Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 43:1 (2020) ► pp.87–123

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

Diachronic aspects of Bjokapakha epistemic verbal morphology

The role of nominalisers and copulas

 | University of Bern
Published online: 28 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.18017.gro
Abstract
Bjokapakha belongs to the Tshangla cluster of the Trans-Himalayan (Tibeto-Burman) language family and is spoken in Central Bhutan. Like many languages of the Himalayan region, Bjokapakha exhibits a rich system of epistemic functions, centering around the notion of personal or subjective knowledge (a.k.a. egophoricity, conjunct-disjunct or mirativity). Morphosyntactically, the epistemic categories of Bjokapakha are expressed by constructions involving combinations of nominalisers and copulas which exhibit varying degrees of grammaticalisation. This paper presents the epistemic categories of Bjokapakha and examines the genesis of the Bjokapakha epistemic verbal system from a comparative perspective drawing on insights from other varieties of the Tshangla cluster. Furthermore, a first reconstruction of the nominalisers and copulas of Proto-Tshangla is proposed. It will become evident that nominalisers and copulas have played a crucial role in the emergence of epistemic verbal morphology of Bjokapakha and still constitute productive means for the grammaticalisation of new epistemic categories.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Bjokapakha and Tshangla
    • 1.2Epistemic verbal morphology in the Tshangla cluster
      • 1.2.1Terminological remarks
      • 1.2.2Epistemic morphology in Standard Tshangla
        • Copulas
        • Verbal morphology
      • 1.2.3Epistemic morphology in minor Tshangla varieties
  • 2.Copulas
  • 3.Grammaticalised verbal markers
    • 3.1Present
    • 3.2Past tense
  • 4.Periphrastic constructions with the copula gɨ-
    • 4.1The subjective marker -(n)lo plus gɨla
    • 4.2The reification marker -soŋ plus gɨla
  • 5.The role of nominalisers and copulas in the genesis of the epistemic system of Bjokapakha
    • 5.1Non-verbal clauses with copulas (Type A)
    • 5.2Analytic constructions involving productive nominalisers and copulas (Type B)
    • 5.3Finite fusional morphology from copulas and productive nominalisers (Type C)
    • 5.4Finite fusional morphology from copulas and fossilised nominalisers (Type D)
  • 5.5Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (60)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andvik, Erik. 2010. A Grammar of Tshangla. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 5, 10). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan. A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. Introduction. Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23.2.1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bodt, Tim. 2012. The new lamp clarifying the history, peoples, languages and traditions of Eastern Bhutan and Eastern Mon. Wageningen: Monpasang Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Tshangla phonology and a Standard Tshangla orthography. In Nathan W. Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith (eds.), Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, 393–435. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol. 2661).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, G. 1874. Specimens of languages of India, including those of the aboriginal tribes of Bengal, the central provinces, and the eastern frontier. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chakravarty, L. N. 1953. Dictionary of sentences. Monpa. Dirang area. Shillong: North East Frontier Ageny.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das Gupta, K. 1968. An introduction to Central Monpa. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality. The Linguistic coding of epistemology, 203–213. Norwood: Ablex. (Advances in Discourse Processes, vol. 201).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 Hajhiensia 261. 39–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Mirativity. The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11.33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 369–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Patrick Chew (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 270–288. London/New York: Routledge. (Routledge Language Family Series).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Foong, Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages. Diachronic and typological perspectives, 343–359. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 961). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 161. 529–564.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Grammatical topics. Vol. 21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egli-Roduner, Susanna. 1987. Handbook of the Sharchhokpa-lo/Tsangla (language of the people of Eastern Bhutan). Thimpu: Helvetas. Swiss Association for Development and Cooperation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1994. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa. (Monumenta Serindica, vol. 241).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grollmann, Selin. 2013. A sketch grammar of Bjokapakha. Bern: Master’s Thesis, University of Bern.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in press). A grammar of Bjokapakha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 241.)
Grollmann, Selin & Pascal Gerber (forthcoming). Some innovations of the Tshangla subgroup of Trans-Himalayan.
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2007. Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30.2.151–194.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers. Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Stephen A., Wurm (ed.), Papers in South East Asian Linguistics, 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.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. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist, ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 161. 389–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 of Tibetan languages. Vol. 3021, 1–38. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hofrenning, Ralph W. 1959. First Bhutanese Grammar. ms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoshi, Michiyo. 1987. A Sharchok vocabulary. A language spoken in Eastern Bhutan. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa (ILCAA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte. 2002. The Lende subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan. A Grammatical description and historical annotations. Bern: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bern.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2011. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Languages 4.1. 43–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp. In Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 109–137. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 1181). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering. 2017. An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Vol. 3021, 351–365. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy. 2003. Evidentiality in Qiang. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 541). 63–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? In Linguistic Typology 31. 91–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol. 1351).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plaisier, Heleen. 2007. A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 51).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, Mark. 2013. Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo. Historical origins and functional motivation. In Tim Thornes et al. (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation. In honor of Scott DeLancey, 107–130. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 1031). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, William. 1849. Notes on the languages spoken by various tribes inhabitating the valley of Assam and its mountain confines. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal March 1849. 183–237.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stack, E. 1897. Some Tsangla-Bhutanese sentences. Part III. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Printing Office.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T. S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 631. 945–1001.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurgood. 1982. The Sino-Tibetan copula *way. Cahiers de linguistique Asie Orientale 11.1. 65–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/’disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolungma, Demawend und Kasbek. Festschrift fur Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Vol. I1, Chomolangma, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan/Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 95–129. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, vol. 3021). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Randy LaPolla. 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
van Driem, George. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 101). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 11).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. A holistic approach to the fine art of grammar writing. The Dallas Manifesto. In Novel Kishore Rai et al. (eds.), Recent Studies in Nepalese Linguistics, 93–184. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wangdi, Pema. 2004. Sharchokpa-lo phonology and morphosyntax. Canberra: Master’s Sub-Thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2006. The Conjunct-Disjunct Distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics 221.300–319.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2015. The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking, evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective, 53–73. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol. 2871). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas. The case of Bunan. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7.1–2.246–275.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp. 2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Languages 41.4.33–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yangzom, Deki & Marlen Arkesteijn. 1996. Khengkha lessonbook. SNV Thimphu: Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhāng, J. 1986. Sketch grammar of Cang Luo Menba. Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gerber, Pascal
2020. Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Mönpa phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue