Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 79–107

Chapter 2
“Am I blue?”

Privileged access constraints in Kathmandu Newar

| Western Oregon University
Traditionally described as a system of verb morphology (Bendix 1974, 1992; Hale 1980; Hale and Shrestha 2006; Hargreaves 1990, 1991a, 1991b, 2005), “conjunct/disjunct” egophoric encoding in Kathmandu Newar (Tibeto-Burman) is not, in fact, limited to inflectional morphology. Instead, accounting for egophoric distributions synchronically and diachronically in Kathmandu Newar requires positing an interrelated set of semantic and pragmatic principles linked to patterns in verbal morphology, temperature predicates, and the simple/causative alternation of the auxiliary dhun- ‘finish.’ The principles include a semantic feature assigned to arguments of internal state predicates (both agents of intentional action and experiencers), epistemic constraints on the attribution of intentional and internal states, and a discourse function, termed ‘epistemic source,’ which is constructed from the indexical properties of speaker/addressee and the pragmatic preconditions for declarative/interrogative illocutionary types.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Finite verbal morphology
  • 3.Previous accounts
  • 4.Temperature predicates
  • 5.Aspectual auxiliary dhun- ‘finish’
    • 5.1The egophoric patterning of auxiliary -dhun
    • 5.2The causative morpheme -k(al)-
    • 5.3Auxiliary -dhun ‘finish’ in two late classical Newar texts
    • 5.4Assessing the late classical evidence
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.02har
References (63)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. Anthony & Owens, Joseph (eds). 1990. Propositional Attitudes: The Role of Content in Logic, Language, and Mind. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw. 1956. Performative utterances. In Philosophical Papers, 233–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward. 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 potential 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 (ed.). 2000. Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Special Issue of Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2001. Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Special Issue of Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1), Vol. 2.Google Scholar
. 2008. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucus. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 1–14. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 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]>
. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3): 611–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Currie, Gregory. 2006. Why irony is pretense. In The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretense, Possibility and Fiction, Shaun Nichols (ed.),111–133. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and the origin of an uncommon pattern. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61(4): 309–325.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society 11: 65–72.Google Scholar
. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 203–213. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 289–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/ disjunct pattern. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 25: 289–321.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2007. A Grammar of Dolakha Newar [Mouton Grammar Library 40]. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, David & Lakoff, George. 1971. Conversational postulates. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 63–84.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1989[1967]. Logic and conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gunderson, Keith. 1990. Consciousness and intentionality: Robots with and without the right stuff. In Propositional Attitudes: The Role of Content in Language, Logic, and Mind, C. Anthony Anderson & Joseph Owens (eds), 285–324. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 7 [Pacific Linguistics Series A, 53], Ronald L. Trail (ed.), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin & Shrestha, Kedār. 2006. Newār (Nepāl Bhāsā). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 1990. Indexical functions and grammatical sub-systems in Kathmandu Newari. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 26: 179–193.Google Scholar
. 1991a. The Concept of Intentional Action in the Grammar of Kathmandu Newari. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
. 1991b. The conceptual structure of intentional action: Data from Kathmandu Newari. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 379–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Kathmandu Newar (Nepāl Bhāsā). In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1–48.Google Scholar
. 2012. Constraints on inner state attribution in Kathmandu Newar. Paper presented to 86th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Portland OR, January 5–8.
Hṛḍaya, Chittadhar. 1976. Andhakār ‘Darkness’. From khuphu bākhã:cā ‘Six short stories’. Kathmandu: Nepal Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1985. Believing and intending: Two sides of the same coin. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 445–460.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Hans (trans.). 1931. Vicitrakarṇikāvadānoddhṛta (A collection of Buddhistic legends. Nevāri text edited and translated by H. Jørgensen) [Oriental Translation Fund, New Series, Vol. XXXI]. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
(trans.). 1939. Batīsaputrikākathā. Tales of the Thirty-Two Statuettes, edited and translated with explanatory notes by Hans Jørgensen. Det. Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 24(2). København: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
. 1941. A Grammar of the Classical Newari. Det. Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 27(3).Google Scholar
Jośi, Sundar Kriṣnā. 1992 (=NS 1112). Nepāl Bhāṣāyā bhāṣāvaijñānika vyakarana (A linguistic grammar of Nepāl Bhāsā (Newar)). Mahābauddha, Yẽ (Kathmandu): Lacoul Publications.Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1979. On the notion of speaker’s territory of information: A functional analysis of certain sentence-final forms in Japanese. In Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue, George D. Bedell, Eiichi Kobayashi & Masatake Muraki (eds), 213–233. Tokyo: Kenkyuusya.Google Scholar
Kansakar, Tej R. 1990. Newari causatives. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
1995. Classical Newari verbal morphology: A preliminary report. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 22(1): 21–30.Google Scholar
Kiryu, Kazayuki. 2000. A note on perfect aspect in Newari. Mimasaka Joshidaigaku Mimasaka Tankidaigakubu Kiyoo (Bulletin of Mimasaka Women's College and Mimasaka Women's Junior College) 45: 45–50.Google Scholar
. 2001. Types of verbs and functions of the causative suffix -k in Newar. Kobe Papers in Linguistics 3: 1–9.Google Scholar
Kölver, Ulrike & Kölver, Bernhard. 1978. Classical Newari verbal morphology. Zentralasiatische Studien 12: 273–316.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Burenhult, Nicolas. 2009. Semplates: A new concept in lexical semantics? Language 85(1): 153–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Malla, Kamal P. 1985. The Newari Language: A Working Outline [Monumenta Serindica 14]. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2000. A Dictionary of the Classical Newari. Kathmandu: Nepal Bhasa Dictionary Committee. Cwasā Pāsā.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James. 2003. Handbook of Tibeto-Burman: System of Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction [University of California Publications in Linguistics 135]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Perry, John. 1979. The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs 13(1): 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society 4: 157–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robbins, Joel & Rumsey, Alan. 2008. Introduction: Cultural and linguistic anthropology and the opacity of other minds. Anthropological Quarterly 81(2): 407–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Lawrence (ed.). 1995. Other Intentions: Cultural Contexts and the Attribution of Inner States. Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila. 2008. An Introduction to Duna Grammar. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff. Emanuel. 2006. Interaction: The infrastructure of social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, Nicholas J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds), 70–96. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1990. Consciousness, unconsciousness, and intentionality. In Anderson & Owens (eds), 269–284.Google Scholar
1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Slater, Keith W. 2003. A Grammar of Mangghuer. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.). New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(4): 945–1001.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Force dynamics in language and thought. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, Chicago Linguistic Society 21: 293–337.Google Scholar
Tamot, Kashinath. 2002. Some characteristics of the Tibeto-Burman stock of Early Classical Newari. In Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages, Christopher Beckwith (ed.),13–26. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 2006. Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 245–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 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
Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language 86(2): 232–365.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kelly, Barbara & Aimée Lahaussois
2021. Chains of influence in Himalayan grammars: Models and interrelations shaping descriptions of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal. Linguistics 59:1 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.