Article published in:Notes from the field on perspective-indexing constructions: Irregular shifts and perspective persistence
Edited by Stef Spronck, An Van linden, Caroline Gentens and María Sol Sansiñena
[Functions of Language 27:1] 2020
► pp. 29–54
Evidentials and their pivot in Tibetic and neighboring Himalayan languages
This paper focuses on a specific type of perspective-indexing constructions in Tibetic and neighboring languages, namely a type of verbal marker that is consistently construed from the perspective of the speaker in statements, the addressee in questions, and the source (= the original/reported speaker) in reported speech clauses. As these markers indicate how one obtained the information profiled in a sentence and may thus be viewed as a type of evidential, they cannot at the same time establish reference to any participant of the current speech act and thus by default reflect the perspective of the ‘informant’ of the respective sentence type. If we define the encountered distinctions in relation to a cause-effect vector in the sense of DeLancey (1986), these languages all contain what we may call an ‘insider’ marker indicating access to the entire vector including its causal origin and an ‘outsider’ marker indicating access only to its effect end. Whereas the insider markers typically occur when the informant is the subject and the outsider markers when s/he is not, the present paper discusses the different ways in which Tibetic and neighboring languages deviate from this basic pattern, and argues that these differences reflect the fact that the markers in the latter languages were only secondarily evidentialized in reported speech clauses, likely due to contact with Tibetic.
- 2.Tibetic evidentials
- 2.1Purik Tibetan existential copulas: Factual jot vs. direct evidential duk
- 2.2Prospective Purik V-et ‘will V’ vs. V-(t/n)uk ‘might V’
- 2.3A third existential in Ladakhi: Non-visual rak
- 2.4Equative yin vs. rak in Southern Mustang: ‘Personal engagement vs. neutral’
- 2.5Amdo: Direct evidential (past) -tʰæ vs. inferential -zəç
- 2.6Hybrid reported speech
- 3.Conjunct/disjunct markers in neighboring Himalayan languages
- 3.1The evidentialization of person markers in reported speech clauses
- 3.2Sunwar first vs. third person of the past tense
- 3.3Dolakha first/second vs. third person of the future tense
- 3.4Bunan first vs. third person of the present tense
- 3.5Kathmandu Newar conjunct vs. disjunct past forms
- 4.Concluding remarks
Published online: 15 April 2020
Antonov, Anton & Guillaume Jacques
2014 Semi-direct speech in Rtau. Paper presented at the conference Syntax of the World’s Languages VI, University of Pavia, September 8–10.
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 für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 1–14. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.
Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols
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.
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe, & Lila San Roque
Garrett, Edward John
Hargreaves, David J.
This issue. Logophoricity and shifts of perspective: New facts and a new account.
San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
Sun, Jackson T.-S.
Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy LaPolla
Widmer, Manuel & Zemp
Woodbury, A. C.
2019 The genesis of evidentiality in Tibetan. Paper presented in the workshop ‘Evidentiality in Tibetic languages and beyond – a closer look’, Tübingen, Feb. 16–17. Available online at https://www.academia.edu/38439855/The_genesis_of_evidentiality_in_Tibetan.pdf
Cited by 1 other publications
Spronck, Stef & Daniela Casartelli
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.