Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 39:1 (2016) ► pp.105160
References (46)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan & Slobin, Dan I. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentiality, the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 159–167. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bhutia, Karma Lobsang. 2013. རྣ་གསུང་ དང་ གཏམ་བཤད་ (Sikkimese Bhutia oral stories and moral dialects). Gangtok: Bhutia Kayrab Yargay Tsogpo.Google Scholar
Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. LTBA 23(2):79–125.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davis, Christopher M. 2011. Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistics Typology 16(3): 529–564.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denzongpo, Tashi, Tsichudarpo, Bhaichung & Takchungdarpo, Pema Rinzing. 2011. ལྷོ་ཡིག་ སློབ་དེབ་ བདུན་པོ་ [Class 7 Denjongke Textbook]. Gangtok: Human Resource Development, Government of Sikkim.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dokhangba, Sonam Gyatso. 2001. སྦར་ཕུང་ ལིང་དམ་ འགྲོ་ལིས་ (Sikkimese marriage custom and rites). Siliguri: Amit Offset Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gundel Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Wardn (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Olbertz, Hella. 2012. Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology 16(3): 487–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Häsler, Katrin 1999. A Grammar of Tibetan Sde.dge (སྡེ་དགེ) Dialect. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.
Hill, W. Nathan. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 389–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 30(2):17–44.Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte 2002. The Lende subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan: A Grammatical Description with Historical Annotations. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.
Hyslop, Gwendylon. 2011a. A Grammar of Kurtöp. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon at Eugene.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4(1): 43–60.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendylon & Tshering, Karma. 2010. Preliminary notes on Dakpa (Tawang Monpa). In North East Indian Linguistics 21, Stephen Morey & Mark Post (eds). New Delhi: Foundation/Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 31: 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of pragmatics 331: 359–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazaudon, Martine. 2003. From discourse to grammar in Tamang: Topic, focus, intensifiers and subordination. In Language Variation: Papers on Variation and Change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in Honour of James A. Matisoff [Pacific Linguistics], David Bradley, Randy Lapolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds), 145–158. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1996. L’inférentiel du népali. In L’Énonciation médiatisée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale], Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 109–123. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar [University of California Publications in Linguistics 143]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nishiguchi, Sumiyo. 2014. Mirative past in Japanese. Semantics-Syntax Interface 1(2): 118–132. <[URL]> (2 June 2015).Google Scholar
Nguyen, Tam Thi Minh. 2013. A Grammar of Bih. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Peterson, John. 2000. Evidentials, inferentials and mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 23(2): 13–37.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2013. Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. Ms.<[URL]}> (6 May 2015)
Post, Mark William. 2007. A Grammar of Galo. PhD disseration, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sprigg, R.K. 1991. The spelling-style pronunciation of Written Tibetan, and the hazards of using citation forms in the phonological analysis of spoken Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 14(2): 93–131.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2007. Attention phenomena. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Hubert Cuyckens & Dirk Geeraerts (eds), 264–293. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S., Forrest, Linda, Ming Ming Pu & Myung Hee Kim. 2011. Discourse semantics. In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd edn, Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), 37–63. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas. (2008). Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag 1 (Beiträge zur Zentralasienforschung 12), Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds), 281–308. Saale: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
. 2010. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area [Trends in Linguistics 266], Nathan W. Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith (eds), 105–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tsichudarpo, Bhaichung. 1996[2003]. རེ་ཆེ་ (Hope). Gangtok: Kwality.Google Scholar
. 1997 [2003]. རྣམ་རྟོག་ (Superstition). Gangtok: Kwality.Google Scholar
Watters, Stephen 2007. The nature of narrative text in Dzongkha: Evidence from deixis, evidentiality, and mirativity. In Linguistics of the Himalayas and Beyond, Roland Bielmeier & Felix Haller (eds), 381–397. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2000. Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 23(2): 39–77.Google Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha. To appear. Copulas in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). In Evidentiality in Tibetic Languages, Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Yliniemi, Juha
2023. Similarity of mirative and contrastive focus: three parameters for describing attention markers. Linguistic Typology 27:1  pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Lozong Lhamo
2021. /ka-/ negative prefix of Choswateng Tibetan of Khams (Shangri-La, Yunnan). Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 22:4  pp. 593 ff. DOI logo
EVANS, NICHOLAS, HENRIK BERGQVIST & LILA SAN ROQUE
2018. The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10:1  pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2018. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138  pp. 77 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 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.