Cover not available

In:Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 109–137

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

Chapter 3
Mirativity and egophoricity in Kurtöp

 | The University of Sydney
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.03hys
Abstract
The terms ‘mirative’ and ‘egophoric’ have often been employed to describe various epistemic contrasts which, on the surface, appear to be quite similar. Kurtöp, a Tibeto-Burman language of Northeastern Bhutan, contrasts both mirativity and egophoricity, providing evidence that they are two separate categories. Mirativity in Kurtöp is a pervasive feature of the grammar; it occurs in imperfective and perfective aspect, in addition to being encoded in affirmative and negative forms of existential and equational copulas. In statements, the mirative is used to encode that knowledge was new or unexpected to the speaker while non-mirative forms encode old knowledge. In questions, only non-mirative forms are used. In contrast to mirative marking, egophoricity is marked in perfective aspect only. An egophoric form encodes that the speaker has intimate knowledge of an event or intention of an event; a non-egophoric form does not encode this personal knowledge. Unusually, egophoric marking in Kurtöp includes a distinction as to whether knowledge is exclusive to the speaker, or is thought to be shared. Mirative and egophoric forms have particular tendencies to co-occur with certain subjects, especially in elicitation. However, when we look within natural discourse, these categories are complex, with subtler meanings than basic elicitation would suggest.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Kurtöp
    • 2.1Clauses with copulas
    • 2.2Clauses without copulas
    • 2.3Verbal enclitics
  • 3.Mirativity and egophoricity
  • 4.Mirativity in Kurtöp
    • 4.1Mirativity as a paradigm
    • 4.2Mirativity in use
  • 5.Egophoricity in Kurtöp
    • 5.1 -shang
    • 5.2 -pala
  • 6.Summary
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (32)
References
Aris, Michael. 1979. Bhutan, the Early History of a Himalayan Kingdom. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronson, Howard. 1967. The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporary Bulgarian literary language. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, 82–98. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bashir, Elena. 2010. Traces of mirativity in Shina. Himalayan Linguistics 9(2): 1–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosch, Andre. 2016. Language contact in Upper Mangdep: A comparative grammar of verbal constructions. Sydney: University of Sydney Honours thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2000. Why “first/non-first person” is not grammaticalized mirativity. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Keith Allan & John Henderson (eds). <[URL]>
DeLancey, Scott. 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 Hafniensa 25: 39–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Kurtöp and Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 29–38. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16: 529–564.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
van Driem, George. 1998. Dzongkha [Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 1]. Leiden: Research School CNWS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor. 1977. The Grammatical Categories of the Mecedonian Indicative. Columbus OH: Slavica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 168–187. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan (eds). 2017. Evidential Systems in Tibetic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2009. An introduction to Dzala, an East Bodish language of Bhutan. Presented at the 15th Himalayan Languages Symposium, August 1, Eugene OR.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grunow-Harsta, 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 Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 7 [Pacific Linguistics Series A, 53], Ronald L. Trail (ed.), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan. 2012. ‘Mirativity’ does not exist: ‘Lhasa’ ḥdug and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16: 289–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2008. Kurtöp and the classification of the languages of Bhutan. In Proceedings from the 44th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 141–152. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Kurtöp tone: A tonogenetic case study. Lingua 119: 827–845. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4(1): 43–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. A Grammar of Kurtöp. Leiden, Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Tshering, Karma. 2017. An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages, Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds), 331–365. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Michailovsky, Boyd & Mazaudon, Martine. 1994. Preliminary notes on languages of the Bumthang groups. In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Vol. 2, 545–557. Fagernes: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2013. Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. In Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey [Typological Studies in Language 103], Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds), 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1954. The linguistic position of Dwags. Oriens, Zeitschrift Der Internationalen Gesellschraft Für Orientforschung 7: 348–356.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, Academica Sinica 63(4): 945–1001.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Against the concept of ‘Conjunct’/’Disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 281–308. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.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): 240–63. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watters, David. 2002. A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2024. Speaking about knowledge. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
Mélac, Eric & Pascale Leclercq
2024. The functions of evidentiality. Functions of Language 31:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Watters, Stephen
2024. The discourse functions of simple copulas in Dzongkha. Functions of Language 31:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Sihong & Jie Chen
2024. A typological study on person sensitivity in Ersu. Asian Languages and Linguistics 5:2 ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Grollmann, Selin
2020. Diachronic aspects of Bjokapakha epistemic verbal morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Grzech, Karolina, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Henrik Bergqvist
2020. Knowing in interaction: An introduction. Folia Linguistica 54:2 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Hyslop, Gwendolyn
2020. Grammaticalized sources of Kurtöp verbal morphology. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo
San Roque, Lila
2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo

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.

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