Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Egophoricity, Involvement, and Semantic Roles in Tibeto-Burman Languages

Manuel Widmer / Fernando Zúñiga
Published Online: 2017-10-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0021

Abstract

In this study, we explore typological aspects of egophoricity marking based on selected Tibeto- Burman languages. Conceptualizing egophoricity as an autonomous grammatical category that marks access to knowledge, we first discuss how egophoricity marking interacts with evidentiality in the Tibeto-Burman languages Shigatse Tibetan and Bunan. We then go on to explore the differences between the egophoricity systems of Shigatse Tibetan and Bunan, arguing that the variability of egophoricity within and across languages can be captured if we distinguish (i) constructions in which egophoricity markers express privileged access to knowledge due to actional involvement in the role of an event participant from (ii) constructions in which egophoricity markers express privileged access to knowledge due to epistemic involvement in the role of a “knower” whose precise relation to the event is not specified. We additionally introduce a set of five semantic roles to offer a more detailed description of the egophoricity systems of Shigatse Tibetan and Bunan (and also, albeit marginally, Kathmandu Newar and Galo). This study thus offers a new perspective on the variability of egophoricity systems in Tibeto-Burman and propagates an analytical approach that may also be helpful for analyzing egophoricity systems in other language families of the world.

Keywords: egophoricity; evidentiality; Tibeto-Burman languages

References

  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Huber et al. (eds.), 1-14.Google Scholar

  • Cann, Ronnie. 1993. Formal semantics. An introduction (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on so-called “conjunct/disjunct” systems. Paper presented at the 3rd Syntax of the World’s Languages Conference, Berlin, 25-28 September.Google Scholar

  • Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014. A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • De Haan, Ferdinand. 2006. Typological approaches to modality. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality (The Expression of Cognitive Categories 1), 27‒69. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology, 203-213. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 289-321.Google Scholar

  • Dickinson, Connie. 2016. Egophoricity and the coding of territory of information in Tsafiki. Paper presented at the Symposium on evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement: descriptive and typological perspectives, Stockholm, 17-18 March.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Garrett, Edward J. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Gonzales, Geny & Martine Bruil. 2016. On the existence of egophoricity in Nam Trik. Paper presented at the symposium on evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement: descriptive and typological perspectives, Stockholm, 17-18 March.Google Scholar

  • 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

  • Hale, Austin & Kedār P. Shrestha. 2006. Newār (Nepāl Bhāsā). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar

  • Haller, Felix & Chungda Haller. 2007. Einführung in das moderne Zentraltibetische. Auf Basis des Dialektes von Shigatse / westliches Zentraltibet (Tsang). Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

  • Haller, Felix. 2000. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Shigatse. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar

  • Hargreaves, David J. 1991. The concept of intentional action in the grammar of Kathmandu Newari. Eugene: University of Oregon Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1-48.Google Scholar

  • Hein, Veronika. 2001. The role of the speaker in the verbal system of the Tibetan dialect of Tabo / Spiti. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1): 35-48.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action. Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1-29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huber, Brigitte; Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift fur Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar

  • Kamio, Akio 1997. Territory of Information (Pragmatics & Beyond. New Series 48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Post, Mark W. A grammar of Galo. Bundoora: La Trobe University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy J. LaPolla. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2): 240-263.Google Scholar

  • Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Huber et al. (eds.), 281-308.Google Scholar

  • Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp. 2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41(1), 33-75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Widmer, Manuel. 2015. The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Jurg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective (Trends in Linguistics. Studies in Monographs 287), 53‒73. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Widmer, Manuel. Forthcoming. A grammar of Bunan (Mouton Grammar Library 71). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-08-25

Accepted: 2017-08-16

Published Online: 2017-10-28

Published in Print: 2017-10-26


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 419–441, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0021.

Export Citation

© 2017. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in