Article published in:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 43:1 (2020) ► pp. 87123
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andvik, Erik
2010A Grammar of Tshangla. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 5, 10). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K.
1972Sino-Tibetan. A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2000Introduction. Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23.2.1–11.Google Scholar
Bodt, Tim
2012The new lamp clarifying the history, peoples, languages and traditions of Eastern Bhutan and Eastern Mon. Wageningen: Monpasang Publications.Google Scholar
2014Tshangla phonology and a Standard Tshangla orthography. In Nathan W. Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith (eds.), Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, 393–435. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol. 266).Google Scholar
Campbell, G.
1874Specimens of languages of India, including those of the aboriginal tribes of Bengal, the central provinces, and the eastern frontier. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.Google Scholar
Chakravarty, L. N.
1953Dictionary of sentences. Monpa. Dirang area. Shillong: North East Frontier Ageny.Google Scholar
Das Gupta, K.
1968An introduction to Central Monpa. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.Google Scholar
[ p. 121 ]
DeLancey, Scott
1986Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality. The Linguistic coding of epistemology, 203–213. Norwood: Ablex. (Advances in Discourse Processes, vol. 20).Google Scholar
1990Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1.3.289–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hajhiensia 26. 39–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Mirativity. The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1.33–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 369–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Patrick Chew (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
2003Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 270–288. London/New York: Routledge. (Routledge Language Family Series).Google Scholar
2011Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Foong, Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages. Diachronic and typological perspectives, 343–359. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 96). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16. 529–564.Google Scholar
2018Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
2010Basic linguistic theory. Grammatical topics. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Egli-Roduner, Susanna
1987Handbook of the Sharchhokpa-lo/Tsangla (language of the people of Eastern Bhutan). Thimpu: Helvetas. Swiss Association for Development and Cooperation.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol
1994A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa. (Monumenta Serindica, vol. 24).Google Scholar
Gerber, Pascal
(2020) Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Monpa phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43.1.55-86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grollmann, Selin
2013A sketch grammar of Bjokapakha. Bern: Master’s Thesis, University of Bern.Google Scholar
in press). A grammar of Bjokapakha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 24.) Crossref
Grollmann, Selin & Pascal Gerber
forthcoming). Some innovations of the Tshangla subgroup of Trans-Himalayan.
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen
2007Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30.2.151–194.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin
1980Person markers. Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Stephen A., Wurm (ed.), Papers in South East Asian Linguistics, 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
[ p. 122 ]
Hargreaves, David
2005Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5.1–48.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W.
2012“Mirativity” does not exist, ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16. 389–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. & Lauren Gawne
2017The contribution of Tibetan Languages to the study of evidentiality. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Vol. 302, 1–38. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hofrenning, Ralph W.
1959First Bhutanese Grammar. ms.Google Scholar
Hoshi, Michiyo
1987A Sharchok vocabulary. A language spoken in Eastern Bhutan. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa (ILCAA).Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte
2002The Lende subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan. A Grammatical description and historical annotations. Bern: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bern.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn
2011Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Languages 4.1. 43–60.Google Scholar
2018Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp. In Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 109–137. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 118). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering
2017An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Vol. 302, 351–365. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy
2003Evidentiality in Qiang. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 54). 63–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1999Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? In Linguistic Typology 3. 91–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A.
2003Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol. 135).Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
2001Mood and Modality (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plaisier, Heleen
2007A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 5).Google Scholar
Post, Mark
2013Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo. Historical origins and functional motivation. In Tim Thornes et al. (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation. In honor of Scott DeLancey, 107–130. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 103). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, William
1849Notes on the languages spoken by various tribes inhabitating the valley of Assam and its mountain confines. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal March 1849 183–237.Google Scholar
Stack, E.
1897Some Tsangla-Bhutanese sentences. Part III. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Printing Office.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T. S.
1993Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63. 945–1001.Google Scholar
[ p. 123 ]
Thurgood
1982The Sino-Tibetan copula *way . Cahiers de linguistique Asie Orientale 11.1. 65–81.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas
2008Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/’disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolungma, Demawend und Kasbek. Festschrift fur Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Vol. I, Chomolangma, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan/Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
2017A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 95–129. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, vol. 302). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy LaPolla
2014Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37.2. 240–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George
1993A grammar of Dumi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 10). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 1).Google Scholar
2007A holistic approach to the fine art of grammar writing. The Dallas Manifesto. In Novel Kishore Rai et al. (eds.), Recent Studies in Nepalese Linguistics, 93–184. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.Google Scholar
Wangdi, Pema
2004Sharchokpa-lo phonology and morphosyntax. Canberra: Master’s Sub-Thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Watters, David E.
2006The Conjunct-Disjunct Distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics 22.300–319.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel
2015The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking, evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective, 53–73. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol. 287). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas. The case of Bunan. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7.1–2.246–275.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp
2017The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Languages 41.4.33–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yangzom, Deki & Marlen Arkesteijn
1996Khengkha lessonbook. SNV Thimphu: Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Zhāng, J.
1986Sketch grammar of Cang Luo Menba. Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Gerber, Pascal
2020. Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Mönpa phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:1  pp. 55 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 january 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.