Nicolas Tournadre (AMU, Institut Universitaire de France, LACITO), "The Status of Egophoric Markers within the Tibetic Evidential-Epistemic Systems"

After having discussed some definitions ofevidentiality and epistemic modality, I will concentrate upon the maincharacteristics of the Tibetic Evidential-Epistemic systems, which are amongthe most complex E-E systems attested in the World. The central notion ofaccess to information will be discussed in detail. I will then address the categoryof egophoric, its status and its relationship with sensory markers (sensory andendopathic) in Common Tibetan, as well as some typological features ofegophoric markers in other Tibetic languages.

References

Aikhenvald, A., Y. 2004. Evidentiality, New YorkOxford University Press, 2004.

Barnes, J. 1984 Evidential in the Tucuya verbs,International Journal of American Linguistics. 50: 255-271

Faller, M. 2002. Remarks on evidential hierarchies. InD. I. Beaver, L. D. C. Martinez, B. Z. Clark & S. Kaufmann (Eds.), Theconstruction of meaning (pp. 89-111). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Gawne, L. & Hill, N. (Eds.), 2017. EvidentialSystems of Tibetan Languages, De Gruyter Mouton.

Guentchéva, Z.,L’énonciation médiatisée, 1996, Louvain-Paris, Peeters.

Guentchéva, Z., 2016. Aspectuality and Temporality,Description and theoretical issues, John Benjamins Publishing Company,Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

Tournadre, N., « Personneet médiatif en tibétain », in La personne. Faits de langue, n°3, 1994, p. 149-158.*

Hill, N. 2021 review of Egophoricity. Simeon Floyd,Elisabeth Norcliffe, and Lila San Roque, eds. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsPublishing Company. Typological Studies in Language.118.

Karma Tshering & G. van Driem. 2019. The Grammarof Dzongkha, Revised and Expanded, with a Guide to Roman Dzongkha and toPhonological Dzongkha. Santa Barbara, California: Himalayan Linguistics

sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med (Kesang Gyurmé). 1992. Bod kyibrda sprod rig pa’i khrid rgyun rab gsal me long: Le clairmiroir. Enseignement de la grammaire tibétaine. Traduit, adapté et commenté parHeather Stoddard et Nicolas Tournadre. Arvillard: Éditions Prajñā. [Second edition, 1994]

Oisel, G. 2017. ‘Re-evaluation of the evidential system of LhasaTibetan and its atypical functions’, Himalayan Linguistics.

Mélac, E. 2014.L'évidentialité en anglais - approche contrastive à partir d'un corpus anglais-tibétain,PdD, Université Paris 3.

Simon, C. « La catégorieégophorique dans les langues de l’Amdo (Tibet) » Société linguistique de Paris,le 24 avril 2021.

Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against theconcept of ‘conjunct/disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkartand Paul Widmer (hrgb.) Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek : Festschrift fürRoland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281- 308. Halle:Wissenschaftsverlag.

Tournadre, N., 2004 «Typologie des aspects verbaux et intégration à une théorie du TAM », InBulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, vol.99, n°1,, p.7-68.

Tournadre, N. 2014b. Leprisme des langues, essai sur la diversité linguistique et les difficultés deslangues, préface Claude Hagège. Paris: L'Asiathèque.

Tournadre N. & LaPolla, R. 2014 « Towards a newapproach to evidentiality, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area» vol. 37:2,2014, pp. 240–263

Tournadre, Nicolas. 2016. The future tenses in theTibetic languages. In Zlatka Guentcheva (ed) Aspectuality and Temporality:Descriptive and theoretical issues, 1-24. (Studies in Language Companion series172). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

Tournadre, N. 2014. The Tibetic languages and theirclassification. In Th. Owen-Smith & N. W. Hill (eds.) Trans-HimalayanLinguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area,105-129. Walter de Gruyter.

Tournadre N. 2017 “A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages”. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N.,(Eds.), Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages, De Gruyter Mouton.

Tournadre, N. and H. Suzuki. 2021. The Tibetic Languages: An Introduction to theFamily of Languages Derived from Old Tibetan (with the collaboration of XavierBecker and Alain Brucelles for the cartography). Linguistic diversity series,Lacito, CNRS. Preface: R. LaPolla.

Tournadre, Nicolas &Sangda Dorje. 2003. Manual ofStandard Tibetan. Ithaca: Snow Lion (with two CDs and maps of Tibet).

Tournadre, Nicolas & Mingyuan Shao. forthcoming.Intentionality, evidentiality and epistemicity in Amdo Tibetan.

Vokurkova, Z. 2017. Epistemic Modality in StandardSpoken Tibetan. Epistemic Verbal Endings and Copulas. Karolinum Press.

Yliniemi, Juha 2019. A descriptive grammar ofDenjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia), PhD. University of Helsinki

Zeisler, B. 2017. The emergence of the Ladakhiinferential and experiential markers from a marker of admirativity(non-commitment): the case of hdug and snang, Jsall. De Gruyter Mouton.

Zeisler, B. 2018. Don’t believe in a paradigm that youhaven’t manipulated yourself! – Evidentiality, speaker attitude, andadmirativity in Ladakhi. Himalayan Linguistics.

Zemp, M. A. 2018. A Grammar of Purik Tibetan. Series:Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, vol. 21. Languages of the Greater HimalayanRegion