1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 41, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Egophoricity is a cross-linguistically rare grammatical phenomenon. While numerous descriptive studies have substantially improved our synchronic understanding of the category in recent years, we are still largely ignorant of the diachronic origins of egophoricity systems. In this article, we address this gap and discuss a diachronic process that transforms person agreement markers into egophoricity markers. Based on evidence from three Tibeto-Burman languages, we reconstruct the diachronic transformation and argue that the process starts out in reported speech clauses once the direct construal of the predicate is generalized. This generalization allows for the functional reanalysis of first and third person markers as egophoric and allophoric markers, while second person markers become functionally obsolete. Once person markers have undergone an epistemization in reported speech clauses, the innovative epistemic system is extended to simple declarative and interrogative clauses, where it gradually replaces the conservative person agreement system.

© No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
2017-06-01
2024-12-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonov, Anton & Guillaume Jacques
    2014  Semi-direct speech in Rtau . Paper presented at theconference Syntax of the World’s Languages VI, University of Pavia, September 8–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atlas, Jay David & Stephen C. Levinson
    1981  It-clefts, informativeness, and logial form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergqvist, Henrik
    2012 Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language36(1). 154–181. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.1.05ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.1.05ber [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
    2007 Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 2nd edn., 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bickel, Balthasar
    2008 Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Brigitte Huber , Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 1–14. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Borchers, Dörte
    2008 A grammar of Sunwar: Descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5.7). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cann, Ronnie
    1993 Formal semantics. An introduction (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166317
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166317 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coulmas, Florian
    1986 Reported speech: Some general issues. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 31), 1–28. de Gruyter: Berlin, New York & Amsterdam. doi: 10.1515/9783110871968.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Creissels, Denis 2008  Remarks on so-called “egophoric/allophoric” systems . Paper presented at theconference Syntax of the World’s Languages III, Free University of Berlin, September 25–28. www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-conj.disj.pdf (accessedJuly 7 2016)
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, William
    2003 Typology and universals (2003 edn.) (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Curnow, Timothy J.
    1997 A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An indigenous language of south-western Colombia. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dahl, Östen
    2000 Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language7(1). 37–77. doi: 10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah [Google Scholar]
  14. Daudey, Henriëtte
    2014 A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLancey, Scott
    1990 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics1(3). 289–321. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1992 The historical status of the egophoric/allophoric pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia25. 39–62. doi: 10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology16. 529–564.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(1). 3–33. doi: 10.1075/ltba.37.1.01lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.1.01lan [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. 2002 Complex predicates in Tsafiki. Eugene: University of Oregon dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans, Nicholas
    2012 Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical approach. In Dunstan Brown , Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  22. Francke, August H.
    1909 Tabellen der Pronomina und Verba in den drei Sprachen Lahoul’s: Bunan, Manchad und Tinan. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft63. 65–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 1926 Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Part II. The chronicles of Ladakh and minor chronicles. Calcutta: Superintenden Government Printing.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 1998 A history of western Tibet: One of the unknown empires. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (Original work published 1907).
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 Die historischen und mythologischen Erinnerungen der Lahouler. In Tshering, Dorje & Tobdan (eds.), Moravian missionaries in western Trans-Himalaya (Lahul, Ladakh and Kinnaur), 155–179. New Delhi: Kaveri Books. (Original work published in 1907)
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Genetti, Carol
    1988 Notes on the structure of the Sunwari transitive verb. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area11(2). 62–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1994 A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect (Monumenta Serindica 24). Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2007 A grammar of Dolakha Newar (Mouton Grammar Library 40). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110198812
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198812 [Google Scholar]
  29. Givón, Talmy
    2000 Internal reconstruction: As method, as theory. In Spike Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 43), 107–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.43.05giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.43.05giv [Google Scholar]
  30. Grierson, George A.
    (ed.) 1909 Linguistic survey of India: Vol. III, Part I, Tibeto-Burman family: Tibetan dialects, the Himalayan dialects, and the North Assam group. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hale, Austin & David Watters 1973 A survey of clause patterns. In Austin Hale & David Watters.(eds.), Clause, sentence, and discourse patterns in the languages of Nepal, Part II, Clause, 175–249. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hale, Austin
    1980 Person markers: Finite egophoric and allophoric verb forms in Newari. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), Papers in South East Asian Linguistics 7 (Pacific Linguistics A 53), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Haller, Felix & Chungda Haller
    2007 Einführung in das moderne Zentraltibetische. Auf Basis des Dialektes von Shigatse / westliches Zentraltibet (Tsang ). Unpublished manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Haller, Felix
    2000 Dialekt und Erzählungen von Shigatse (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 13). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2004 Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialekts aus Nord-Amdo (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 14). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hargreaves, David J.
    1991 The concept of intentional action in the grammar of Kathmandu Newari. Eugene: University of Oregon Dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2005 Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal5. 1–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Häsler, Kartin L
    1999 A Grammar of the Tibetan Sde.dge Dialect. Berne: University of Berne dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hein, Veronika
    2001 The role of the speaker in the verbal system of the Tibetan dialect of Tabo / Spiti. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area24(1). 35–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2007 The mirative and its interplay with evidentiality in the Tibetan dialect of Tabo (Spiti). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30(2). 195–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Heritage, John
    2012 Epistemics in action. Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 1–29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  42. Huber, Brigitte
    2005 The Tibetan dialect of Lende: A grammatical description with historical annotations (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung, 15). Bonn: VGH Wissen-schaftsverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Huber, Christian
    2013 Subject and object agreement in Shumcho. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 266), 221–274. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110310832.221
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110310832.221 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jacques, Guillaume
    2007 Hybrid indirect speech in Rgyalrong. Unpublished manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Jäschke, Heinrich A.
    1865 Note on the pronunciation of the Tibetan language. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal34(1). 91–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kamio, Akio
    1997 Territory of Information (Pragmatics & Beyond. New Series 48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.48
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  47. Koshal, Sanyukta
    1979 Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ping, Dicus Shizi
    2014 A grammar of Prinmi: Based on the dialect of northwest Yunnan, China (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5.14). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Post, Mark W.
    2013 Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. In Tim 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. doi: 10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos [Google Scholar]
  50. Preiswerk, Thomas
    2011  Evidentiality as a grammatical category in the Tibetan dialect of Zanskar . Paper presented at the17th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 6–9 September.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane 2012 The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology16. 111–167. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sharma, Suhnu Ram
    1996 Pronouns and agreement in West Himalayan Tibeto-Burman languages. Indian Linguistics57. 81–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Slusser, Mary Shepherd
    1982 Nepal Mandala: A cultural study of the Kathmandu Valley, 2 volsPrinceton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Sun, Jackson T.-S.
    1993 Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica63. 945–1001.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Takahashi, Yoshiharu
    2001 A descriptive study of Kinnauri (Pangi dialect): A preliminary report. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), New research on Zhangzhung and related Himalayan languages (Bon Studies 3), 97–119. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Tournadre, Nicholas & Sange Dorje
    2003 Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and civilization. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1991 The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area14(1). 93–107.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2008 Arguments against the concept of “egophoric” / “allophoric” in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber , Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281–308. Halle: International Insitute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. van Driem, George
    2001 Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnolinguistic handbook of the greater Himalayan region: Containing an introduction to the symbiotic theory of language, 2 vols. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. 2, Indien 10). Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. David, E. Watters
    2006 The conjunct-disjunct distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics22. 300–319.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Widmer, Manuel
    2015 The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Jürg Fleischer , Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 287), 53–74. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110399967
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110399967 [Google Scholar]
  62. . Forthcoming. A grammar of Bunan (Mouton Grammar Library 71). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Zemp, Marius
    2014 A historical grammar of the Tibetan dialect spoken in Kargil (Purik). Berne: University of Berne dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Zoller, Claus P
    1983 Die Sprache der Rang pas von Garhwal (Raṅ Pɔ Bhāsa). Grammatik, Texte, Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
Loading
The epistemization of person markers in reported speech
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 41, 33 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

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