Attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia)
Juha Yliniemi | University of Helsinki, Sikkim University
This paper describes the attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke, a Tibetic language spoken in Sikkim, India. The presence of the attention marker, which may be either speaker or addressee-oriented, indicates that something is brought to the forefront of the speaker’s or the addressee’s attention. The attention marker =ɕo occurs in declarative uses postposed to a verb, and in interrogative uses postposed to other parts of speech (verbless uses). The attention in verbal uses, which resemble the notion “mirativity”, is either speaker or addressee-oriented, whereas verbless uses, which resemble the notion “contrastive focus”, are always addressee-oriented. When occurring with copulas, the function of =ɕo as either speaker or addressee-oriented is partly dependent on the evidentiality of the copulas. With other verbs, the orientation of =ɕo is dependent on other contextual factors. After describing the verbal and verbless uses of =ɕo, the article concludes by showing why the categories focus and mirativity are problematic for describing =ɕo. Existing definitions of mirativity by DeLancey (1997), Peterson (2013), Dickinson (2000), Hyslop (2011b), Hengeveld & Olbertz (2012) and Aikhenvald (2012) are shown to fail to accommodate the range of uses of =ɕo. The concept of attention, on the other hand, not only describes the Denjongke data more comprehensively but also helps understand the interface between mirative-like and focus-like phenomena. The last section illustrates the similarity of =ɕo to exclusively addressee-oriented morphemes in Nepali, Japanese (Davis 2011) and Ingush (Nichols 2011), suggesting that the concept of attention may prove useful for describing exclusively addressee-oriented phenomena, which have rarely been associated with “mirativity”.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 435–485.
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.
Bhutia, Karma Lobsang. 2013. རྣ་གསུང་ དང་ གཏམ་བཤད་ (Sikkimese Bhutia oral stories and moral dialects). Gangtok: Bhutia Kayrab Yargay Tsogpo.
Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. LTBA 23(2):79–125.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Crystal, David. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
DeLancey, Scott. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistics Typology 16(3): 529–564.
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Dokhangba, Sonam Gyatso. 2001. སྦར་ཕུང་ ལིང་དམ་ འགྲོ་ལིས་ (Sikkimese marriage custom and rites). Siliguri: Amit Offset Press.
Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Gundel Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Wardn (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687.
Hengeveld, Kees & Olbertz, Hella. 2012. Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist!Linguistic Typology 16(3): 487–503.
Häsler, Katrin1999. 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.
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 30(2):17–44.
Huber, Brigitte2002. 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.
Hyslop, Gwendylon. 2011b. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4(1): 43–60.
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.
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of pragmatics 331: 359–367.
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.
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1996. L’inférentiel du népali. In L’Énonciation médiatisée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale], Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 109–123. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar [University of California Publications in Linguistics 143]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Nishiguchi, Sumiyo. 2014. Mirative past in Japanese. Semantics-Syntax Interface 1(2): 118–132. <[URL]> (2 June 2015).
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.
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.
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
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.
Talmy, Leonard. 2007. Attention phenomena. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Hubert Cuyckens & Dirk Geeraerts (eds), 264–293. Oxford: OUP.
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.
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.
Tournadre, Nicholas. 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.
Watters, Stephen2007. 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.
Zeisler, Bettina. 2000. Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 23(2): 39–77.
Yliniemi, Juha. To appear. Copulas in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). In Evidentiality in Tibetic Languages, Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
EVANS, NICHOLAS, HENRIK BERGQVIST & LILA SAN ROQUE
2018. The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10:1 ► pp. 141 ff.
Ozerov, Pavel
2018. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138 ► pp. 77 ff.
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.