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 …

The Origin and Evolution of the Opposition between Testimonial and Factual Evidentials in Purik and Other Varieties of Tibetan

Marius Zemp
Published Online: 2017-12-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0031

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to elucidate a special type of egophoric markers found in Purik and other varieties of Tibetan. These factual evidential markers, deriving from the Written Tibetan existential copula yod, are regularly used in Purik to profile not only events in which the informant participates, but also events which the informant is in the position to describe as facts even if she does not directly participate in them. The factual function of yod is argued here to reflect the indicative function yod served when it was the only existential copula at a stage of the language in which no evidential functions had grammaticalized yet. A comparison of the evidential inventory of Purik with those of other well documented Tibetan varieties reveals that it was in resultative constructions that yod first became contrasted by ’dug *‘was there’, facilitating the reanalysis of two evidentially opposed existential copulas. Hence, the factual meaning of yod formed in contrast to testimonial ’dug. The evolution of the factual yod is traced from its first emergence up to its restriction to egophoric contexts in Central Tibetan, and compared with that of egophoric markers in West Himalayish Bunan.

Keywords: factual evidential; wide-range egophoric; Tibetan

References

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

  • Bartee, Ellen. 2007. Dongwang Tibetan. PhD dissertation presented to the Department of Linguistics, UC Santa Barbara.Google Scholar

  • Bartee, Ellen. 2011. The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In Mark Turin and Bettina Zeisler (eds.), Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax, 133-182. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23: 1-12.Google Scholar

  • 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 fur RolandGoogle Scholar

  • Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 1-14. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar

  • Bielmeier, Roland. 1985. Das Marchen vom Prinzen Cobzaṅ. Eine tibetische Erzahlung aus Baltistan. Text, Ubersetzung und westtibetisch vergleichendes Glossar (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 6). Sankt Augustin: Vereinigung für Geisteswissenschaft Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar

  • Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2): 79-126.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the language of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on so-called “conjunct/disjunct” systems. Paper presented at the conference Syntax of the World’s Languages III, Free University of Berlin, September 25-28. http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-conj.disj.pdf (accessed November 26 2014)Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Curnow, Timothy. 1997. A grammar of Awa Pit. Ph.D. dissertation. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014. Volition and control in Wǎdū Pǔmǐ. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(1): 75-103.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 203-213. Norwood, New Jersey: 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

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25: 39-62.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33-52.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16: 529-564.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. Forthcoming. Evidentiality in Tibetic. Chapter 20 in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: University Press. https://research.jcu.edu.au/lcrc/Research%20Projects/evidentiality/draft-chapters-for-the-volume/chapter-20-scottde-lancey (accessed May 9 2016)Google Scholar

  • Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas. 2012. Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina, and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 66-98. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Garrett, Edward John. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Gawne, Lauren. 2014. Egophoricity in Bodish languages. Presentation at 24th Meeting of the South East Asian Linguistics Society in Yangon, May 27-31.Google Scholar

  • Genetti, Carol. 1994. A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Dolakha Newari Dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar

  • Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct 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

  • Haller, Felix. 2000. Dialekt und Erzahlungen von Shigatse (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 13). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar

  • Haller, Felix. 2004. Dialekt und Erzahlungen von Themchen: sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialekts aus Nord-Amdo (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 14). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Häsler, Katrin. 1999. A Grammar of the Tibetan Dege Dialect. Zürich: Inauguraldissertation der Philosophisch-historischen Fakultät der Universität Bern zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde.Google Scholar

  • Häsler, Katrin. 2000. An empathy-based approach to the description of the verb system of the Dege dialect of Tibetan.Google Scholar

  • Balthasar Bickel (ed.), Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Special issue of Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1): 1-34.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

  • Hill, Nathan W. 2013. ḥdug as a testimonial marker in Classical and Old Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics 12(1): 1-16.Google Scholar

  • Hill, Nathan W. 2017. Perfect experiential constructions: the inferential semantics of direct evidence. In Nathan W. Hill & Lauren Gawne (eds.), Evidentiality in Tibetan languages, 131-159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Huber, Brigitte. 2005. The Tibetan Dialect of Lende (Kyirong): A Grammatical Description with Historical Annotations (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 15). Bonn: Vereinigung für Geisteswissenschaften Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar

  • Jäschke, Heinrich August. 1881. A Tibetan-English Dictionary. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Kalsang, Jay Garfield, Margaret Speas, and Jill deVilliers. 2013. Direct evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan: Evidence for a General Theory of the Semantics of Evidentials. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(2): 517-561.Google Scholar

  • Knuchel, Dominique. 2015. A comparative study of egophoric marking. Investigating its relation to person and epistemic marking in three language families. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Koshal, Sanyukta. 1979. Ladakhi Grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar

  • Kraft, George C., and Tsering Hu Heng. 1990. Tibetan-English Colloquial Primer. Kham Dialect. Littleton, Colorado: OMF Books.Google Scholar

  • Kretschmar, Monika. 1995. Erzahlungen und Dialekt aus Sudmustang (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 12: 1-4). Bonn: Vereinigung für Geisteswissenschaften Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag. Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 2011. Speech-act participants in modality. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_modality.pdf (accessed June 10 2017)Google Scholar

  • Loeweke, Eunice, and Jean May. 1980. General grammar of Fasu (Namo Me). In Don Hutchisson (ed.), Grammatical studies in Fasu and Mt. Koiali, 5-106. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A grammar of Oksapmin. Melbourne: University of Melbourne doctoral dissertation.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.Google Scholar

  • Read, A.F.C. 1934. Balti Grammar (J. G. Forlong Fund, Vol. XV). London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar

  • Rule, William Murray. 1977. A comparative study of the Foe, Huli and Pole languages of Papua New Guinea. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar

  • San Roque, Lila & Robin Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1): 111-167.Google Scholar

  • San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd, and Elisabeth Norcliffe. In press. Egophoricity: An introduction.Google Scholar

  • Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63(4): 143-188.Google Scholar

  • Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2006. Special linguistic features of gSerpa Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 29: 107-125.Google Scholar

  • Tournadre, Nicholas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14: 93-107.Google Scholar

  • Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of “conjunct” / “disjunct” in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift fur Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281-308. Halle: International Insitute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar

  • Tournadre, Nicholas & Sange Dorje. 2009 [2003]. Manual of Standard Tibetan: language and civilization. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar

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

  • Volkart, Marianne. 2000. The meaning of the auxiliary ’dug in the aspect systems of some Central Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2): 127-153.Google Scholar

  • Wang, Qingshan. 1995. A Grammar of Spoken Amdo Tibetan. Chengdu: Sichuan Nationality Publishing House.Google Scholar

  • Watters, David E. 2006. The conjunct-disjunct distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics 22: 300-319.Google Scholar

  • 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: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Widmer, Manuel, and Marius Zemp. 2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41(4): 33-75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Willet, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51-97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zeisler, Bettina. 2004. Relative Tense and Aspectual Values in Tibetan Languages (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 150). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Zemp, Marius. 2014a. A historical grammar of the Tibetan dialect spoken in Kargil (Purik). Bern: University of Bern dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Zemp, Marius. 2014b. Purik Tibetan. In Jackson Tianshin Sun (ed.), Phonological Profiles of Little-Studied Dialects of Modern Tibetan, Volume I (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series), 127-214. Taipeh: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar

  • Zemp, Marius. 2016a. The persistence of the informant perspective in the construal of epistemic markers. Presentation in the workshop ‘Person-indexing constructions: irregular perspective shifts and perspective persistence’ at the 49thGoogle Scholar

  • Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea in Naples, August 31 - September 3. https://www.academia.edu/29065099/The_persistence_of_the_informant_perspective_in_the_construal_of_epistemic_markers.pptxGoogle Scholar

  • Zemp, Marius. 2016b. A functional reconstruction of the Proto-Tibetan verbal system. Himalayan Lingustics 15(2): 88-135.Google Scholar

  • Zemp, Marius. 2017. Evidentiality in Purik. In Nathan Hill & Lauren Gawne (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 261-296. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-08-22

Accepted: 2017-11-27

Published Online: 2017-12-22

Published in Print: 2017-12-20


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 613–637, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0031.

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