Cover not available
Article published In:
Evidentiality, Modality and Grammaticalization
Edited by Eric Mélac
[Studies in Language 48:3] 2024
► pp. 723–752

The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams

ORCID logo | Minzu University of China
ORCID logo | Kyoto University
This article argues that the evidential system of Khams Tibetan, a cluster of Tibetic languages spoken in the south-eastern Tibetosphere, should be considered a verb paradigm. We propose a paradigm with six evidential categories (egophoric, statemental, visual sensory, nonvisual sensory, sensory inferential, and logical inferential) for all the verb classes. We focus on two varieties – rGyalthang and Lhagang – and examine how these evidential categories are encoded with distinct morphemes. We then discuss the main evidential forms of the copulative and existential verbs available in Khams Tibetan varieties as a whole, as well as their morphological relationship. Our analyses lead us to argue against a differential treatment of evidentiality depending on verb categories. The article concludes that describing the evidential paradigm may be the first essential task in writing a grammar of a Tibetic language.
Keywords: Tibetic, Khams, evidential, copulative, existential, paradigm
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical frameworks and definition of the paradigm
    • 2.1Inconsistencies in previous descriptions
    • 2.2Current approach to the paradigm and framework
  • 3.Shaping a ‘paradigm’: The cases of rGyalthang and Lhagang
    • 3.1rGyalthang Tibetan
    • 3.2Lhagang Tibetan
  • 4.Discussions
    • 4.1Morphemic contrast of the main evidential forms in Khams Tibetan
    • 4.2A critique of a differential model of evidential categories depending on verb types
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23006.dro
References (81)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2018a. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b. Evidentiality: The framework. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin & Kalle Müller. 2017. Evidential adverbs in German: Diachronic development and present-day meaning. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7(1). 9–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartee, Ellen Lynn. 2007. A grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. Santa Barbara: University of California at Santa Barbara PhD dissertation.
. 2011. The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds.), Himalayan languages and linguistics: Studies in phonology, semantics, morphology and syntax, 131–182. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplow, Nancy J. 2017. Inference and deferred evidence in Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 225–257. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Causemann, Margret. 1989. Dialekt und Erzählungen der Nangchenpas. Bonn: Vereinigung für Geschichtswissenschaft Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Chang, Betty Shefts & Kun Chang. 1984. The certainty hierarchy among spoken Tibetan verbs of being. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 55(4). 603–634.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1992. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11. 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George. 1998. Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
Ebihara, Shiho. 2017. Evidentiality of the Tibetan verb snang . In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 41–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Amudo-Tibettogo bunpoo [Grammar of Amdo Tibetan]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2016. A sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University. URI: [URL]
. 2017. Egophoric evidentiality in Bodish languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 61–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Reported evidentiality in Tibeto-Burman languages. Himalayan Linguistics 20(1). 80–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawne, Lauren & Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2020. Reported speech in earthquake narratives from six Tibeto-Burman languages. Studies in Language 44(2). 461–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawne, Lauren & Nathan W. Hill (eds.). 2017. Evidential systems in Tibetan languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2008. Typological approaches to modality. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 27–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haller, Felix. 2004. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialektes aus Nord-Amdo. Bonn: Vereinigung für Geschichtswissenschaft Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Häsler, Katrin Louise. 1999. A grammar of the Tibetan Dege (Sde dge) dialect. Zürich: Selbstverlag.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 161. 389–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. ḥdug as a testimonial marker in Classical and Old Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics 12(1). 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. & Lauren Gawne. 2017. The contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of evidentiality. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 1–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 1993. Evidentials in Tibetan: A dialogic study of the interplay between form and meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University PhD dissertation.
Hoshi, Izumi. 2003. Gendai Tibettogo doosi ziten (Rasa hoogen) [Verb dictionary of Modern Tibetan (Lhasa dialect)]. Fuchu: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Koten Tibettogo bunpoo: Ootoomeikyooki (14 seiki) ni motoduite [A grammar of Classical Tibetan based on the Clear Mirror of Royal Genealogies (the 14th century)]. Fuchu: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Chenglong. 2013. Zangmianyu cunzailei dongci de gainian jiegou [Conceptual structure of existential verbs in Tibeto-Burman]. Minzu Yuwen 21. 31–48.Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte. 2005. The Tibetan dialect of Lende (Kyirong): A grammatical description with historical annotations. Bonn: Vereinigung für Geschichtswissenschaft Hochasiens Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2019. Egophoric marking and person indexation in Japhug. Language and Linguistics 20(4). 515–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalsang, Jay Garfield, Margaret Speas & Jill de Villiers. 2013. Direct evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan: evidence for a general theory of the semantics of evidential. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(2). 517–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med & sKal-bzang dByangs-can. 2002. Zangyu fangyan gailun [An introduction to Tibetan dialects]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Matsubara, Julie. 2017. The semantics and pragmatics of the Japanese evidentials -rashii, -sooda, and -yooda: An experimental investigation. Evanston: Northwestern University doctoral dissertation.
Mélac, Éric. 2014. L’évidentialité en anglais – approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus anglais-tibétain. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation. URI: [URL]
. 2023. The pragmatic differences between grammatical and lexical evidentiality: A corpus-based study of Tibetan and English. Journal of Pragmatics 2101. 143–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mélac, Éric & Joanna Bialek. Forthcoming. Evidentiality as a grammaticalization passenger: An investigation of evidential developments in Tibetic languages and beyond. Studies in Language.
de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, René. 1956. Oracles and demons of Tibet: The cult and iconography of the Tibetan protective deities. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Oisel, Guillaume. 2013. Morphosyntaxe et sémantique des auxiliaires et des connecteurs du tibétain littéraire : étude diachronique et synchronique. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation. URI: [URL]
. 2017. Re-evaluation of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan Linguistics 16(2). 90–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roche, Gerald & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2018. Tibet’s minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern Asian Studies 52(4). 1227–1278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Somolinos, Amalia. 2017. From visual perception to inference in the French evidential markers il m’est avis que, apparemment, and il paraît que. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7(1). 111–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shao, Mingyuan. 2014. Anduo Zangyu Arouhua de shizheng fanchou [Evidential system of the Arig dialect of Amdo Tibetan]. Tianjin: Nankai University PhD dissertation.
. 2016a. Cong quxiang dongci dao shizheng biaoji: Zangyuzu yuyan shizheng biaoji thal de yufahua [From a direction verb to an evidential marker: Grammaticalisation of thal, an evidential marker in Tibetic languages]. Zangxue Xuekan 141. 226–249.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Zangyuzu xidongci red de yufahua [The grammaticalisation of the copula verb red in Tibetic languages]. Language and Linguistics 17(5). 679–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Hexi Zoulang binwei Zangyu Dongnahua yanjiu [Study on the mDungnag dialect, an endangered Tibetan language in Hexi Corridor]. Guangzhou: Zhongshan Daxue Chubanshe.Google Scholar
. 2019. Guzangwen de xidongci [The copula verbs in Old Tibetan]. Language and Linguistics 20(3). 417–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 631. 944–1001.Google Scholar
Sun, Kai. 2019. Yushu Zangyu fangyan (Labuhua) yanjiu [Study on Yulshul Tibetan (Lab variety)]. Tianjin: Nankai Daxue Doctoral dissertation.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011. Dialectal particularities of Sogpho Tibetan: An introduction to the “Twenty-four villages’ patois”. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds.), Himalayan languages and linguistics: Studies in phonology, semantics, morphology and syntax, 55–73. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Multiple usages of the verb snang in Gagatang Tibetan (Weixi, Yunnan). Himalayan Linguistics 11(1). 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The evidential system of Zhollam Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 423–444. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Geolinguistics in the eastern Tibetosphere: An introduction. Tokyo: Geolinguistic Society of Japan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. forthcoming. Functional transition from ‘hear’ to nonvisual sensory and hearsay evidential categories: A case study of rGyalthang Tibetan.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Lozong Lhamo. 2021. /ka-/ negative prefix in Choswateng Tibetan (Shangri-La, Yunnan). Language and Linguistics 22(4). 593–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2017a. Language evolution and vitality of Lhagang Tibetan: A Tibetic language as a minority in Minyag Rabgang. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2451. 63–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. King’s pig: A story in Lhagang Tibetan with a grammatical analysis in a narrative mode. Himalayan Linguistics 16(2). 129–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Kamutibettogo Tagong [Lhagang] hoogen no zyutubu ni hyoozi sareru syookosei [Evidentiality marked in predicates of the Lhagang dialect of Khams Tibetan]. Journal of Kijutsuken 101. 13–42. URI: [URL]
. 2021. Hearsay evidential marking strategy in Lhagang Tibetan: A case study on folktales and legends. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 44(2). 141–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki, Sonam Wangmo & Tsering Samdrup. 2021. A contrastive approach to the evidential system in Tibetic languages: Examining five varieties from Khams and Amdo. Gengo Kenkyu 1591. 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Tashi Nyima. 2021. Evidential system of copulative and existential verbs in Lamo. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Takumi Ikeda (eds.), Grammatical phenomena of Sino-Tibetan languages 4: Link languages and their archetypes in Tibeto-Burman, 259–287. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University. URI: [URL]
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito. 2015. The function of auxiliary verbs in Tibetan predicates and their historical development. Revue d’études tibétaines 311. 401–415. Available at: [URL] (last access 27 October 2023)
. 2021. History of the Tibetan language. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Takumi Ikeda (eds.), Grammatical phenomena of Sino-Tibetan languages 4: Link languages and archetypes in Tibeto-Burman, 303–323. Kyoto: Research Institute for Humanities, Kyoto University. URI: [URL]
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct/disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281–308. Bonn: Wissenschaftsverlag.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, 105–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Konchok Jiatso. 2001. Final auxiliary verbs in Literary Tibetan and Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1). 49–111. 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
Tournadre, Nicolas, Françoise Robin, Camille Simon, Chabdra Lhamo Kyab, Nyima Dorjee, Bora Sherab, Sonam Gyaltsen & Thubten Rigzin. 2018. EESTAC questionnaire (rGyab-ljongs-dang gnas-stangs-kyi brda-sprod/ Bho-Ti’i skad-rigs nang gnas-tshul-gyi khungs-dang go-ba len-thabs/ The-tshom bcas ston-pa’i tshig-grogs). Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje. 2003. Manuel de tibétain standard: langue et civilisation. 2nd edn. Paris: L’Asiathèque.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2023. The Tibetic languages: An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan. Villejuif: LACITO Publications. DOI logo
Tshe-ring gYang-sgron (Cilinyangzhen). 2021. Dongwang Zangyu cankao yufa [A reference grammar of gTorwarong Tibetan]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue PhD dissertation.
Tshe-skyid dBang-mo (Caijiwenmao). 2020. Zangyu Kangfangyan Chengduohua de shizheng fanchou [Evidential category in Chengduo variety of Khams Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen 11. 27–37. Available at: [URL] (last access 27 October 2023)
Vokurková, Zuzana. 2008. Epistemic modalities in Spoken Standard Tibetan. Praha / Paris: Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Karlovy – Université Paris 8 PhD dissertation. URI: [URL]
Yliniemi, Juha. 2019. A descriptive grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). Helsinki: Helsingin Yliopisto PhD thesis. URI: [URL]
Zeisler, Bettina. 2004. Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself! Evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi (extended version). Himalayan Linguistics 17(1). 67–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in the Tibetic languages. In Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.). Evidence for evidentiality, 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zemp, Marius. 2018. A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Yang & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2022. Evidentiality in Selibu: A contact-induced emergence. Diachronica 39(2). 268–309. With an online appendix, 46 pp. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Mélac, Eric
2024. The links between evidentiality, modality, and grammaticalization. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 513 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Hiroyuki
2023. Geolinguistic approach to migration history in the south-eastern edge of the Tibetosphere. Asian Languages and Linguistics 4:2 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Hiroyuki
2024. Functional transition from hear to nonvisual sensory and hearsay evidential categories. Functions of Language 31:1 ► pp. 63 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.