Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access October 28, 2017

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

  • Manuel Widmer EMAIL logo and Fernando Zúñiga
From the journal Open Linguistics

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

Received: 2016-8-25
Accepted: 2017-8-16
Published Online: 2017-10-28
Published in Print: 2017-10-26

© 2017

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opli-2017-0021/html
Scroll to top button