Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 39:1 (2016) ► pp.105–160

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

Attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia)

 | University of Helsinki, Sikkim University
Published online: 8 July 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.39.1.05yli
This paper describes the attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke, a Tibetic language spoken in Sikkim, India. The presence of the attention marker, which may be either speaker or addressee-oriented, indicates that something is brought to the forefront of the speaker’s or the addressee’s attention. The attention marker =ɕo occurs in declarative uses postposed to a verb, and in interrogative uses postposed to other parts of speech (verbless uses). The attention in verbal uses, which resemble the notion “mirativity”, is either speaker or addressee-oriented, whereas verbless uses, which resemble the notion “contrastive focus”, are always addressee-oriented. When occurring with copulas, the function of =ɕo as either speaker or addressee-oriented is partly dependent on the evidentiality of the copulas. With other verbs, the orientation of =ɕo is dependent on other contextual factors. After describing the verbal and verbless uses of =ɕo, the article concludes by showing why the categories focus and mirativity are problematic for describing =ɕo. Existing definitions of mirativity by DeLancey (1997), Peterson (2013), Dickinson (2000), Hyslop (2011b), Hengeveld & Olbertz (2012) and Aikhenvald (2012) are shown to fail to accommodate the range of uses of =ɕo. The concept of attention, on the other hand, not only describes the Denjongke data more comprehensively but also helps understand the interface between mirative-like and focus-like phenomena. The last section illustrates the similarity of =ɕo to exclusively addressee-oriented morphemes in Nepali, Japanese (Davis 2011) and Ingush (Nichols 2011), suggesting that the concept of attention may prove useful for describing exclusively addressee-oriented phenomena, which have rarely been associated with “mirativity”.
References (46)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 435–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan & Slobin, Dan I. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentiality, the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 159–167. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhutia, Karma Lobsang. 2013. རྣ་གསུང་ དང་ གཏམ་བཤད་ (Sikkimese Bhutia oral stories and moral dialects). Gangtok: Bhutia Kayrab Yargay Tsogpo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. LTBA 23(2):79–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, Christopher M. 2011. Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11: 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistics Typology 16(3): 529–564.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denzongpo, Tashi, Tsichudarpo, Bhaichung & Takchungdarpo, Pema Rinzing. 2011. ལྷོ་ཡིག་ སློབ་དེབ་ བདུན་པོ་ [Class 7 Denjongke Textbook]. Gangtok: Human Resource Development, Government of Sikkim.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dokhangba, Sonam Gyatso. 2001. སྦར་ཕུང་ ལིང་དམ་ འགྲོ་ལིས་ (Sikkimese marriage custom and rites). Siliguri: Amit Offset Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Wardn (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Olbertz, Hella. 2012. Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology 16(3): 487–503. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Häsler, Katrin 1999. A Grammar of Tibetan Sde.dge (སྡེ་དགེ) Dialect. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.
Hill, W. Nathan. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 389–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 30(2):17–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte 2002. The Lende subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan: A Grammatical Description with Historical Annotations. PhD dissertation, University of Bern.
Hyslop, Gwendylon. 2011a. A Grammar of Kurtöp. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon at Eugene.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011b. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4(1): 43–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendylon & Tshering, Karma. 2010. Preliminary notes on Dakpa (Tawang Monpa). In North East Indian Linguistics 21, Stephen Morey & Mark Post (eds). New Delhi: Foundation/Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 31: 91–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of pragmatics 331: 359–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazaudon, Martine. 2003. From discourse to grammar in Tamang: Topic, focus, intensifiers and subordination. In Language Variation: Papers on Variation and Change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in Honour of James A. Matisoff [Pacific Linguistics], David Bradley, Randy Lapolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds), 145–158. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1996. L’inférentiel du népali. In L’Énonciation médiatisée [Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale], Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 109–123. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar [University of California Publications in Linguistics 143]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nishiguchi, Sumiyo. 2014. Mirative past in Japanese. Semantics-Syntax Interface 1(2): 118–132. <[URL]> (2 June 2015).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, Tam Thi Minh. 2013. A Grammar of Bih. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Peterson, John. 2000. Evidentials, inferentials and mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 23(2): 13–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2013. Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. Ms.<[URL]}> (6 May 2015)
Post, Mark William. 2007. A Grammar of Galo. PhD disseration, La Trobe University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sprigg, R.K. 1991. The spelling-style pronunciation of Written Tibetan, and the hazards of using citation forms in the phonological analysis of spoken Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 14(2): 93–131.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2007. Attention phenomena. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Hubert Cuyckens & Dirk Geeraerts (eds), 264–293. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S., Forrest, Linda, Ming Ming Pu & Myung Hee Kim. 2011. Discourse semantics. In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd edn, Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), 37–63. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas. (2008). Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag 1 (Beiträge zur Zentralasienforschung 12), Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart & Paul Widmer (eds), 281–308. Saale: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area [Trends in Linguistics 266], Nathan W. Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith (eds), 105–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsichudarpo, Bhaichung. 1996[2003]. རེ་ཆེ་ (Hope). Gangtok: Kwality.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997 [2003]. རྣམ་རྟོག་ (Superstition). Gangtok: Kwality.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watters, Stephen 2007. The nature of narrative text in Dzongkha: Evidence from deixis, evidentiality, and mirativity. In Linguistics of the Himalayas and Beyond, Roland Bielmeier & Felix Haller (eds), 381–397. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2000. Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Birma Area 23(2): 39–77.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha. To appear. Copulas in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). In Evidentiality in Tibetic Languages, Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Yliniemi, Juha
2023. Similarity of mirative and contrastive focus: three parameters for describing attention markers. Linguistic Typology 27:1 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Lozong Lhamo
2021. /ka-/ negative prefix of Choswateng Tibetan of Khams (Shangri-La, Yunnan). Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 22:4 ► pp. 593 ff. DOI logo
EVANS, NICHOLAS, HENRIK BERGQVIST & LILA SAN ROQUE
2018. The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10:1 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2018. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138 ► pp. 77 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