Cover not available
Part of
Evidence for Evidentiality
Edited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 227–256

Chapter 9
Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in the Tibetic languages

 | Universität Tübingen
The coding of evidentiality and/or the speaker’s attitude grammaticalized in most Modern Tibetic languages, whereas Classical Tibetan lacks a fully developed evidential system. The source for marking sensory perception is the hedging use of the verb ḥdug. Its lexical meaning of limited stay was extended to the notion of limited truth: ‘it seems’. This was further applied to situations merely perceived. ḥdug spread first into West Tibetan as an inferential marker; later it was re-borrowed as an experiential maker. This scenario allows reconstructing the timeline and the semantic path, and explaining the flexible use of ‘evidential’ markers in Tibetic languages.
Keywords: Tibetic languages, ḥdug , inferential marker, experiential marker
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The language family and its chronology
    • 1.2Evidentiality in modern Tibetic
    • 1.3Methodological considerations
    • 1.4The narrative
    • 1.5A note on Tibetan script, transliteration, glossing, and grammatical terminology
  • 2.Origins of evidential marking
    • 2.1Old Tibetan
    • 2.2Early Classical Tibetan
  • 3.Evidentiality in the 15th c. Milaraspa rnamthar
  • 4.Sketch of a possible developmental path
    • 4.1Time line – evidence from the written language
    • 4.2Locating the development in space and history
    • 4.3Evidence from the spoken languages
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.10zei
References (32)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bielmeier, R. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area [In B. Bickel (Ed.), Person and evidence in Himalayan languages Part I, special issue], 23(2), 79–125.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H. This volume. Evidentiality as stance: Event types and speaker roles.
Brosig, B. This volume. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian.
Champa Thupten Zongtse (Ed.). 1981. The biography of Chag lo-tsā-ba chos rje dpal (Dharmasvāmin) by Śākya’i dge-bsñen chos-dpal-dar-dpyan, critically edited by Champa Thupten Zongtse with a preface by Gustav Roth. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In: W. Chafe and J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. (168–187). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gawne, L. & N. W. Hill. 2017. The contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of evidentiality. In L. Gawne & N. W. Hill (Eds.), Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages (1–38). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter–Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georg, S. 2001. Mongolisch-tibetische Sprachkontakte im Gansu-Korridor. In: S. Wild und H. Schild (Eds.), Akten des 27. Deutschen Orientalistentages. (Bonn - 28. September bis 2. Oktober 1998.) Norm und Abweichung. (763–774). Würzburg: Ergon.Google Scholar
Gipper, S. This volume. From similarity to evidentiality: Uncertain visual/perceptual evidentiality in Yurakaré and other languages.
Hill, N. W. 2013a. Contextual semantics of ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan evidentials. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics,10(3), 47–54. <[URL]> (last accessed: 30-04-2014).Google Scholar
2013b. ḥdug as a testimonial marker in Classical and Old Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics,12(1),1–16. [URL]Google Scholar
de Hoop, H. & al. This volume. I think and I believe: evidential expressions in Dutch.
Jäschke, H. A. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary: with special reference to the prevailing dialects: to which is added an English-Tibetan vocabulary. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Reprint 1995, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Jones, E. 2009. Evidentiality and mirativity in Balti. Master’s thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
de Jong, J. W. (Ed.). 1959. Mi la ras pa’i rnam thar: Texte tibétain de la vie de Milarépa. ̓s-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Martin, Dan. 2013. Pavements like the sea and the name of the Jokhang: King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba in Lhasa? In F. -K. Erhard und P. Maurer (Eds.), Nepalica-Tibetica. Festgabe for Christoph Cüppers. [Band 2] (23–35). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
Mulder, G. This volume. (Yo) creo que as a marker of evidentiality and epistemic modality: Evidence from Twitter.
Oisel, G. 2013. Morphosyntaxe et sémantique des auxiliaires et des connecteurs du tibétain littéraire. Étude diachronique et synchronique. PhD thesis, Laboratoire du LACITO – CNRS.Google Scholar
2017. Re-evaluation of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan Linguistics,16(2), 90–128. [URL]Google Scholar
Quintman, A. 2014. The yogin and the madman. Reading the biographical corpus of Tibet’s great saint Milarepa. N.Y.: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sandman, E. and C., Simon. 2016. Tibetan as a “model language” in the Amdo Sprachbund: evidence from Salar and Wutun. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics,3(1), 85–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, H. 2012. Multiple usages of the verb ‘snang’ in Gagatang Tibetan (Weixi, Yunnan). Himalayan Linguistics,11(1), 1–16. [URL]Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. 1994. Tibetan ergativity and the trajectory model. In H. Kitamura, T. Nishida and Y. Nagano (Eds.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. (637–648). Osaka: The Organising Committee. Reprint in Senri Ethnological Studies, 41, 261–275.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. & Konchok Jiatso. 2001. Final auxiliary verbs in literary Tibetan and in the dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area,24(1), 49–110.Google Scholar
Volkart, M. 2000. The meaning of the auxiliary morpheme ʼdug in the aspect systems of some Central Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area [In B. Bickel (Ed.), Person and evidence in Himalayan languages Part I, special issue], 23(2), 127–153.Google Scholar
Widmer, M. 2017. Rethinking the relationship between egophoricity and evidentiality. [Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea, Zürich 10–13 September 2017].
Zadoks, A. 2004. Evidentials in Middle Tibetan texts. [Paper presented at the 37th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Lund, October 1–3.]
Zeisler, B. 2004. Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages. A comparative study. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Evidentiality and inferentiality: Overlapping and contradictory functions of the so-called evidential markers in Ladakhi (West Tibetan). Extended handout.Google Scholar
< [URL]> (last accessed: 23-03-2018).
Zeisler, B. 2017a. Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself! Evidentiality, speaker’s attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi (a Tibetic language spoken in the Northwest of India). Cognitive Linguistics [In A. Celle & A. Tsangalidis (Eds.), The linguistic expression of mirativity, special issue] 15(2), 515–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. The emergence of the Ladakhi inferential and experiential markers from a marker for admirativity (non-commitment): the case of ḥdug and snaŋ . Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 4(2), 250–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Drolma, Dawa & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2024. The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 723 ff. DOI logo
Mélac, Eric & Joanna Bialek
2024. Evidentiality as a grammaticalization passenger. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 638 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Yang & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2022. Evidentiality in Selibu. Diachronica 39:2 ► pp. 268 ff. DOI logo
Zeisler, Bettina
2021. Marius Zemp: A Grammar of Purik Tibetan. Linguistic Typology 25:2 ► pp. 401 ff. DOI logo
Zeisler, Bettina
2022. Evidential-perceptual transfer by a blind speaker? Or: what do the Ladakhi markers for “visual” and “non-visual” perceptual experience, ḥdug and rag, actually encode?. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 9:1-2 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.