Cover not available
Review published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 40:2 (2017) ► pp.285–303
Book review

Review of Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill. (eds). 2016. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages

Reviewed by
| University of Zurich
Article outline
  • 1.Tibetan evidentiality systems and their relevance for the typology of evidentiality
  • 2.General introduction
  • 3.Papers on typology and history
  • 4.Lhasa and Diasporic Tibetan
  • 5.Papers on other Tibetan languages
  • 6.Remarks on the terms “conjunct/disjunct” and “egophoricity”
  • 7.Summary
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.00002.wid
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bartee, Ellen
2011 The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds), Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax, 133–182. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplow, Nancy J.
2016 Inference and deferred evidence in Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds), Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages, 225–257. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1985 Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 65–72.Google Scholar
1990 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 270–288. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip
1999 Tibetan [London Oriental and African Language Library 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward J.
2001 Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Gonzales, Geny & Martine Bruil
2016 On the existence of egophoricity in Nam Trik. Paper presented at the Symposium on Evidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement: Descriptive and Typological Perspectives, Stockholm, 17–18 March.
Hale, Austin
1980 Person markers: Finite egophoric and allophoric 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
Hargreaves, David J.
2005 Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newari. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 51: 1–48.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims
2010 Morphology, 2nd edn. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hein, Veronika
2001 The role of the speaker in the verbal system of the Tibetan dialect of Tabo/Spiti. LTBA 24(1): 35–48.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher
2015 Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics 53(3): 479–524. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rule, William. M.
1977 A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane
2012 The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 161: 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
2017 Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua, 120–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas & Sange Dorje
2003 Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and Civilization. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas
1991 The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. LTBA 14(1): 93–107.Google Scholar
1996 L’ergativité en Tibétain. Approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale 33]. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
2008 Arguments against the concept of “egophoric” / “allophoric” in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds), Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281–308. Halle: International Insitute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
van Driem, George
1998 Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel & Fernando Zúñiga
2017 Egophoricity, involvement, and semantic roles in Tibeto-Burman languages. Person and knowledge: From participant-role to epistemic marking, special section of Open Linguistics.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel
2017 A Grammar of Bunan [Mouton Grammar Library 71]. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yukawa, Yasutoshi (湯川恭敏)
1975 チベット語の述部 Chibettogo no jutsugo (The predicates of Tibetan). アジア・アフリカ文法研究 Ajia Afurika bunpō kenkyū / Asian & African Linguistics 41: 1–14. Tokyo: ILCAA.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Chen, Hao, Yonghao Liu, Hong Li & Suonan Jiancuo
2020. Research on Tibetan Language Resource Construction Based on Tibetan Natural Language Processing. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1648:2 ► pp. 022079 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.