Diachronic aspects of Bjokapakha epistemic verbal morphology
The role of nominalisers and copulas
Bjokapakha belongs to the Tshangla cluster of the Trans-Himalayan (Tibeto-Burman) language family and is spoken in
Central Bhutan. Like many languages of the Himalayan region, Bjokapakha exhibits a rich system of epistemic functions, centering
around the notion of personal or subjective knowledge (a.k.a. egophoricity, conjunct-disjunct or mirativity). Morphosyntactically,
the epistemic categories of Bjokapakha are expressed by constructions involving combinations of nominalisers and copulas which
exhibit varying degrees of grammaticalisation. This paper presents the epistemic categories of Bjokapakha and examines the genesis
of the Bjokapakha epistemic verbal system from a comparative perspective drawing on insights from other varieties of the Tshangla
cluster. Furthermore, a first reconstruction of the nominalisers and copulas of Proto-Tshangla is proposed. It will become evident
that nominalisers and copulas have played a crucial role in the emergence of epistemic verbal morphology of Bjokapakha and still
constitute productive means for the grammaticalisation of new epistemic categories.
Keywords: Bjokapakha, Tshangla, Trans-Himalayan, epistemic categories, grammaticalisation, nominalisation, copulas, internal reconstruction, historical-comparative linguistics, egophoricity, mirative, factual
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Bjokapakha and Tshangla
- 1.2Epistemic verbal morphology in the Tshangla cluster
- 1.2.1Terminological remarks
- 1.2.2Epistemic morphology in Standard Tshangla
- Copulas
- Verbal morphology
- 1.2.3Epistemic morphology in minor Tshangla varieties
- 2.Copulas
- 3.Grammaticalised verbal markers
- 4.Periphrastic constructions with the copula gɨ-
- 4.1The subjective marker -(n)lo plus gɨla
- 4.2The reification marker -soŋ plus gɨla
- 5.The role of nominalisers and copulas in the genesis of the epistemic system of Bjokapakha
- 5.1Non-verbal clauses with copulas (Type A)
- 5.2Analytic constructions involving productive nominalisers and copulas (Type B)
- 5.3Finite fusional morphology from copulas and productive nominalisers (Type C)
- 5.4Finite fusional morphology from copulas and fossilised nominalisers (Type D)
- 5.5Summary
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
Abbreviations
-
References
References (60)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Andvik, Erik. 2010. A Grammar of Tshangla. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 5, 10). 

Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan. A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. Introduction. Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23.2.1–11.
Bodt, Tim. 2012. The new lamp clarifying the history, peoples, languages and traditions of Eastern Bhutan and Eastern Mon. Wageningen: Monpasang Publications.
Bodt, Tim. 2014. Tshangla 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. 2661).
Campbell, G. 1874. Specimens of languages of India, including those of the aboriginal tribes of Bengal, the central provinces, and the eastern frontier. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
Chakravarty, L. N. 1953. Dictionary of sentences. Monpa. Dirang area. Shillong: North East Frontier Ageny.
Das Gupta, K. 1968. An introduction to Central Monpa. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality 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. 201).
DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1.3.289–321. 

DeLancey, Scott. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hajhiensia 261. 39–62. 

DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity. The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11.33–52. 

DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 369–382. 

DeLancey, Scott. 2002. Relativization 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.
DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 270–288. London/New York: Routledge. (Routledge Language Family Series).
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. Finite 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. 961). 

DeLancey, Scott. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 161. 529–564.
DeLancey, Scott. 2018. Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Grammatical topics. Vol. 21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Egli-Roduner, Susanna. 1987. Handbook of the Sharchhokpa-lo/Tsangla (language of the people of Eastern Bhutan). Thimpu: Helvetas. Swiss Association for Development and Cooperation.
Genetti, Carol. 1994. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa. (Monumenta Serindica, vol. 241).
Grollmann, Selin. 2013. A sketch grammar of Bjokapakha. Bern: Master’s Thesis, University of Bern.
Grollmann, Selin (in press). A grammar of Bjokapakha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 241.) 
Grollmann, Selin & Pascal Gerber (forthcoming). Some innovations of the Tshangla subgroup of Trans-Himalayan.
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2007. Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30.2.151–194.
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person 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.
Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 51.1–48.
Hill, Nathan W. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist, ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 161. 389–433. 

Hill, Nathan W. & Lauren Gawne. 2017. The contribution of Tibetan Languages to the study of evidentiality. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Vol. 3021, 1–38. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs). 

Hofrenning, Ralph W. 1959. First Bhutanese Grammar. ms.
Hoshi, Michiyo. 1987. A Sharchok vocabulary. A language spoken in Eastern Bhutan. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa (ILCAA).
Huber, Brigitte. 2002. The Lende subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan. A Grammatical description and historical annotations. Bern: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bern.
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2011. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Languages 4.1. 43–60.
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2018. Mirativity 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. 1181). 

Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering. 2017. An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Vol. 3021, 351–365. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs). 

LaPolla, Randy. 2003. Evidentiality in Qiang. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 541). 63–78. 

Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? In Linguistic Typology 31. 91–109. 

Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook 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. 1351).
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). 

Plaisier, Heleen. 2007. A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 51).
Robinson, William. 1849. Notes 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.
Stack, E. 1897. Some Tsangla-Bhutanese sentences. Part III. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Printing Office.
Sun, Jackson T. S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 631. 945–1001.
Thurgood. 1982. The Sino-Tibetan copula *way
. Cahiers de linguistique Asie Orientale 11.1. 65–81.
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments 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. I1, Chomolangma, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan/Buddhist Studies.
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2017. A 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. 3021). 

van Driem, George. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 101). 

van Driem, George. 1998. Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 11).
van Driem, George. 2007. A 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.
Wangdi, Pema. 2004. Sharchokpa-lo phonology and morphosyntax. Canberra: Master’s Sub-Thesis, Australian National University.
Watters, David E. 2006. The Conjunct-Disjunct Distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics 221.300–319.
Widmer, Manuel. 2015. The 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. 2871). 

Widmer, Manuel. 2017. The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas. The case of Bunan. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7.1–2.246–275.
Yangzom, Deki & Marlen Arkesteijn. 1996. Khengkha lessonbook. SNV Thimphu: Unpublished Manuscript.
Zhāng, J. 1986. Sketch grammar of Cang Luo Menba. Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.