Cover not available

Article published In: Language and Linguistics
Vol. 27:2 (2026) ► pp.257–301

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Applying popular arguments for and against an independent egophoric grammatical category to Thewo Tibetan

 | Lanzhou University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 27 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00257.pow
Abstract
Thewo Tibetan’s egophoric markers are restricted to volitional acts the speaker has done, is doing, and will do. This is unique amongst the reported Tibetan speech varieties given that usually first, second, and third person speech act participants (SAPs) can all use egophoric markers assuming they appear in the right communicative situation. As such, Thewo Tibetan provides a unique dataset to explore the relationship between egophoricity and evidentiality. To explore this relationship, I chose six influential scholars who have been active in discussing the question of whether egophoricity constitutes an independent grammatical category. Aikhenvald (Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; 2015. Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology 19(2). 239–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; (ed.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; 2021. The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and . 2018. Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 580–594. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar argue that because of different semantic functions and distribution, egophoric markers and evidential markers each belong to their own independent grammatical category. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar and Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.). 2017. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar argue that given shared semantic motivations and a simpler analysis, egophorics and evidentials should belong to the same category. Next, I describe Thewo Tibetan’s evidential and egophoric markers. Thewo Tibetan is also unique in having a large inventory of egophoric markers which includes three types of past markers, two present markers, and two future markers. I apply the arguments for and against an independent egophoric category to Thewo Tibetan. Given (1) common semantic motivations underlying both the evidential and egophoric systems, and (2), the simplicity of an evidential analysis of the egophoric markers, I find it best to analyze Thewo Tibetan’s egophoric markers as part of the evidential system.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differing definitions and theories
    • 2.1Aikhenvald (2004; 2015; 2018; 2021)
    • 2.2Tournadre (2008) and Tournadre & LaPolla (2014)
    • 2.3DeLancey (2018)
    • 2.4Gawne & Hill (2017)
    • 2.5Focus of this paper
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.An introduction and analysis of Thewo Tibetan’s egophoric and evidential suffixes
    • 4.1A brief overview of the Thewo Tibetan verbal system
    • 4.2Observable, volitional and non-volitional actions with volitional verbs
      • 4.2.1Declarative sentences
      • 4.2.2Interogative sentences
    • 4.3Observable, non-volitional verbs
      • 4.3.1Declarative sentences
      • 4.3.2Interrogative sentences
    • 4.4Internal process, volitional actions and non-volitional actions with volitional verb
      • 4.4.1Declarative sentences
      • 4.4.2Interogative sentences
    • 4.5Internal process, non-volitional verbs
      • 4.5.1Declarative sentences
      • 4.5.2Interogative sentences
    • 4.6Interogative content questions
  • 5.Comparison with other Tibetan varieties and beyond
  • 6.Do Thewo Tibetan’s egophoric markers belong to the category of evidentiality?
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology 19(2). 239–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2021. The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward H. 1974. Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman contact as seen through Nepali and Newari verb tenses. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (3)11. 42–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlin, Eithne B. 2018. Evidentiality and the Cariban languages. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 315–332. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caughley, Ross Charles. 1982. The syntax and morphology of the verb in Chepang. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on so-called “conjunct/disjunct” systems. (Paper presented at the Syntax of the World’s Languages III, Berlin, 25–28 September 2008.)
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Chafe, Wallace L. & Nicholas, Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 203–213. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 289–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25(1). 39–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 580–594. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Floyd, Simeon & Norcliffe, Elisabeth & San Roque, Lila (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2018. Evidentiality in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 490–509. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward John. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation).
Garrett, Edward & Bateman, Leah. 2007. Symbiosis between documentary linguistics and linguistic pragmatics. In Austin, Peter K. & Bond, Oliver & Nathan, David (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, 83–93. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2017. Egophoric evidentiality in Bodish languages. In Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems in Tibetan languages, 61–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.). 2017. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1971. Person markers: Conjunct and disjunct forms (Topics in Newari Grammar I). 1–12. (Manuscript.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Wurm, S. A. (ed.), Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics, vol. 71, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haller, Felix. 2000. Verbal categories of Shigatse Tibetan and Themchen Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2). 175–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 51. 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2020. Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe, and Lila San Roque: Egophoricity. Linguistic Typology 24(1). 201–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2018. Evidentiality in Bodic languages. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 595–609. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2019. Egophoric marking and person indexation in Japhug. Language and Linguistics 20(4). 515–534. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, You-Jing. 2014. Thebo. In Sun, Jackson T.-S. (ed.), Phonological profiles of little-studied Tibetic varieties, 215–267. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A grammar of Oksapmin. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Oswalt, Robert L. 1986. The evidential system of Kashaya. In Chafe, L. Wallace & Nichols, Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 29–45. Norwood: Ablex Publication Cooperation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2013. Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. In Thornes, Tim & Andvik, Erik & Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Jansen, Joana (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honor of Scott Delancey, 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Powell, Abe. 2016. Diebu Zangzu de yuyan renzhi he yuyan baohu. In Luo, Ji & Yu, Jinzhi (eds.), Zhongguo shaoshu minzu yuyan baohu diaocha yanjiu, 127–140. Beijing: Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022a. 185 Thewo Tibetan lexical items from 37 Thewo villages. (Data set.) ([URL]) (Accessed 2025-09-08.)
. 2022b. Mapping the spatial relationship between sub-basins and language variation in Thewo Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics 21(1). 40–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renzeng Wangmu. 2010. On syllable assimilation of Diebu Tibetan language and its linkage effects — On similar phonological changes of surrounding dialects. Xibei Minzu Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue Shehui Kexue Ban) 2010(6). 83–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Diebu Zangyu yanjiu. Beijing: China Minzu University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sangsrgyas Tshering. 2020. The voicing of unvoiced obstruents in Thebo Tibetan. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 49(1). 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sangsrgyas Tshering. 2023. Egophoricity and evidentiality in Thebo Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics 22(3). 34–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Loughnane, Robyn. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1). 111–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(4). 945–1001.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Evidentials and person. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 47–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1). 93–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Huber, Brigitte & Volkart, Marianne & Widmer, Paul (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65 Geburtstag, vol. 11, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje. 2003. Manual of standard Tibetan: Language and civilization. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2020. Same same but different: On the relationship between egophoricity and evidentiality. In Bergqvist, Henrik & Kittilä, Seppo (eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement, 263–287. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Daxue & Sangsrgyas Tshering & Gates, Jesse P. 2024. A voicing rule for non-continuant obstruents in Thebo Tibetan. Language and Linguistics 25(4). 710–746. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yukawa, Yasutoshi. 1966. The meaning of Tibetan duu. Gengo Kenkyu 491. 77–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue