Cover not available
Part of
Give Constructions across Languages
Edited by Myriam Bouveret
[Constructional Approaches to Language 29] 2021
► pp. 175–193

Chapter 7
The semantics of the verb give in Tibetan

The development of the transfer construction and the honorific domain

| University of Montpellier 3, EMMA EA 741
| Aix-Marseille University | Lacito UMR 7107 | IUF
This paper aims to examine the behaviour of the equivalents of ‘give’ in Lhasa Tibetan in order to confirm, qualify or invalidate the universal tendencies that previous cross-linguistic research has unveiled (Newman 1996, Ed., 1997). We will first explore the semantic relations between the various forms that can express ‘give’ in Tibetan: SPRAD, BTANG, GNANG and PHUL, on the basis of previous lexicographic and descriptive research on Lhasa Tibetan, as well as a corpus of spoken Lhasa Tibetan (TSC). We will see that the most basic term (SPRAD) has not developed much beyond its literal meaning, whereas the hypernymic BTANG is used as a light verb whose constructions can be divided into several categories of meaning. GNANG is the honorific form of SPRAD, and PHUL is its humilific form. While SPRAD is not used as a light verb, its honorific and humilific counterparts are very productive light verbs. To explain this phenomenon, we will explore the honorific domain, and its systematisation in Lhasa Tibetan (Hajime, 1975; Rdorje et al., 1993; DeLancey, 1998; Tournadre & Sangda Dorje, 1998; Dorje & Lhazom, 2002). We will see that the humilific plane is not the symmetrical opposite of the honorific plane. We will also explore the productivity of GNANG and PHUL, which can be explained by the fact that giving is one of the most basic interpersonal actions of the human behavioural repertoire. It therefore establishes a link between two humans, which is essential in order for the honorific and humilific notions to emerge.
Keywords: give, Tibetan, light verbs, honorific, humilific
Article outline
  • 1.The polyfunctionality of give
  • 2.The various lexical items corresponding to give in Tibetan
    • 2.1 The polysemy of give
    • 2.2‘Tibetan’ and the tibetic language family
    • 2.3 Give in Old and Classical Tibetan
    • 2.4 Give in standard spoken Tibetan
    • 2.5 Give as a light verb
  • 3.The distribution of sprad , gnang and phul in standard spoken Tibetan
    • 3.1The Tibetan verb sprad
    • 3.2The Tibetan verb gnang
    • 3.3The Tibetan verb phul
  • 4.Give and the honorific domain
    • 4.1The honorific domain in Tibetan
    • 4.2The functioning of give in the Tibetan honorific system
    • 4.3The emergence of gnang and phul as light verbs of the honorific domain
  • 5.Conclusion
  • List of abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.29.07eri
References (49)
References
Dictionaries
Das, S. C. (1902). A Tibetan-English dictionary with Sanskrit synonyms. Bengal Calcutta. Secretariat Book Depôt.Google Scholar
Dorje, D. S. & Lhazom, T. (2002). Tibetan Honorific Speeches. Lhasa: Tibet University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M. C. (1984). English-Tibetan dictionary of modern Tibetan. Univ of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, M. C., & Kashi, T. D. (1978). Tibetan English Dictionary of Modern Tibetan. Ratna Pustak Bhandar.Google Scholar
Mélac, E., Robin, F. and Simon, C. (2014). Vocabulaire thématique de langue parlée français-tibétain. Paris: L’ Asiathèque.Google Scholar
Rdorje, b., blo bstan, dpal ldan, yang ‘dzoms & ‘phrin las. (1993). zhe sa’i tshig mdzod rab gsal melong. Mig rigs dpe skrun khang.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. (1993). Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (Vol. 1). Min zu chu ban she.Google Scholar
The Tibetan and Himalayan Library
http://www.thlib.org/reference/dictionaries/tibetan-dictionary/translate.php
Oxford English dictionary online (2007)
http://www.oed.com/
Corpora
coca: Davies, Mark. (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].
tsc: Mélac, Eric (2010–2011) The Tibet Student Corpus (TSC): 4 hours 9 min.
Books and articles
Agha, A. (1994). Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartee, E. (2011). The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In Himalayan Languages and Linguistics (pp. 131–182). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, M., & Lahiri, A. (2003). Historical stability vs. historical change. Unpublished Ms. [URL].
Chirkova, K. (2017). Evidentials in Pingwu Baima. In Gawne, L. & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter, GmbH & Co KG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1990). Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 1(3), 289–322.Google Scholar
(1998). Semantic categorization in Tibetan honorific nouns. Anthropological Linguistics, 109–123.Google Scholar
De Lancey, S. (2017). Evidentiality in Tibetic. file:///C:/Users/Kladpa/Downloads/Ch20_Evidentiality%20in%20Tibetic%20(3).pdf
Denwood, P. (1999). Tibetan (Vol. 3). John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds.). (2017). Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2008). What you think ain’t what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. Du fait grammatical au fait cognitif. From Gram to Mind: Grammar as Cognition, 2, 235–255.Google Scholar
Hajime, K. (1975). The honorifics in Tibetan. Acta Asiatica29, 56–74.Google Scholar
Hyslop, G. & Tsering, K. (2017). An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingual journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication, 8(2–3), 223–248.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1965). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles Part IV: Morphology.Google Scholar
Kopp, T. K. (1998). Verbalizers in Lhasa Tibetan. MA thesis. The University of Texas at Arlington.
Loveday, L. (1986). Explorations in Japanese sociolinguistics. John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, T. (2006). Grammatical verbs (with special reference to light verbs). The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 459–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montaut, A. (1991). Aspects, voix et diathèses en hindi moderne : syntaxe, sémantique, énonciation. Préf. de Claude Hagège. Louvain; Paris: Ed. Peeters.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (1996). Give: A cognitive linguistic study (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed., 1997). The linguistics of giving. Typological Studies in Language, 36.Google Scholar
Randall, M. G. G. (2016). The Properties of Lhasa Tibetan Verbalizers. MA Thesis. Payap University.
Robin, F. (forthcoming). Parlons amdo. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Simon, C. (2011). Dérivation causative en tibétain (Lhasa). MA Thesis. Université de Provence.
Strauss, S., & Eun, J. O. (2005). Indexicality and honorific speech level choice in Korean.Google Scholar
Sun, J. T. S. (Ed.). (2014). Phonological Profiles of Little-studied Tibetic Varieties. Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Suzuki, H. (2017). The evidential system of Zhollam Tibetan. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, N. & Dorje, S. (1998). Manuel de tibétain standard. Paris: L’Asiathèque.Google Scholar
(2003, re-ed. 2009). Manual of Standard Tibetan: language and civilization. Snow Lion Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. & Lessan-Pezechki, H. (forthcoming). Les verbes supports et leur typologie : A la croisée du lexique et de la grammaire.
Tournadre, N. & Shao, M. (forthcoming). Intentionality, Evidentiality and Epistemicity in Amdo Tibetan.
Tournadre, N. & Suzuki, H. (forthcoming). The Tibetic languages. An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan.
Tournadre, N. (2014). The Tibetic languages and their classification. Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 105–129.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N., & Jiatso, K. (2001). Final auxiliary verbs in literary Tibetan and in the dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 24(1), 49–111.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N., Sherpa, N. S., Chodrak, G. & Oisel, G. (2009). Sherpa-english and English-sherpa Dictionary with Literary Tibetan and Nepali Equivalents. Vajra Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Yliniemi, J. (2017). Copulas in Denjonke or Sikkimese Bhutia. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeisler, B. (2004). Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: a comparative study (Vol. 150). Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar