“Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects

Hill, Nathan W.

Abstract

Largely through the efforts of Scott DeLancey the grammatical category “mirative” has gained currency in linguistics. DeLancey bases his elaboration of this category on a misunderstanding of the semantics of h.dug in “Lhasa” Tibetan. Rather than showing “surprising information”, linguists working on Tibetan have long described ḥdug as a sensory evidential. Much of the evidence DeLancey and Aikhenvald present for mirativity in other languages is also susceptible to explanation in terms of sensory evidence or appears close to Lazard’s “mediative” (1999) or Johanson’s “indirective” (2000). Until an independent grammatical category for “new information” is described in a way which precludes analysis in terms of sensory evidence or other well established
evidential categories, mirativity should be excluded from the descriptive arsenal of linguistic analysis.

Citation

Hill, N. W. (2012). “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 389-433. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Jan 1, 2012
• Deposit Date: Feb 6, 2013
• Publicly Available Date: Mar 11, 2025
• Journal: Linguistic Typology
• Print ISSN: 1430-0532
• Electronic ISSN: 1613-415X
• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 389-433
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016
• Keywords: evidential, inflection, information structure, mirative, syntax, Tibetan
• Publisher URL: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/lity.2012.16.issue-00003/lity-2012-0016/lity-2012-0016.xml
• Additional Information: References : Adelaar, Willem F. H. 1977. Tarma Quechua: Grammar, texts, dictionary. Lisse: De Ridder. Agha, Asif. 1993. Structural form and utterance context in Lhasa Tibetan. New York: Lang. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003a. A grammar of Tariana, from northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003b. Evidentiality in Tariana. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds.) 2003, 131–164. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.). 2003. Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bazin, Louis. 1968. Introduction à l’étude pratique de la langue turque. Paris: Maisonneuve. Bazin, Louis & Jack Feuillet. 1980. L’opposition constatation / non constatation en turc et en bulgare. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 16. 9–15. Bell, Charles. 1905. Manual of Colloquial Tibetan. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press. Borchers, Dörte. 2008. A grammar of Sunwar. Leiden: Brill. Broadwell, George Aaron. 1991. Speaker and self in Choctaw. International Journal of American Linguistics 57. 411–425. Chafe, Wallace L. & Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chang, Kun & Betty Chang. 1984. The certainty hierarchy among Spoken Tibetan verbs of being. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 55. 603–635. Chonjore, Tsetan. 2003. Colloquial Tibetan: A textbook of the Lhasa dialect with reference grammar and exercises. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. Csató, Éva Ágnes. 2000. Turkish mi¸s- and imi¸s-items: Dimensions of a functional analysis. In Johanson & Utas (eds.) 2000, 29–43. Curnow, Timothy. 2001. Why ‘first/non-first person’ is not grammaticalized mirativity. In Keith Allan & John Henderson (eds.), Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 1–10. http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2000/curnow.pdf Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dankoff, R. 1982. Mahmud al-K¯ašˇgar¯ı, Compendium of the Turkic dialects (D¯ıw¯an luˇg¯at at-Turk), Part I. Edited and Translated with J. Kelly. Cambridge: Tekin. Davidson, Matthew. 2002. Studies in Southern Wakashan (Nootkan) grammar. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo doctoral dissertation. DeLancey, Scott. 1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 65–72. DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Chafe & Nichols (eds.) 1986, 203–213. DeLancey, Scott. 1989. New vs. assimilated knowledge as a semantic and grammatical category. Presented at the Winter Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, December 30, 1989. DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1. 289–321. DeLancey, Scott. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25. 39–62. DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1. 33–52. DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 369–382. Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24. 379–421. Dozon, Auguste. 1879. Manuel de la langue chkipe ou albanaise. Paris: Leroux. Friedman, Victor. 1981. Admirativity and confirmativity. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 17. 12–28. Friedman, Victor. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Chafe & Nichols (eds.) 1986, 168–187. Friedman, Victor. 2003. Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds.) 2003, 189–218. Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles doctoral dissertation. Goldstein, Melvyn C. & Nawang Nornang. 1970. Modern spoken Tibetan: Lhasa dialect. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2007. Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the Tibeto- Burman Area 30(2). 151–194. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70. Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11. 119–132. Hill, Jane H. 2005. A grammar of Cupeño. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hoshi Izumi. 1994. On the nonperfect continuative aspect of the Lhasa dialect of modern Tibetan. In Kitamura Hajime et al. (eds.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics, 985–991. Osaka: The Organizing Committee, the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. Hu Tan, et al. 1989. Lha-sah. i kha skad klog deb /拉薩口語讀本Lasa kouyu duben. Bˇeij¯ıng: 民族 出版社Mi rigs dpe skrun kha˙n. Jacobsen, William H. 1964. A grammar of the Washo language. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley doctoral dissertation. Jacobsen, William H. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. In Chafe & Nichols (eds.) 1986, 3–28. Johanson, Lars. 2000. Turkic indirectives. In Johanson & Utas (eds.) 2000, 61–87. Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas (eds.). 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ko, Kyounghee. 1989. The integrated/new knowledge markers in Korean. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon M.A. thesis. Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3. 91– 109. Lee, Ho Sang. 1985. Consciously-known but unassimilated information: A pragmatic analysis of the epistemic modal -kun in Korean. In Proceedings of the First Pacific Linguistics Conference, 183–210. Eugene, OR: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon. Lee, Ho Sang. 1993. Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information, with reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 135–167. Lewin, Thomas Herbert. 1879. A manual of Tibetan. Calcutta: G. H. House, at the Baptist Mission Press. Meydan, Métiyé. 1996. Les emplois médiatifs de -mi¸s en Turc. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée, 125–144. Leuven: Peeters. Miller, Roy Andrew. 1955. The independent status of the Lhasa dialect within Central Tibetan. Orbis 4. 49–55. Montaut, Annie. 2006. Mirative meanings as extensions of aorist in Hindu/Urdu. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 71–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Reiff, Charles Philippe. 1860. Grammaire française-russe, ou principes de la langue russe à l’usage des français. Paris: Maisonneuve. Rice, Karen. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. de Roerich, George & Tse-trung Lopsang Phuntshok. 1956. Textbook of Colloquial Tibetan: Dialect of central Tibet. Calcutta: The Government of West Bengal Eduction Department, Education Bureau. Róna-Tas, András. 1985. Wiener Vorlesungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte Tibets (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 13). Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. Rood, David S. 1976. Wichita grammar. New York: Garland. Rood, David S. 1996. Sketch of Wichita, a Caddoan language. In Ives Goddard (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages, 580–608. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Slobin, Dan & Ayhan Aksu-Koç. 1982. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of Turkish evidentials. In Paul Hopper (ed.), Tense and aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Slobin, Dan & Ayhan Aksu-Koç. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Chafe & Nichols (eds.) 1986, 159–167. Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tatevosov, Sergej G. & Timur A. Majsak. 1999. Sredstva vyraženija admirativnoj semantiki. [Means of expressing admirative semantics.] In Aleksandr E. Kibrik & Jakov G. Testelec (eds.), Elementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologiˇceskom osvešˇcenii, 289–292. Moskva: Nasledie. Tournadre, Nicolas. 1996. L’ergativité en tibétain: Approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Leuven: Peeters. Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/’disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, et al. (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 281–308. Halle (Saale): International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies. Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje. 2003. Manuel de tibétain standard. Paris: Langues etMondes, L’Asiathèque. van Driem, George. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas. Leiden: Brill. Volkart, Marianne. 2000. The meaning of the auxiliary morpheme `dug in the aspect systems of Central Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2). 127–153. Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Yukawa Yasutosi 湯川泰敏. 1966. チベット語のduuの意味. Chibettogo no duu no imi. [The meaning of Tibetan duu.] 言語研究Gengo Kenky¯u 49. 77–84. Zeisler, Bettina. 2000. Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2). 39–78