which of these concepts they perspectivise and how a grammaticalised concept may be extended to the other two. ‘Lesser-known’ languages tend to be misrepresented in the typological literature. E.g., the Modern Tibetic languages, including the Ladakhi dialects, are said to have grammaticalised the concept of . However, their ‘evidential’ systems differ from the cross-linguistically acknowledged evidential systems, in that is co-grammaticalised and knowledge based on perception shares properties with knowledge based on inferences. DeLancey therefore claimed that these systems also encode . The starting point for the development of these typologically rather uncommon ‘evidential’ systems was a lexical marker for non-commitment (or ): the auxiliary .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.2.09zei
2017-12-08
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A.
    (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (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. (2001) The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft, 9, 201–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (2015) Hare : 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. (2013) Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. semarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/Archive/2FkYTg4O/Rethinking_Mirativity.pdf (accessed27 February 2014).
  22. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.2.09zei
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.2.09zei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): admirative , evidentiality , Ladakhi , language history , speaker attitude and Tibetan
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