Volume 44, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper is an analysis of the use of reported speech in six Tibeto-Burman languages from two closely-related sub-branches (Tamangic and Tibetic). The data come from a set of interview narratives about people’s experiences of the 2015 earthquakes in Nepal. The analysis begins with an examination of the relationship between reported speech, overt subjects and ergativity. We also look at reported speech and evidentiality, including grammatical reported speech evidentials. Structural features discussed include hybrid reported speech and multiple clause relationality. Interactional features discussed include the use of deictic shift, prominent subordination, and the multiple functions of reported speech forms, as well as zero-marked reported speech events. This analysis highlights the benefits of studying linguistic features such as reported speech in narrative context. We conclude with the implications of this usage-based analysis in the coverage of reported speech in descriptive grammars.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adhikari, Sujan Raj, Gopi Baysal, Amod Dixit, Stacey S. Martin, Mattieu Landes, Remy Bossu, & Susan E. Hough
    2017 Toward a unified near-field intensity map of the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake. Earthquake Spectra33(S1). S21–S34. 10.1193/120716eqs226m
    https://doi.org/10.1193/120716eqs226m [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2018 Evidentiality: The Basics. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 1–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ameka, Felix K.
    2004 Grammar and cultural practices: The grammaticalization of triadic communication in West African languages. Journal of West African Languages30(2). 5–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Banfield, Anne
    1973 Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language10(1). 1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bickel, Balthasar
    2003 Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language79(4). 708–736. 10.1353/lan.2003.0205
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0205 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bickel, Balthasar, Bernard Comrie & Martin Haspelmath
    2008The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme by morpheme glosses. www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules (Last access: 6 February 2020)
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bond, Oliver, Kristine Hildebrandt & Dubi N. Dhakal
    2015Conditions on differential ergative case marking. Poster presented at the89th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Portland, OR, January 8–11, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bond, Oliver & Kristine Hildebrandt
    2013 Optional ergative case marking: what can be expressed by its absence?Paper presented at the10th biennial Meeting of Association for Linguistic Typology, Leipzig, August 15–18, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Buchstaller, Isabelle
    2014Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chappel, Hilary
    2012 Say in Sinitic: from Verba Dicendi to attitudinal discourse markers. InJohan van der Auwera & Jan Nuyts (eds.), Grammaticalization and (inter-)subjectification, 81–110. Wetteren: Universa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chelliah, Shobhana & 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]
  13. Childs, Geoff, Sienna Craig, Duni Nanda Dhakal, Mark Donohue & Kristine Hildebrandt
    2017 Narrating disaster through participatory research: Perspectives from post-earthquake Nepal. Collaborative Anthropologies10(1). 207-236. 10.1353/cla.2017.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/cla.2017.0009 [Google Scholar]
  14. D’Arcy, Alexandra
    2015 Quotation and advances in understanding syntactic systems. Annual Review of Linguistics1(1). 43–61. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑125220
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125220 [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLancey, Scott
    1991 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics1(3). 289–322. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2002 Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society28(2). 55–72. 10.3765/bls.v28i2.1039
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v28i2.1039 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2018 Evidentiality in Tibetic. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Deutscher, Guy
    2011 The grammaticalization of quotatives. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 646–655. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dhakal, Dubi Nanda
    2018A Nubri lexicon. Munich: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ding, Picus
    2014A grammar of Prinmi. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004279773
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279773 [Google Scholar]
  21. Donohue, Mark & Dubi Nanda Dhakal
    2016A Tsum lexicon. Munich: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Eckhardt, Regine
    2012 Particles as speaker indexicals in free indirect discourse. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung35–36. 99–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, Nicholas
    2012 Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach. InDunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque
    2018Egophoricity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118 [Google Scholar]
  25. Garrett, Edward
    2001 Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of. California Los Angeles PhD dissertation.
  26. Gawne, Lauren
    (collector) 2009Kagate (Nepal) (SUY1). Digital collection managed by PARADISEC [Open Access]. doi:  10.4225/72/56E976A071650
    https://doi.org/10.4225/72/56E976A071650 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2013 Lamjung Yolmo copulas in use: evidentiality, reported speech and questions. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne PhD dissertation.
  28. 2015 The reported speech evidential particle in Lamjung Yolmo. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area38(2). 292–318. 10.1075/ltba.38.2.09gaw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.38.2.09gaw [Google Scholar]
  29. 2016aA sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2016b Reported speech evidentiality in Tibeto-Burman languages. Paper presented at theWorkshop on Typological Profiles of Language Families of South Asia. Uppsala: September 15–16, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gawne, Lauren, Barbara F. Kelly, Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker & Tyler Heston
    2017 Putting practice into words: The state of data and methods transparency in grammatical descriptions. Language Documentation & Conservation11: 157–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gawne, Lauren & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
    2017 Reported speech evidentiality in corpora of earthquake narratives in Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal. Paper presented at theAssociation for Linguistic Typology 12, Canberra, December 11–15, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gawne, Lauren. & Nathan W. Hill
    (eds.) 2017Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Berlin/Boston: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110473742
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742 [Google Scholar]
  34. Genetti, Carol
    2005 The participial construction of Dolakhā Newar: syntactic implications of an Asian converb. Studies in Language29(1). 35–87. 10.1075/sl.29.1.03gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.29.1.03gen [Google Scholar]
  35. 2007A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198812
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198812 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2011 The tapestry of Dolakha Newar: Chaining, embedding, and the complexity of sentences. Linguistic Typology15(1): 5–24. 10.1515/lity.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Güldemann, Tom
    2008Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211450
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211450 [Google Scholar]
  38. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1985An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hari, Anna Maria
    2010Yohlmo Sketch Grammar. Kathmandu: Ekta books.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Haßler, Gerda
    2002 Evidentiality and reported speech in Romance languages. In: Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, 143–172. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.52.11has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.11has [Google Scholar]
  41. Hengeveld, Kees
    1989 Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics25. 127–57. 10.1017/S0022226700012123
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012123 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hildebrandt, Kristine A.
    2004 A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. InCarol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 1–192. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hildebrandt, Kristine A. & Oliver Bond
    2017 Manange. InRandy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edn), 516–533. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hildebrandt, Kristine A., Tanner Burge-Beckley, & Jacob Sebok
    2019 Language documentation in the aftermath of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes: A guide to two archives and a web exhibit. Language Documentation & Conservation13. 618–651.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hyland, Ken
    2012 Genre and discourse analysis in language for specific purposes. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley. doi:  10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0452
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0452 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jacques, Guillaume
    2016 Complementation in Japhug. Linguistics of the Tibeto Burman Area39(2). 222–281. 10.1075/ltba.39.2.02jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.39.2.02jac [Google Scholar]
  48. Kendon, Adam
    2018 Pragmatic functions of gestures: Some observations on the history of their study and their nature. Gesture16(2): 157–175. 10.1075/gest.16.2.01ken
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.2.01ken [Google Scholar]
  49. LaPolla, Randy J.
    1995 “Ergative” marking in Tibeto-Burman. InYoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lausberg, Hedda & Hans Sloetjes
    2009 Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers41(3). 841–849. doi:  10.3758/BRM.41.3.591
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.591 [Google Scholar]
  51. Li, Charles N.
    1986 Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. InFlorian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 29–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.29 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lyons, John
    1968Theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Maier, Emar
    2015 Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind & Language30(3). 345–373. 10.1111/mila.12083
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12083 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mathis, Terrie & George Yule
    1994 Zero quotatives. Discourse Processes18(1). 63–76. 10.1080/01638539409544884
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544884 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mazaudon, Martine
    2017 Tamang. InRandy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edn), 468–493. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. McGregor, William B.
    1994 The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi. Australian Journal of Linguistics14(1). 63–92. 10.1080/07268609408599502
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609408599502 [Google Scholar]
  57. 1997Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2008 Complementation as interpersonal grammar. WORD59(1–2). 25–53. 10.1080/00437956.2008.11432580
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2008.11432580 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2010 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua120. 1610–1636. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  60. Michael, Lev
    2012 Nanti self-quotation: Implications for the pragmatics of reported speech and evidentiality. Pragmatics and Society3(2). 321–357. 10.1075/ps.3.2.09lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.3.2.09lev [Google Scholar]
  61. Mushin, Ilana
    2001Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.87
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  62. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2012 Personal deixis and reported discourse: towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology. 16(2). 233–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Noonan, Michael
    2006 Grammar writing for a grammar-reading audience. Studies in Language30(2). 351–365. 10.1075/sl.30.2.08noo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.30.2.08noo [Google Scholar]
  64. 2008 Nominalization in Bodic languages. InMaría José Lópes-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives, 219–273. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.76.11noo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.76.11noo [Google Scholar]
  65. Noonan, Michael & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
    2017 Nar-Phu. InRandy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edn), 534–556. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Owen-Smith, Thomas
    2014 Grammatical relations in Tamang, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. London: SOAS PhD dissertation.
  67. Prakash, Rajesh, Ravi Kant Singh & H. N. Srivastava
    2016 Nepal earthquake 25 April 2015: source parameters, precursory pattern and hazard assessment. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk7(6). 1769–1784. 10.1080/19475705.2016.1155504
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1155504 [Google Scholar]
  68. Reesink, Ger P.
    1993 “Inner speech” in Papuan languages. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia24. 217–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Rumsey, Alan
    1982An intra-sentence grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2010 ‘Optional’ ergativity and the framing of reported speech. Lingua120(7). 1652–1676. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  71. San Roque, Lila & Robin Loughnane
    2012 The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology16. 111–167. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0003 [Google Scholar]
  72. Saxena, Anju
    1988 On syntactic convergence: the case of the verb “say” in Tibeto-Burman. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1988), 375–388. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1781
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1781 [Google Scholar]
  73. SIL International & HIS Nepal
    SIL International & HIS Nepal (eds.) 2016Syuba – Nepali – English dictionary. Kathmandu: SIL International and HIS Nepal.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. So-Hartmann, Helga
    2009 A descriptive grammar of Daai Chin. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.
  75. Spronck, Stef
    2016 Evidential fictive interaction (in Ungarinyin and Russian). InEsther Pascual & Sergeiy Sandler (eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction, 255–275. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.13spr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.13spr [Google Scholar]
  76. 2017 Defenestration: Deconstructing the frame-in relation in Ungarinyin. Journal of Pragmatics114. 104–133. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  77. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1996L’Ergativite en tibetain: approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlee. Paris: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 2008 Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. InBrigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier, 281–308. Saale: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 2014 The Tibetic languages and their classification. InThomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics, historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 105–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 2017 A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. InLauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 95–130. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110473742‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-004 [Google Scholar]
  81. Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy J. 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]
  82. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2004 Deixis and grounding in speech and thought representation. Journal of Pragmatics36(3). 489–520. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  83. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2011 The functions of represented speech and thought in Umpithamu narratives. Australian Journal of Linguistics31(4). 491–517. 10.1080/07268602.2011.625602
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2011.625602 [Google Scholar]
  84. Voort, Hein van der
    2002 The quotative construction in Kwaza and its (de-) grammaticalisation. InMily Crevels, Simon van de Kerke, Sérgio Meira & Hein van der Voort (eds.), Current studies on South American languages. Indigenous languages of Latin America3, 307–328. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS).
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Webster, Jeff
    1992A socio-linguistic survey of the Tibeto-Burman dialects of North Gorkha District, Nepal. Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Widmer, Manuel
    2014 A descriptive grammar of Bunan. Bern: University of Bern PhD dissertation.
  87. Willett, Thomas
    1988 ‘A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality.’ Studies in Language12. 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  88. Zemp, Marius
    2017 Evidentiality in Purik Tibetan. InLauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 261–296. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110473742‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-009 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): evidentiality; grammar; pragmatics; reported speech; syntax; 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