In:Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey
Edited by Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop and Joana Jansen
[Typological Studies in Language 103] 2013
► pp. 107–130
Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo
Historical origins and functional motivation
Published online: 25 July 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
Scott DeLancey’s analysis of person-sensitive TAME marking in Lhasa Tibetan – “a.k.a. conjunct-disjunct marking” or “egophoricity” – has stimulated considerable discussion and debate, particularly as previously little-known languages of the Tibeto-Burman area, as well as outside it, have come to be described, and a wider range of functional factors have been taken into account. This chapter is intended as a contribution to this discussion, by presenting the first detailed analysis of person-sensitive TAME marking in a language of the Tani subgroup of Tibeto-Burman, namely Galo. Like Tournadre (2008), I find that person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo is not a grammaticalized index of person (“agreement”) nor of cross-clause subject continuity, but is instead a semantic index of an assertor’s knowledge state. Unlike in more westerly Tibeto-Burman languages, however, different construals of agency and/or volition do not seem to be factors in the Galo system. Thus, there are both similarities and differences underlying systems of person-sensitive TAME marking in different Tibeto-Burman languages; this suggests that further research - particularly, employing a diachronic perspective when possible - will be required before we can confidently characterize person-sensitive TAME marking from a pan-Tibeto-Burman (or broader) cross-linguistic perspective.
Cited by (21)
Cited by 21 other publications
Khachaturyan, Maria, Erika Sandman & Thera Marie Crane
Zhang, Sihong & Jie Chen
2024. A typological study on person sensitivity in Ersu. Asian Languages and Linguistics 5:2 ► pp. 337 ff.
Cheng, Jie
2022. The ambiguity withpa-nominalization in Lhasa Tibetan. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 23:4 ► pp. 644 ff.
Ciucci, Luca
Grollmann, Selin
2020. Diachronic aspects of Bjokapakha epistemic verbal morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:1 ► pp. 87 ff.
Konnerth, Linda
2020. Recycling through perspective persistence in Monsang (Trans-Himalayan). Functions of Language 27:1 ► pp. 55 ff.
Łukasiewicz, Elżbieta
Floyd, Simeon
2018. Egophoricity and argument structure in Cha’palaa. In Egophoricity [Typological Studies in Language, 118], ► pp. 269 ff.
Floyd, Simeon
Hyslop, Gwendolyn
2018. Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp. In Egophoricity [Typological Studies in Language, 118], ► pp. 109 ff.
Hyslop, Gwendolyn
Norcliffe, Elisabeth
2018. Egophoricity and evidentiality in Guambiano (Nam Trik). In Egophoricity [Typological Studies in Language, 118], ► pp. 305 ff.
San Roque, Lila
2018. Egophoric patterns in Duna verbal morphology. In Egophoricity [Typological Studies in Language, 118], ► pp. 405 ff.
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
San Roque, Lila & Bambi B. Schieffelin
Nuyts, Jan
2017. Evidentiality reconsidered. In Evidentiality Revisited [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 271], ► pp. 57 ff.
Widmer, Manuel
2017. Review of Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill. (eds). 2016.Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 40:2 ► pp. 285 ff.
Widmer, Manuel
2017. The evolution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7:1-2 ► pp. 245 ff.
Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp
2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 december 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.
