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.
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie. 1993. Formal semantics. An introduction (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014. A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University Ph.D. dissertation.Search in 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.10.1515/9783110197570.27Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 289-321.10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289Search in 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.Search in 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.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward J. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles dissertation.Search in 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.Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Austin & Kedār P. Shrestha. 2006. Newār (Nepāl Bhāsā). Munich: Lincom.Search in Google Scholar
Haller, Felix & Chungda Haller. 2007. Einführung in das moderne Zentraltibetische. Auf Basis des Dialektes von Shigatse / westliches Zentraltibet (Tsang). Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Haller, Felix. 2000. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Shigatse. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Search in Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David J. 1991. The concept of intentional action in the grammar of Kathmandu Newari. Eugene: University of Oregon Ph.D. dissertation.10.3765/bls.v17i0.1630Search in Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1-48.10.5070/H95022977Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action. Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1-29.10.1080/08351813.2012.646684Search in Google 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.Search in Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio 1997. Territory of Information (Pragmatics & Beyond. New Series 48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.48Search in Google 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.10.1075/tsl.103.06posSearch in Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. A grammar of Galo. Bundoora: La Trobe University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy J. LaPolla. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2): 240-263.10.1075/ltba.37.2.04touSearch in Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Huber et al. (eds.), 281-308.Search in Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp. 2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41(1), 33-75.Search in Google 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.10.1515/9783110399967-004Search in Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. Forthcoming. A grammar of Bunan (Mouton Grammar Library 71). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.