Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:2 (2020) ► pp.461–499

Reported speech in earthquake narratives from six Tibeto-Burman languages

ORCID logo | La Trobe University
| Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
This paper is an analysis of the use of reported speech in six Tibeto-Burman languages from two closely-related sub-branches (Tamangic and Tibetic). The data come from a set of interview narratives about people’s experiences of the 2015 earthquakes in Nepal. The analysis begins with an examination of the relationship between reported speech, overt subjects and ergativity. We also look at reported speech and evidentiality, including grammatical reported speech evidentials. Structural features discussed include hybrid reported speech and multiple clause relationality. Interactional features discussed include the use of deictic shift, prominent subordination, and the multiple functions of reported speech forms, as well as zero-marked reported speech events. This analysis highlights the benefits of studying linguistic features such as reported speech in narrative context. We conclude with the implications of this usage-based analysis in the coverage of reported speech in descriptive grammars.
Keywords: reported speech, grammar, syntax, pragmatics, evidentiality, Tibeto-Burman
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Corpora and methods
  • 4.Overt subjects, ergativity, and the relevance to reported speech in Tibeto-Burman languages
  • 5.Structural features of reported speech
    • 5.1Reported speech as part of the evidential system
      • 5.1.1Reported evidential particle
      • 5.1.2Reported speech, evidence, access to information
      • 5.1.3Evidential and modal effects of lexical reported speech
    • 5.2Hybrid reported speech
    • 5.3Multiple clause relationality
    • 5.4Structural features of reported speech: A summary
  • 6.Pragmatic and interactional features of reported speech
    • 6.1Deictic shift
    • 6.2Prominent information
    • 6.3Polyfunctionality
      • 6.3.1Semantic functions
      • 6.3.2Grammatical functions
      • 6.3.3Summary of polyfunctionality
    • 6.4Zero-marked reported speech
    • 6.5Pragmatic and interactional features of reported speech: A summary
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18028.gaw
References (88)
References
Adhikari, Sujan Raj, Gopi Baysal, Amod Dixit, Stacey S. Martin, Mattieu Landes, Remy Bossu, & Susan E. Hough. 2017. Toward a unified near-field intensity map of the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 33(S1). S21–S34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2018. Evidentiality: The Basics. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 1–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. 2004. Grammar and cultural practices: The grammaticalization of triadic communication in West African languages. Journal of West African Languages 30(2). 5–28.Google Scholar
Banfield, Anne. 1973. Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language 10(1). 1–39.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79(4). 708–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Bernard Comrie & Martin Haspelmath. 2008. The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme by morpheme glosses. [URL] (Last access: 6 February 2020)
Bond, Oliver, Kristine Hildebrandt & Dubi N. Dhakal. 2015. Conditions on differential ergative case marking. Poster presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Portland, OR, January 8–11, 2015.
Bond, Oliver & Kristine Hildebrandt. 2013. Optional ergative case marking: what can be expressed by its absence? Paper presented at the 10th biennial Meeting of Association for Linguistic Typology, Leipzig, August 15–18, 2013.
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2014. Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chappel, Hilary. 2012. Say in Sinitic: from Verba Dicendi to attitudinal discourse markers. In Johan van der Auwera & Jan Nuyts (eds.), Grammaticalization and (inter-)subjectification, 81–110. Wetteren: Universa Press.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana & 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
Childs, Geoff, Sienna Craig, Duni Nanda Dhakal, Mark Donohue & Kristine Hildebrandt. 2017. Narrating disaster through participatory research: Perspectives from post-earthquake Nepal. Collaborative Anthropologies 10(1). 207-236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2015. Quotation and advances in understanding syntactic systems. Annual Review of Linguistics 1(1). 43–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1991. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 289–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 28(2). 55–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2011. The grammaticalization of quotatives. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 646–655. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dhakal, Dubi Nanda. 2018. A Nubri lexicon. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Ding, Picus. 2014. A grammar of Prinmi. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Dubi Nanda Dhakal. 2016. A Tsum lexicon. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, Regine. 2012. Particles as speaker indexicals in free indirect discourse. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 35–361. 99–109.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2012. Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque. 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of. California Los Angeles PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren (collector). 2009. Kagate (Nepal) (SUY1). Digital collection managed by PARADISEC [Open Access]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Lamjung Yolmo copulas in use: evidentiality, reported speech and questions. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2015. The reported speech evidential particle in Lamjung Yolmo. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 38(2). 292–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. A sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Reported speech evidentiality in Tibeto-Burman languages. Paper presented at the Workshop on Typological Profiles of Language Families of South Asia. Uppsala: September 15–16, 2016.
Gawne, Lauren, Barbara F. Kelly, Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker & Tyler Heston. 2017. Putting practice into words: The state of data and methods transparency in grammatical descriptions. Language Documentation & Conservation 111: 157–189.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren & Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2017. Reported speech evidentiality in corpora of earthquake narratives in Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal. Paper presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology 12, Canberra, December 11–15, 2017.
Gawne, Lauren. & Nathan W. Hill (eds.). 2017. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Berlin/Boston: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2005. The participial construction of Dolakhā Newar: syntactic implications of an Asian converb. Studies in Language 29(1). 35–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The tapestry of Dolakha Newar: Chaining, embedding, and the complexity of sentences. Linguistic Typology 15(1): 5–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hari, Anna Maria. 2010. Yohlmo Sketch Grammar. Kathmandu: Ekta books.Google Scholar
Haßler, Gerda. 2002. Evidentiality and reported speech in Romance languages. In: Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, 143–172. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 251. 127–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 1–192. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. & Oliver Bond. 2017. Manange. In Randy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edn), 516–533. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A., Tanner Burge-Beckley, & Jacob Sebok. 2019. Language documentation in the aftermath of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes: A guide to two archives and a web exhibit. Language Documentation & Conservation 131. 618–651.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2012. Genre and discourse analysis in language for specific purposes. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2016. Complementation in Japhug. Linguistics of the Tibeto Burman Area 39(2). 222–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. “Ergative” marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Lausberg, Hedda & Hans Sloetjes. 2009. Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 41(3). 841–849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. 1986. Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 29–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maier, Emar. 2015. Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind & Language 30(3). 345–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mathis, Terrie & George Yule. 1994. Zero quotatives. Discourse Processes 18(1). 63–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazaudon, Martine. 2017. Tamang. In Randy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edn), 468–493. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1994. The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi. Australian Journal of Linguistics 14(1). 63–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2008. Complementation as interpersonal grammar. WORD 59(1–2). 25–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 1201. 1610–1636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michael, Lev. 2012. Nanti self-quotation: Implications for the pragmatics of reported speech and evidentiality. Pragmatics and Society 3(2). 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012. Personal deixis and reported discourse: towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology. 16(2). 233–263.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2006. Grammar writing for a grammar-reading audience. Studies in Language 30(2). 351–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Nominalization in Bodic languages. In María José Lópes-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives, 219–273. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael & Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2017. Nar-Phu. In Randy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edn), 534–556. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Owen-Smith, Thomas. 2014. Grammatical relations in Tamang, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. London: SOAS PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Prakash, Rajesh, Ravi Kant Singh & H. N. Srivastava. 2016. Nepal earthquake 25 April 2015: source parameters, precursory pattern and hazard assessment. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 7(6). 1769–1784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reesink, Ger P. 1993. “Inner speech” in Papuan languages. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 241. 217–25.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan. 1982. An intra-sentence grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2010. ‘Optional’ ergativity and the framing of reported speech. Lingua 120(7). 1652–1676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Robin Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 161. 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saxena, Anju. 1988. On syntactic convergence: the case of the verb “say” in Tibeto-Burman. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1988), 375–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
SIL International & HIS Nepal (eds.). 2016. Syuba – Nepali – English dictionary. Kathmandu: SIL International and HIS Nepal.Google Scholar
So-Hartmann, Helga. 2009. A descriptive grammar of Daai Chin. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef. 2016. Evidential fictive interaction (in Ungarinyin and Russian). In Esther Pascual & Sergeiy Sandler (eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction, 255–275. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Defenestration: Deconstructing the frame-in relation in Ungarinyin. Journal of Pragmatics 1141. 104–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1996. L’Ergativite en tibetain: approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlee. Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier, 281–308. Saale: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics, historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 105–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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/Boston: 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
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2004. Deixis and grounding in speech and thought representation. Journal of Pragmatics 36(3). 489–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2011. The functions of represented speech and thought in Umpithamu narratives. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31(4). 491–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voort, Hein van der. 2002. The quotative construction in Kwaza and its (de-) grammaticalisation. In Mily Crevels, Simon van de Kerke, Sérgio Meira & Hein van der Voort (eds.), Current studies on South American languages. Indigenous languages of Latin America 31, 307–328. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS).Google Scholar
Webster, Jeff. 1992. A socio-linguistic survey of the Tibeto-Burman dialects of North Gorkha District, Nepal. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2014. A descriptive grammar of Bunan. Bern: University of Bern PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. ‘A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality.’ Studies in Language 121. 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zemp, Marius. 2017. Evidentiality in Purik Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 261–296. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Drolma, Dawa & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2024. The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 723 ff. DOI logo
Mori, Miki
2023. Storytelling, language, and the earthquake swarm of May 2018: Insights into Shimaore and Kibushi from narrative analysis. Comptes Rendus. Géoscience 354:S2 ► pp. 417 ff. DOI logo
Chelliah, Shobhana L.
2021. Reasons for Endangerment. In Why Language Documentation Matters [SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, ], ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo
2021. Hearsay evidential marking strategy in Lhagang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 44:2 ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 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.