Ed. by Plank, Frans
IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 0.455
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.663
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.377
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.719
“Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects
1SOAS, University of London
Citation Information: Linguistic Typology. Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 389–433, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: 10.1515/lity-2012-0016, December 2012
- Published Online:
Largely through the efforts of Scott DeLancey the grammatical category “mirative” has gained currency in linguistics. DeLancey bases his elaboration of this category on a misunderstanding of the semantics of ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan. Rather than showing “surprising information”, linguists working on Tibetan have long described ḥdug as a sensory evidential. Much of the evidence DeLancey and Aikhenvald present for mirativity in other languages is also susceptible to explanation in terms of sensory evidence or appears close to Lazard's “mediative” (1999) or Johanson's “indirective” (2000). Until an independent grammatical category for “new information” is described in a way which precludes analysis in terms of sensory evidence or other well established evidential categories, mirativity should be excluded from the descriptive arsenal of linguistic analysis.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.