Article In:
Functions of Language: Online-First Articles

Functional transition from hear to nonvisual sensory and hearsay evidential categories

A case study of rGyalthang Tibetan

ORCID logo | Kyoto University

This article presents a development of evidential categories derived from a verb related to the auditory sense in the evidential system attested in rGyalthang Tibetan varieties. The language varieties under study possess a morphological distinction of at least five evidentials in the access-to-information category and two evidentials in the source-of-information category. The discussion focuses on one morpheme derived from the Literary Tibetan verb grag ‘resound, hear’ used for both categories, and examines its process of grammaticalisation and degrammaticalisation. Elicited data illustrate the following functions: (1) grag as a nonvisual sensory evidential suffix that was further degrammaticalised as a copulative nonvisual sensory verb stem; (2) grag as a hearsay marker in a separate syntactic slot, which extended from (1); and (3) grag as a lexical verb stem meaning ‘hear’ [the common origin to (1) and (2)], which underwent two grammaticalisation processes.

Keywords: Tibetic, evidentiality, grammaticalisation, auditory access, hearsay
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The evidential system of rGyalthang Tibetan
  • 3.Description
    • 3.1 Grag as a nonvisual sensory evidential in rGyalthang Tibetan
    • 3.2 Grag as a hearsay marker
    • 3.3Distinction of grag between nonvisual sensory and hearsay
  • 4.The developmental process of grag
    • 4.1The development of grag as a copulative nonvisual sensory stem
    • 4.2The development of grag as a hearsay marker
    • 4.3Summary of the development of grag
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a Evidentiality: The framework. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b Evidentiality and language contact. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 148–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2018c The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Online version. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartee, Ellen Lynn
2007 A grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California at Santa Barbara PhD dissertation.
2011 The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds.), 131–182. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawa Drolma & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2024 The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams. Studies in Language 48(3). 723–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2018 Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 580–594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DTLF = Les missionnaires catholiques du Thibet
1899 Dictionnaire thibétain-latin-français. Hong Kong: Imprimerie de la Société des Missions Étrangères.Google Scholar
Ebihara, Shiho
2017 Evidentiality of the Tibetan verb snang . In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), 41–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience
2008 A grammar of Hup. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward
2001 Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles PhD dissertation.
Gawne, Lauren & Nathan W. Hill
(eds.) 2017 Evidential systems in Tibetan languages. Leiden: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonkatsang, Tsering & Michael Willis
2021 Text and translation. In Lewis Doney (ed.), Bringing Buddhism to Tibet: History and narrative in the DBA’ BZHED manuscript, 102–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Häsler, Katrin Louise
1999 A grammar of the Tibetan Dege (Sde dge) dialect. München: Selbstverlag.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W.
2013  ḥdug as a testimonial marker in Classical and Old Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics 12(1). 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hongladarom, Krisadawan
1993 Evidentials in Tibetan: A dialogic study of the interplay between form and meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University PhD dissertation.
1994 Historical development of the Tibetan evidential tuu . In Hajime Kitamura, Tatsuo Nishida & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics, 673–684. Suita: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
2007a Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30(2). 17–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b Grammatical peculiarities of two dialects of southern Kham Tibetan. In Roland Bielmeier & Felix Haller (eds.), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond, 119–152. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Chenglong
2013 Zangmianyu cunzailei dongci de gainian jiegou [Conceptual structure of existential verbs in Tibeto-Burman]. Minzu Yuwen 21. 31–48.Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte
2005 The Tibetan dialect of Lende (Kyirong): A grammatical description with historical annotations. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Jäschke, Heinrich August
1881 A Tibetan-English dictionary. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med & sKal-bzang dByangs-can
2002 Zangyu fangyan gailun [Introduction to Tibetan dialectology]. Beijing; Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Mélac, Éric
2023 The pragmatic differences between grammatical and lexical evidentiality: A corpus-based study of Tibetan and English. Journal of Pragmatics 2101. 143–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, René
1956 Oracles and demons of Tibet: The cult and iconography of the Tibetan protective deities. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2009 Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Degrammaticalization. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oisel, Guillaume
2013 Morphosyntaxe et sémantique des auxiliaires et des connecteurs du tibétain littéraire: Etude diachronique et synchronique. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle Paris 3 PhD dissertation. URI: [URL]
2017 Re-evaluation of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan Linguistics 16(2). 90–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rig-’dzin dBang-mo
2012 Zangyu cunzaidongci de dilifenbu diaocha [Study on the geographical distribution of Tibetan existential verbs]. Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue Shehui ban) 61. 110–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roche, Gerald & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2018 Tibet’s minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern Asian Studies 52(4). 1227–1278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shao, Mingyuan
2018 Hexi Zoulang binwei Zangyu Dongnahua yanjiu [Study on the mDungnag dialect, an endangered Tibetic language in Hexi Corridor]. Guangzhou: Zhongshan Daxue Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki
2009 Deux remarques à propos du développement du ra-btags en tibétain parlé. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 161. 75–82. URI: [URL]
2011a Deux remarques supplémentaires à propos du développement du ra-btags en tibétain parlé. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 201. 123–133. URI: [URL]
2011b Dialectal particularities of Sogpho Tibetan: An introduction to the ‘Twenty-four villages’ patois’. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds.), 55–73. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011c Gagatang Zangyu de yanhua yuanyin yu qi laiyuan [Pharyngealised vowels in Gagathang Tibetan and their origin]. Language and Linguistics 12(2). 477–500.Google Scholar
2012 Multiple usages of the verb snang in Gagatang Tibetan (Weixi, Yunnan). Himalayan Linguistics 11(1). 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Niru Zangyu de xiaosheyin yu qi zangwen duiying guilü [Uvulars in Myigzur Tibetan and their sound correspondence with Literary Tibetan]. Dongfang Yuyanxue 141. 1–12.Google Scholar
2018 100 linguistic maps of the Swadesh word list of Tibetic languages from Yunnan. Fuchu: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. URI: [URL]
2022 Geolinguistics in the eastern Tibetosphere: An introduction. Tokyo: Geolinguistic Society of Japan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2024a Shaping rGyalthangic: A historical account of Yunnan Khams. In Takumi Ikeda (ed.), Grammatical phenomena of Sino-Tibetan languages 6 1, in press. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
2024b Evolution of dorsal fricatives in rGyalthangic varieties of Khams Tibetan. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 28(1). In press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Lozong Lhamo
2021 /ka-/ negative prefix in Choswateng Tibetan (Shangri-La, Yunnan). Language and Linguistics 22(4). 593–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo
2021 Hearsay evidential marking strategy in Lhagang Tibetan: A case study on folktales and legends. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 44(2). 141–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki, Sonam Wangmo & Tsering Samdrup
2021 A contrastive approach to the evidential system in Tibetic languages: Examining five varieties from Khams and Amdo. Gengo Kenkyu 1591. 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas
1992 La déixis en tibétain: Quelques faits remarquables. In Mary-Annick Morel & Laurent Danon-Boileau (eds.), La déixis, 197–208. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France.Google Scholar
1996 L’ergativité en tibétain moderne: Approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
2005 L’aire linguistique tibétaine et ses divers dialectes. Lalies 251. 7–56.Google Scholar
2008 Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct/disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281–308. Bonn: Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
2017 A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), 95–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Konchok Jiatso
2001 Final auxiliary verbs in Literary Tibetan and Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1). 49–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje
2003 Manuel de tibétain standard: langue et civilisation, 2nd edn. Paris: L’Asiathèque.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2023 The Tibetic languages: An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan. Villejuif: LACITO Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tshe-skyid dBang-mo
2020 Zangyu Kangfangyan Chengduohua de shizheng fanchou [Evidential category in Chengduo variety of Khams Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen 11. 27–37. [URL]
Tshe-ring gYang-sgron
2021 Dongwang Zangyu cankao yufa [A reference grammar of gTorwarong Tibetan]. Beijing: Minzu University of China PhD dissertation.
Turin, Mark & Bettina Zeisler
(eds.) 2011 Himalayan languages and linguistics: Studies in phonology, semantics, morphology and syntax. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha
2019 A descriptive grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). Helsinki: Helsinki University PhD thesis. URI: [URL]
Zeisler, Bettina
2004 Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative study. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zemp, Marius
2017 The origin and evolution of the opposition between testimonial and factual evidentials in Purik and other varieties of Tibetan. Open Linguistics 3(1). 613–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Yisun
(ed.) 1986 Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo [Big Tibetan-Chinese dictionary]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Zhou, Yang & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2022 Evidentiality in Selibu: A contact-induced emergence. Diachronica 39(2). 268–309. DOI logo; With an online appendix: [URL]Google Scholar
Zou, Yuxia & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2022 Five folktales in Bragkhoglung Tibetan of Cone. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 111. 1–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar