Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:1 (2020) ► pp.132–164

Grammaticalized sources of Kurtöp verbal morphology

On the development of mirativity versus egophoricity in the Himalayas

ORCID logo | The University of Sydney

Kurtöp (Tibeto-Burman; Bhutan) has a rich set of finite verbal suffixes which encode evidentiality, mirativity, and egophoricity. This article examines the origins of these suffixes in a typological context, showing how many of them have developed via recent grammaticalizations. Synchronic processes of nominalization and clause-chaining have provided the ideal syntactic contexts for these grammaticalizations to take place. Many of the grammaticalization pathways found here are shown to be typologically common, such as ‘give’ becoming an applicative. We find one suffix, the egophoric, which is an obvious borrowing. Based on the data presented here, this article puts forth the tentative hypothesis that due to principles of iconicity, miratives will tend to be recent grammaticalizations. Similarly, the fact that the Kurtöp egophoric has been borrowed is also, arguably, iconic.

Keywords: grammaticalization, clause-chaining, nominalization, Kurtöp, Tibeto-Burman, mirativity, egophoricity, iconicity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Grammaticalization overview
    • 2.2Mirativity and egophoricity
  • 3.Kurtöp
    • 3.1Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp
    • 3.2Kurtöp synchronic verbal morphology
    • 3.3Clause-chaining/verb serialization
      • 3.3.1Lexical final verb
      • 3.3.2Auxiliary final verb
    • 3.4Nominalization
  • 4.Auxiliarization
    • 4.1Mirative imperfective -ta
    • 4.2Mirative perfective -na
    • 4.3Hortative -ki
    • 4.4Applicative bi
  • 5.Nominalization
    • 5.1Nominalizer + copula
    • 5.2Nominalizer + verb ra ‘to come’
  • 6.Borrowing
  • 7.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 6 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17044.hys
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2012 The essence of mirativity. Linguistics Typology 161: 435–485.Google Scholar
2014 The grammar of knowledge: a cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2018 The Oxford handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra and Robert M. W. Dixon
(eds) 2006 Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory
2006 Auxiliary Verb Constructions. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andvik, Erik
2010 A Grammar of Tshangla. Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronson, Howard
1967 The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporary bulgarian literary language. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, 11:82–98. Janua Linguarum. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bashir, Elena
2010 Traces of mirativity in Shina. Himalayan Linguistics 9 (2): 1–55.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
1999 Nominalization and focus in some Kiranti languages. In Yogendra Yadava and Warren Glover, (eds.), Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, 271–296. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
1995 Relatives à antécédent interne, nominalisation et focalisation: entre syntax et morphologie en Bélharien. Bulletin de La Société de Linguistique de Paris XC (1): 391–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 review article: converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 2 (3): 381–97.Google Scholar
Bosch, André
2016 Language contact in Upper Mangdep: a comparative grammar of verbal constructions. Sydney: University of Sydney Honours Thesis.Google Scholar
Busch, John M.
2007 Verbal nominalization in Kurtoep. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon MA Thesis.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana, and Gwendolyn Hyslop
2011 Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in tibeto-burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34 (2): 1–7.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy
2000 Why ‘first/non-first’ person is not grammaticalised mirativity. In Keith Allan & John Henderson (eds.), Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 conference of the Australian Linguistic SocietyGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1990 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1.3:289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 The origin of verb serialization in Modern Tibetan. Studies in Language 151: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Relativization in Tibetan. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover, (eds.) Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, 231–49. Kamaldi, Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
2002 Nominalization and relativization in Bodic. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Parasession on Tibeto-Burman languages and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
2011a ‘Optional’ ‘ergativity’ in Tibeto-Burman Languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34 (2): 9–20.Google Scholar
2011b 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 perspectivesxs, Sino-Tibetan and Iranian languages: 343–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 161: 529–564.Google Scholar
Denning, Keith
1987 Obligation and space: the origins of markers of the obligative modality. Chicago Linguistic Society 231: 45–55.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Connie
2000 Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24 (2): 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Cathryn, & Mark Donohue
2016 On Ergativity in Bumthang. Language 92 (1): 179–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van
2015 Synoptic grammar of the Bumthang language. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 61: 1–77.Google Scholar
1998 Dzongkha. Leiden: Research CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe, & Lila San Roque
(eds.) 2018 Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor
1977 The grammatical categories of the Mecedonian indicative. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
1986 Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 168–187. Advances in Discourse Processes 20. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol
1992 Semantic and grammatical categories of relative-clause morphology in the languages of Nepal. Studies in Language 29 (1): 35–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol, Alexander R. Coupe, Ellen Bartee, Kristine Hildebrandt, & You-Jing Lin
2008 Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan Area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31 (2): 97–143.Google Scholar
Grunow-Harsta, Karen
2007 Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30 (2): 151–194.Google Scholar
Guion, Susan G.
1998 The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica 55(1–2). 18–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer
1991 Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2004 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan
2012 “Mirativity” does not exist: “Lhasa” ḥdug and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 161: 289–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hongladarom, Krisadawan
2007 Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30 (2): 17–44.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn
2010 Kurtöp Case: The pragmatic ergative and beyond. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 33 (1): 1–40.Google Scholar
2011 Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4 (1): 43–60.Google Scholar
2013 The Kurtöp clause-chaining construction: Converbs, clause chains, and verb serialization. In Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey (Typological Studies in Language 103). 155–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014a A preliminary reconstruction of East Bodish. In Nathan Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith, Trans-Himalayan Linguistics 155–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2014b On the category of speaker expectation of interlocutor knowledge in Kurtöp. Proceedings from the 40th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 201–214. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
2014c The grammar of knowledge in Kurtöp: evidentiality, mirativity, and expectation of knowledge. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 A grammar of Kurtöp. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 18). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 On egophoricity and mirativity in Kurtöp. In, Elisabeth Norcliffe, Simeon Floyd, & Lila San Roque, Egophoricity, 109–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn, and Karma Tshering
2017 An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 352–365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1995 Thoughts on grammaticalization. Revised and expanded version, 1. publ. edn. (LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1). München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James
1972 Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 1, 237–57. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
2003 Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: system and philosophy of reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. & Stephen Wurm
1979 Basic materials in Waŋkumara (Galal̪i): Grammar, sentences, and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael
1997 Versatile nominalizations. In John Haiman, Joan Bybee, & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 373–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Post, Mark W.
2013 Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. In Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey (Typological Studies in Language 103). 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poudel, Kedar P.
2006 Dhankute Tamang Grammar. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Sandman, Erika
2018 Egophoricity in Wutun. In Elisabeth Norcliffe, Simeon Floyd & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 173–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shimada, Masaharu, & Akiko Nagano
2017 Mirative in Japanese: the rise of mirative markers via grammaticalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7(1–2): 213–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T. S.
1993 Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63 (4): 945–1001.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas
2008 “Against the Concept of ‘Conjunct’/‘Disjunct’ in Tibetan.” In Chomolangma, Demawend Und Kasbek, Festschrift Für Roland Bielmeier, edited by Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer, and Peter Schwieger, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH.Google Scholar
Watters, David
2002 A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widmer, Manuel
2017 The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas: the case of Bunan. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(1–2): 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar