Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 1–78

Chapter 1
Egophoricity

An introduction

| Radboud University | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
| Universidad San Francisco de Quito | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
| Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1If you are me, who am I?
    • 1.2Terminology
    • 1.3Core characteristics of egophoric marking
  • 2.Variation in morphosyntactic expression
    • 2.1Formal expression
    • 2.2Interaction with other categories
      • Volition
      • Tense and aspect
      • Number and animacy
      • Other relevant categories
  • 3.Variation in person sensitivity and shiftability
    • 3.1Argument types and semantic roles
    • 3.2Variation in default distribution
    • 3.3Flexibility and extended meanings
      • Expressing intentionality
      • Certainty, assertiveness, and factuality
      • Peripheral involvement
      • How to be mean with egophoric markers: Further pragmatic and rhetorical effects
    • 3.4Shiftability
  • 4.Areas and families
    • 4.1Tibeto-Burman
    • 4.2Western China
    • 4.3Caucasus
    • 4.4South America
    • 4.5New Guinea
    • 4.6Elsewhere
  • 5.The diachrony of egophoricity
    • 5.1Lexical sources
    • 5.2Copulas/auxiliaries
    • 5.3Tense/aspect
    • 5.4Nominalisers
    • 5.5Non-mirative/mirative contrasts
    • 5.6Unmarked/marked evidential contrasts
    • 5.7Pronouns and agreement markers
    • 5.8Articles
  • 6.Approaches to egophoricity
    • 6.1Person reference
    • 6.2Evidentiality
    • 6.3Mirativity
    • 6.4Logophoricity
  • 7.Closing remarks: A broader view of egophoricity
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.01san
References (154)
References
Agha, Asif. 1993. Structural Form and Utterance Context in Lhasa Tibetan. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language Sciences 30(4): 383–422. DOI logo.Google Scholar
2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcázar, Asier & Saltarelli, Mario. 2014. The Syntax of Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Brown, Dunstan. 2013. Syncretism in verbal person/number marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (21 April 2016).
Barnes, Janet. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 50(3): 255–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartee, Ellen Lynn. 2007. A Grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. <[URL]> (20 April 2016).
Belyaev, Oleg. 2013. Optimal agreement at m-structure: Person in Dargwa. In Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds). <[URL]> (21 April 2016).
Bendix, Edward H. 1974. Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman contact as seen through Nepali and Newari verb tenses. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 3(1): 42–59.Google Scholar
1992. The grammaticalization of responsibility and evidence: Interactional manipulation of evidential categories in Newari. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, Jane H. Hill & Judith T. Irvine (eds), 226–247. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. Introduction: Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23: 1–37.Google Scholar
. 2001a. Die Kategorie der Person in den Sprachen der Welt. Handout of talk given at the University of Zurich, 11 May.Google Scholar
. 2001b. On the syntax of agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Language 24(3): 583–610. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2008. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 2 Vols, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 1–14. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatial Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birchall, Joshua. 2014. Argument Marking Patterns in South American Languages. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. <[URL]> (21 April 2016). DOI logo
Bond, Oliver. 2006. A broader perspective on point of view: Logophoricity in Ogonoid languages. In Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. African Languages and Linguistics in Broad Perspectives, John Mugane, John P. Hutchison & Dee A. Worman (eds). Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. <[URL]> (18 April 2016).
Brugman, Claudia M. & Macaulay, Monica. 2015. Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology 19(2): 201–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruil, Martine. 2015. When evidentials are not evidentials: The case of the Ecuadorian Siona reportative. Linguistic Typology 19(3): 385–423. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William & Perkins, Revere D. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday [Typological Studies in Language 20], William A. Croft, Suzanne Kemmer & Keith Denning (eds),1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, William, Milic, Louis T. & Greppin, John A.C. (eds). 1984. Interrogativity: A Colloquium on the Grammar, Typology and Pragmatics of Questions in Seven Diverse Languages, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5th 1981-May 3rd 1982. [Typological Studies in Language 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chun, Soon Ae & Zubin, David A. 1990. Experiential vs. agentive constructions in Korean narrative. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 16: 81–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.Google Scholar
Clynes, Adrian. 1995. Topics in the Phonology and Morphosyntax of Balinese: Based on the Dialect of Singaraja, North Bali. PhD dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach in typology. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds), 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. STUF-Language Typology and Universals 61(4): 309–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Language documentation and verb inflection typology: The case of Northern Akhvakh (Nakh-Daghestanian). Paper presented at Chronos 9, Paris.
. 2010. Person deixis in Northern Akhvakh reported speech. Paper presented at Workshop on Reported Speech in East Caucasian Languages, Lyon, September 22.
Culy, Christopher. 1994. Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32(6): 1055–1094. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 35(5): 845–860. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 1997. A Grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An Indigenous Language of South-western Colombia. PhD dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
. 2000. Why ‘first/non-first person’ is not grammaticalized mirativity. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Keith Allan & John Henderson (eds). <[URL]>
. 2002a. Three types of verbal logophoricity in African languages. Studies in African Linguistics 31(1–2): 1–26.Google Scholar
. 2002b. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3): 611–627. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2002c. Types of interaction between evidentials and first-person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics 44(2): 178–196.Google Scholar
. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27(1): 39–59. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. What it means to be rare: The variability of person marking. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds), 235–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The expression of person and number: A typologist’s perspective. Morphology 21(2): 419–443. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2001. Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 7(1): 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 118(2): 141–150. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2011. Corpus of American Soap Operas: 100 million words. Available online at [URL].
DeLancey, Scott. Forthcoming. Evidentiality in Tibetic. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 289–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25: 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1): 33–52. DOI logo.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369–382. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 529–564.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan [London Oriental and African Language Library 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–422. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Mathew. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and Basic Linguistic Theory. In Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds), 207–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. <
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
>
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds). 2013. WALS Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (27 June 2016).
Egerod, Søren. 1974. Further notes on Akha sentence particles. Paper presented at the Sino-Tibetan Conference 7 , Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Egerod, Søren & Hansson, Inga-Lill. 1976. Aspects of Akha grammar. Lampang Reports 5: 230–243. Copenhagen: Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1997. Grammaticizing the knower: Towards a partial typology of person effects on predicates. Handout from plenary presentation at the Third Australian Linguistics Institute, ANU.Google Scholar
. 2006. View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(1): 93–120. <[URL]> (1 August 2013).
Forker, Diana. In press. Evidentiality in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. nd. The semantics of evidentiality and epistemic modality in Avar.
Garrett, Edward John. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2013. Lamjung Yolmo Copulas in Use: Evidentiality, Reported Speech and Questions. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne. <[URL]>
Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds). 2017. Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1990. A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Dolakha Newari Dialect. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol, Applebaum, Ayla, Balodis, Bird, Christy, Rosenblum, Daisy, Suzuki, Ryoko & Walker, Alex. 2009. An Introduction to Dzala: An East-Bodish language of eastern Bhutan. Paper presented at the 15th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Eugene OR, July 31.
Giles, Glenda. nd.. A guide to the pronunciation of Duna and Duna language lessons.
Gossner, Jan D. 1994. Aspects of Edolo Grammar. MA thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69(1): 287–310.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics 7: 95–106.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin & Shrestha, Kedār P. 2006. Newār (Nepal Bhāsā). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin & Watters, David E. 1973. A survey of clause patterns. In Clause, Sentence, and Discourse Patterns in Selected Languages of Nepal, Part II, Austin Hale & David E. Watters (eds), 175–249. Kathmandu: SIL and Tribhuvan University Press. <[URL]>.
Hansson, Inga-Lill. 2003. Akha. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 236–252. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 1991. The conceptual structure of intentional action: Data from Kathmandu Newari. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17(1): 379–389. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1–48.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko & Hirose, Yukio. 2005. What the Japanese language tells us about the alleged Japanese relational self. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(2): 219–251. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Häsler, Katrin. 2001. An empathy-based approach to the description of the verb system of the Dege dialect of Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1): 1–34.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. & Gilligan, Gary. 1988. Prefixing and suffixing universals in relation to basic word order. Lingua 74(2–3): 219–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heineman, Paul. 1998. A Grammar of Lembena. Arlington TX: SIL. <[URL]> (19 April 2016).
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2012. ‘Mirativity’ does not exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 389–433. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte. 2005. The Tibetan Dialect of Lende (Kyirong): A Grammatical Description with Historical Annotations. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 3(1): 19–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irvine, Judith T. 1996. Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In Natural Histories of Discourse, Michael Silverstein & Greg Urban (eds). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillame. Under review. Evidentiality in Japhug.
Janhunen, Juha A. 2007. Typological interaction in the Qinghai linguistic complex. Studia Orientalia Electronica 101: 85–102.Google Scholar
2012. On the hierarchy of structural convergence in the Amdo Sprachbund. In Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations: A Crosslinguistic Typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 126], Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie & Valery Solovyev (eds), 177–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of Information [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 48]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knuchel, Dominique. 2015. A Comparative Study of Egophoric Marking: Investigating its Relation to Person and Epistemic Marking in Three Language Families. MA dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Labov, William & Fanshel, David. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lang, Adrianne. 1973. Enga Dictionary with English Index. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 643–686. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2010. Speech-act participants in modality. <[URL]>
Loughnane, Robyn. 2005. Reported speech constructions in Golin. In Materials on Golin: Grammar, Texts and Dictionary, Nicholas Evans, Hywel Stoakes, Alan Lee & Jutta Besold (eds), 131–152. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
. 2009. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne. <[URL]>
Lum, Jonathon. 2016. A conjunct-disjunct analysis of Dhivehi verbal morphology. Paper presented at The Symposium on Evidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement, University of Stockholm.
Magometov, Aleksandr A. 1982. Megebskij dijalekt darginskogo jazyka. Tblisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
McCready, Eric. 2007. Context shifting in questions and elsewhere. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Estella Puig-Wladmüller (ed.) 433–447. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
McLendon, Sally. 2003. Evidentials in Eastern Pomo with a comparative survey of the category in other Pomoan languages. In Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Amy. 2001. A Grammar of Jamul Tipay. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, Neele. 2013. Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality Marking in South American Indigenous Languages. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah E. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University. <[URL]>
Nariyama, Shigeko. 2003. Ellipsis and Reference Tracking in Japanese [Studies in Language Companion Series 66]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012. Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology 16: 233–263.Google Scholar
Oisel, Guillaume. 2014. From motion verbs to evidentiality in Tibetan. Paper presented at the 24th Meeting of Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. <[URL]>
Oswalt, Robert L. 1986. The evidential system of Kashaya. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 29–45. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Harvey. 1984. Wintu Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans (ed.). 2007. Linguistic Typology 11(1). (Special Issue).Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir. 2010. Types of verbal evidentiality marking: An overview. In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anne. 1980. Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4): 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2013. Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivations. In Functional and Historical Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey [Typological Studies in Language 103], Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds), 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regmi, Dan Raj. 2013. Khwopa Newar: A Grammar Sketch. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
de Ruiter, Jan P.(ed.) 2012. Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rule, W. Murray. 1977. A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli, and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan. Forthcoming. Egophoricity, engagement, and the centring of intersubjectivity.
Sadock, Jerrold M. & Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila. 2008. An Introduction to Duna Grammar. PhD dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Floyd, Simeon & Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua186–187: 120–143. DOI logo.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Loughnane, Robyn. 2012a. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1): 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Inheritance, contact and change in the New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia: Special Issue 2012(Part II): 397–427.Google Scholar
Sandman, Erika & Simon, Camille. 2016. Tibetan as a ‘model language’ in the Amdo Sprachbund: Evidence from Salar and Wutun. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 3(1): 85–122. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva & Faller, Martina. 2015. Inclusive pronouns as intersubjective evidentials: Shared access vs. primary access to knowledge. Paper presented at the Workshop Person and Knowledge: From Participant Role to Epistemic Marking, 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 2015), Leiden.
Seyoum, Mulugeta. 2008. A Grammar of Dime. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2001. Interrogative constructions. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1010–1028. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slater, Keith W. 2003. A grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic Language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Speas, M. 2004. Evidential paradigms, world variables and person agreement features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16(1): 253–280.Google Scholar
Strahm, Ester. 1975. Clause patterns in Jirel. Collected Papers on Sherpa Jirel [Nepal Studies in Linguistics 2]. Kirtipur: SIL & Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies. <[URL]> (21 April 2016).
Sumbatova, Nina. 2011. Person hierarchies and the problem of person marker origin in Dargwa: Facts and diachronic problems. In Tense, Aspect, Modality and Finiteness in East Caucasian Languages [Diversitas Linguarum 30], Gilles Authier & Timur Maisak (eds), 131–160. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson Tianshin. Forthcoming. Evidentials and person. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(4): 945–1001.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1981. The historical development of the Akha evidentials system. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 295–302.Google Scholar
. 1986. The nature and origins of the Akha evidentials system. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 214–222. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1992. La déixis en tibétain: Quelques faits remarquables. In La Deixis: Colloque en Sorbonne, 8–9 juin 1990, Mary-Annick Morel & Laurent Danon-Boileau (eds), 197–208. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
. 1994. Personne et médiatifs en tibétain. Faits de langues 2(3): 149–158. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 1996. Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes Tibétains: Tibétain Central, Ladakhi, Dzongkha et Amdo. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2005. L’aire linguistique tibétaine et ses divers dialectes. Lalies 25: 7–56.Google Scholar
. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 281–308. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy J. 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
Vokurková, Zuzana. 2008. Epistemic modalities in spoken Standard Tibetan. Ms, Charles University, Prague, and University of Paris 8.Google Scholar
Watters, David. 2006. The conjunct-disjunct distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics 22: 300–319.Google Scholar
Weber, Tobias. 2011. Conjunct/disjunct marking: Diachrony, origins, areality. Paper presented at the Workshop on Conjunct/Disjunct Alignment, Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute, Boulder CO.
Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What “you” and “I” mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language 86(2): 332–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2013. Semi-direct speech as a source of assertor’s involvement marking. Paper presented at the 19th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Australian National University.
. 2014. A Descriptive Grammar of Bunan. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.Google Scholar
. 2015a. Towards a diachronic typology of egophoricity. Paper presented at the Transalpine Typology Meeting, Lyon.
. 2015b. The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective, Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1986. Interactions of tense and evidentiality: A study of Sherpa and English. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 188–202. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha. 2017. Copulas in Denjongke or Sikkimese Bhutia. In Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds), 297-349. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2004. Relative Tense and Aspectual Values in Tibetan Languages: A Comparative Study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Evidentiality and inferentiality: Overlapping and contradictory functions of the so-called evidential markers in Ladakhi (West Tibetan). Paper presented at The Nature of Evidentiality Conference, Leiden.
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Mélac, Eric & Pascale Leclercq
2024. The functions of evidentiality. Functions of Language 31:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Watters, Stephen
2024. The discourse functions of simple copulas in Dzongkha. Functions of Language 31:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Rasekh-Mahand, Mohammad & Fariba Sabouri
2023. From verb to epistemic marker: bini in Hamedanian Persian. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 59:3 ► pp. 635 ff. DOI logo
Sandman, Erika & Karolina Grzech
2022. Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Yang & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2022. Evidentiality in Selibu. Diachronica 39:2 ► pp. 268 ff. DOI logo
Bai, Junwei
2021. Northern and Southern Munya Dialects: Towards a Historical Perspective*. Studia Linguistica 75:2 ► pp. 328 ff. DOI logo
Keinänen, Satu
2021. A metalinguistic analysis of the terminology of evidential categories: experiential, conjecture or deduced?. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 547 ff. DOI logo
Keinänen, Satu
2021. A metalinguistic analysis of the terminology of evidential categories: experiential, conjecture or deduced?. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 547 ff. DOI logo
Raymond, Chase Wesley, Rebecca Clift & John Heritage
2021. Reference without anaphora: on agency through grammar. Linguistics 59:3 ► pp. 715 ff. DOI logo
Bergqvist, Henrik
2020. Swedish modal particles as markers of engagement: Evidence from distribution and frequency. Folia Linguistica 54:2 ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Grzech, Karolina, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Henrik Bergqvist
2020. Knowing in interaction: An introduction. Folia Linguistica 54:2 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Krasnoukhova, Olga & Johan van der Auwera
2019. Standard negation in Awa Pit: From synchrony to diachrony. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
Mansfield, John
2019. Epistemic authority and sociolinguistic stance in an Australian Aboriginal language. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
San Roque, Lila
2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo
Foolen, Ad, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder
2018. Introduction. In Evidence for Evidentiality [Human Cognitive Processing, 61], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 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.