Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 46:1 (2023) ► pp.35–71

A quaternary epistemic code

The Chhitkul-Rākchham copula system

ORCID logo | New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD)
Evidentiality has often been described in narrow terms as an independent grammatical category denoting an overt source of information (e.g., perception, inference, assumption and hearsay). Drawing on fieldwork data, this paper explores how evidentiality is encoded at the copula level in Chhitkul-Rākchham (West Himalayish). In doing so, it is argued that the relevant evidentials, part of a comparatively complex scheme consisting of nine elements, together with a negative sub-system, fall under the broader umbrella of epistemic modality. The contention finds an illustration in an egophoric marker following two inflectional tracks with two resulting degrees of assertiveness, and in a handful of combinatorial constructions. Evidentiality as expressed by copulas points to the self, which builds bridges with the study of consciousness. The latter term is underappreciated within linguistics and this work emphasizes the need for a broader cross-disciplinary outlook.
Keywords: evidentiality, copula, egophoric, perceptual, epistemic modality, self, inter-subjectivity, consciousness
Article outline
  • 1.Introductory observations
  • 2.Chhitkul-Rākchham: Background information, available literature and classification
  • 3.The Chhitkul-Rākchham copula system
    • 3.1Type of copula clause: Syntactic function
    • 3.2Feature of the subject
    • 3.3Tense-aspect
    • 3.4Person of the subject
    • 3.5Specificity
    • 3.6Further observations on the complexity of the system
  • 4.Verb-by-verb description
    • 4.1The t-forms
      • 4.1.1The copula ta
      • 4.1.2The copula to
        • 4.1.2.1The to-(impv)-(agr) track
        • 4.1.2.2The to-ass track
      • 4.1.3The alternant tuts
    • 4.2The ɦ-forms
      • 4.2.1The copula ɦɛn
      • 4.2.2The free variant ɦun – surfacing as ɦunno or ɦunts
    • 4.3The a-forms
      • 4.3.1The copula ano
      • 4.3.2The alternant a: – surfacing as a:no or a:ts
    • 4.4A summary of the copula system: Templates and inflectional categories
      • 4.4.1Mode of expression
      • 4.4.2Inflectional categories
  • 5.The evidential and epistemic distinctions encoded in the copula system
    • 5.1The evidential and epistemic values conveyed by the copulas (including alternants)
      • 5.1.1The evidential (perceptual) copula ta
      • 5.1.2The evidential (egophoric) copula to
      • 5.1.3The assertive alternant tuts
      • 5.1.4The emphatic (assertive) copula ɦɛn
      • 5.1.5The dubitative alternant ɦunno
      • 5.1.6The assertive alternant ɦunts
      • 5.1.7The dubitative copula ano
      • 5.1.8The dubitative alternant a:no
      • 5.1.9The assertive alternant a:ts
    • 5.2On emphasis as assertiveness
    • 5.3A copula system driven by subjectivity
    • 5.4Towards an interpretative framework for evidentiality at the copula level
      • 5.4.1Evidential distinctions and subjective vs. objective epistemic modality
      • 5.4.2A hierarchy of (un)certainty
    • 5.5A few observations on the two-track inflectional pattern to-(impv)-(agr) vs. to-ass
  • 6.Negation
    • 6.1A system of triple negation
    • 6.2Epistemic judgements are just as pervasive as in declaratives
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 12 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.22008.mar
References (51)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015. The art of grammar: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Thomas Grahame. 1909. A brief grammar of the Kanauri language. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 631. 661–687.Google Scholar
. 1920. Chhitkuli. In Thomas G. Bailey, Linguistic studies from the Himalayas, being studies in the grammar of fifteen Himalayan dialects, 78–86. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. Handbook of American Indian languages 11. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz, Helene Boas Yampolsky & Zellig S. Harris. 1947. Kwakiutl grammar, with a glossary of the suffixes. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 371. 203–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. & Johanna Nichols. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Damasio, Antonio. 2021. Feeling and knowing: Making minds conscious. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 11. 289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnolinguistic handbook of the greater Himalayan region containing an introduction to the symbiotic theory of language, Vol. 11. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018. The grammar of engagement I: Framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10(1). 110–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1884. Grundagen der Arithmetik. Translated by John Austin 1950. Foundations of Arithmetic. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2017. Egophoric evidentiality in Bodish languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 61–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, Roger Francis. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Akira. 2001. Emphatic particles and their scopal interaction in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC). City University of Hong Kong, 1–3 February, 2001, 73–84.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. København: A. F. Høst and Søn.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Evidentiality in Qiang. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 63–78. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Dorothy D. 1938. Conceptual implications of an Indian language. Philosophy of Science 51. 89–102.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor ergo sum?. In Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 101–124. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Martinez, Philippe Antoine. 2021. A corpus-based account of morphosyntactic evidentiality in discourse in Chhitkul-Rākchham. London: SOAS, University of London PhD dissertation.
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1949. Morphology: The descriptive analysis of words. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Oisel, Guillaume. 2017. Re-evaluation of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan Linguistics 16(2). 90–128.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1041. 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saxena, Anju. 1995. Finite verb morphology in Kinnauri. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 24(2). 257–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Sangla Kinnauri. In Randy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 756–772. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2022. The linguistic landscape of the Indian Himalayas. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shao, Mingyuan. 2014. 安多藏语阿柔话的示证范畴 [Evidentiality in the A-rig dialect of Amdo Tibetan]. Tianjin: Nankai University PhD dissertation.
Sharmā, Devīdatta. 1992. Chhitkuli dialect. D. D. Sharmā (ed.), keyword Tribal languages of Himachal Pradesh Part 21, 197–304. Delhi: Mittal Publications.Google Scholar
Sharmā, Devīdatta D. 1994. Linguistic geography of Kumaun Himalayas. Delhi: Mittal Publications.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Yoshiharu. 2004. A descriptive and morphosyntactic study on Kinnauri. A report of Research Project, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) No. 12610556 (2000–2003).Google Scholar
Tononi, Giulio. 2004. An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience 2004(5). 42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1). 93–107.Google Scholar
. 1992. La déixis en tibétain: quelques faits remarquables. In Mary-Annick Morel & Laurent Danon-Boileau (eds.), La Deixis, 197–208. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
. 2017. A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 95–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 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
Tulling, Maxime, Ryan Law, Ailis Cournane & Liina Pylkkänen. 2020. Neural correlates of modal displacement and discourse-updating under (un)certainty. ENEURO. 0290-20.2020. 1–19.Google Scholar
Turnbull, Archibald. [1887] 1923. Nepali grammar & vocabulary, 3rd ed. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2018. Transitivity markers in West Himalayish. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(1). 75–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Reconstructing the linguistic prehistory of the western Himalayas. Endangered minority languages as a window to the past. In Patience Epps, Danny Law & Na’ama Pat-El (eds.), Historical linguistics and endangered languages: Exploring diversity in language change, 263–293. London: Taylor and Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1). 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, Christina Marie. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Darma: an endangered Tibeto-Burman language. University of Texas Austin PhD dissertation.
Zeisler, Bettina. 2018. Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself! – evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi. Himalayan Linguistics 17(1). 67–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar