Volume 44, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Kurtöp (Tibeto-Burman; Bhutan) has a rich set of finite verbal suffixes which encode evidentiality, mirativity, and egophoricity. This article examines the origins of these suffixes in a typological context, showing how many of them have developed via recent grammaticalizations. Synchronic processes of nominalization and clause-chaining have provided the ideal syntactic contexts for these grammaticalizations to take place. Many of the grammaticalization pathways found here are shown to be typologically common, such as ‘’ becoming an applicative. We find one suffix, the egophoric, which is an obvious borrowing. Based on the data presented here, this article puts forth the tentative hypothesis that due to principles of iconicity, miratives will tend to be recent grammaticalizations. Similarly, the fact that the Kurtöp egophoric has been borrowed is also, arguably, iconic.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2012 The essence of mirativity. Linguistics Typology16: 435–485.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2014 The grammar of knowledge: a cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. InAlexandra Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. (ed.) 2018The Oxford handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aikhenvald, Alexandra and Robert M. W. Dixon
    (eds) 2006Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson, Gregory
    2006Auxiliary Verb Constructions. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280315.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280315.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Andvik, Erik
    2010A Grammar of Tshangla. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004178274.i‑490
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004178274.i-490 [Google Scholar]
  8. Aronson, Howard
    1967 The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporary bulgarian literary language. InTo Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, 1:82–98. Janua Linguarum. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bashir, Elena
    2010 Traces of mirativity in Shina. Himalayan Linguistics9 (2): 1–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bickel, Balthasar
    1999 Nominalization and focus in some Kiranti languages. InYogendra Yadava and Warren Glover, (eds.), Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, 271–296. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1995 Relatives à antécédent interne, nominalisation et focalisation: entre syntax et morphologie en Bélharien. Bulletin de La Société de Linguistique de ParisXC (1): 391–427. 10.2143/BSL.90.1.2002537
    https://doi.org/10.2143/BSL.90.1.2002537 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1998 review article: converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology2 (3): 381–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bosch, André
    2016 Language contact in Upper Mangdep: a comparative grammar of verbal constructions. Sydney: University of Sydney Honours Thesis.
  14. Busch, John M.
    2007 Verbal nominalization in Kurtoep. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon MA Thesis.
  15. Chelliah, Shobhana, and Gwendolyn Hyslop
    2011 Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in tibeto-burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area34 (2): 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Curnow, Timothy
    2000 Why ‘first/non-first’ person is not grammaticalised mirativity. InKeith Allan & John Henderson (eds.), Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DeLancey, Scott
    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]
  18. 1991 The origin of verb serialization in Modern Tibetan. Studies in Language15: 1–23. 10.1075/sl.15.1.02del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.15.1.02del [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. 1999 Relativization in Tibetan. InYogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover, (eds.) Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, 231–49. Kamaldi, Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2002 Nominalization and relativization in Bodic. InProceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Parasession on Tibeto-Burman languages and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2011a ‘Optional’ ‘ergativity’ in Tibeto-Burman Languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area34 (2): 9–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011b Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. InFoong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta, & Janick Wrona, (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectivesxs, Sino-Tibetan and Iranian languages: 343–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.96.12del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.96.12del [Google Scholar]
  24. 2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology16: 529–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Denning, Keith
    1987 Obligation and space: the origins of markers of the obligative modality. Chicago Linguistic Society23: 45–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dickinson, Connie
    2000 Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language24 (2): 379–421. 10.1075/sl.24.2.06dic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.2.06dic [Google Scholar]
  27. Donohue, Cathryn, & Mark Donohue
    2016 On Ergativity in Bumthang. Language92 (1): 179–88. doi:  10.1353/lan.2016.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0004 [Google Scholar]
  28. Driem, George van
    2015 Synoptic grammar of the Bumthang language. Himalayan Linguistics Archive6: 1–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1998Dzongkha. Leiden: Research CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe, & Lila San Roque
    (eds.) 2018Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118 [Google Scholar]
  31. Friedman, Victor
    1977The grammatical categories of the Mecedonian indicative. Columbus: Slavica.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1986 Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. InWallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 168–187. Advances in Discourse Processes 20. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Genetti, Carol
    1992 Semantic and grammatical categories of relative-clause morphology in the languages of Nepal. Studies in Language29 (1): 35–87. 10.1075/sl.29.1.03gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.29.1.03gen [Google Scholar]
  34. Genetti, Carol, Alexander R. Coupe, Ellen Bartee, Kristine Hildebrandt, & You-Jing Lin
    2008 Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan Area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area31 (2): 97–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Grunow-Harsta, Karen
    2007 Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30 (2): 151–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Guion, Susan G.
    1998 The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica55(1–2). 18–52. 10.1159/000028423
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000028423 [Google Scholar]
  37. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer
    1991Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2004World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hill, Nathan
    2012 “Mirativity” does not exist: “Lhasa” ḥdug and other suspects. Linguistic Typology16: 289–433. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hongladarom, Krisadawan
    2007 Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30 (2): 17–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hopper, Paul J., & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hyslop, Gwendolyn
    2010 Kurtöp Case: The pragmatic ergative and beyond. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area33 (1): 1–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2011 Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics4 (1): 43–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2013 The Kurtöp clause-chaining construction: Converbs, clause chains, and verb serialization. InTim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey (Typological Studies in Language 103). 155–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.103.08hys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.08hys [Google Scholar]
  45. 2014a A preliminary reconstruction of East Bodish. InNathan Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith, Trans-Himalayan Linguistics155–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2014b On the category of speaker expectation of interlocutor knowledge in Kurtöp. Proceedings from the 40th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 201–214. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2014c The grammar of knowledge in Kurtöp: evidentiality, mirativity, and expectation of knowledge. InAlexandra Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2017A grammar of Kurtöp. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 18). Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004328747
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004328747 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2018 On egophoricity and mirativity in Kurtöp. In, Elisabeth Norcliffe, Simeon Floyd, & Lila San Roque, Egophoricity, 109–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118.03hys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.03hys [Google Scholar]
  50. Hyslop, Gwendolyn, and Karma Tshering
    2017 An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. InLauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 352–365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110473742‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-011 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lehmann, Christian
    1995Thoughts on grammaticalization. Revised and expanded version, 1. publ. edn. (LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1). München: LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Matisoff, James
    1972 Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. InJohn P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 1, 237–57. New York: Seminar Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2003Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: system and philosophy of reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. McDonald, M. & Stephen Wurm
    1979Basic materials in Waŋkumara (Galal̪i): Grammar, sentences, and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Noonan, Michael
    1997 Versatile nominalizations. InJohn Haiman, Joan Bybee, & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 373–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.21noo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.21noo [Google Scholar]
  56. Post, Mark W.
    2013 Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. InTim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey (Typological Studies in Language 103). 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos [Google Scholar]
  57. Poudel, Kedar P.
    2006Dhankute Tamang Grammar. Munich: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sandman, Erika
    2018 Egophoricity in Wutun. InElisabeth Norcliffe, Simeon Floyd & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 173–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118.06san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.06san [Google Scholar]
  59. Shimada, Masaharu, & Akiko Nagano
    2017 Mirative in Japanese: the rise of mirative markers via grammaticalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics7(1–2): 213–244. 10.1075/jhl.7.1‑2.09shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.7.1-2.09shi [Google Scholar]
  60. Sun, Jackson T. S.
    1993 Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica63 (4): 945–1001.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tournadre, Nicolas
    2008 “Against the Concept of ‘Conjunct’/‘Disjunct’ in Tibetan.” InChomolangma, Demawend Und Kasbek, Festschrift Für Roland Bielmeier, edited byBrigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer, and Peter Schwieger, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH.
  62. Watters, David
    2002A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486883
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486883 [Google Scholar]
  63. Widmer, Manuel
    2017 The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas: the case of Bunan. Journal of Historical Linguistics1(1–2): 245–274. 10.1075/jhl.7.1‑2.10wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.7.1-2.10wid [Google Scholar]

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