Abstract
This article describes the use of eight research tools used in the documentation of evidential and modal use in Lamjung Yolmo, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. For each tool, the methodology is described, and some examples of the usefulness and limitations are discussed. The methods include use of existing and novel tools and materials. Image tasks included the existing resources Family Problem Picture Task and Jackal and Crow, as well as optical illusions. Object tasks included the hidden objects game and magic tricks. Listening and talking tasks included the game twenty questions, reporting previous speech, and a grammaticality judgement task based on multiple reports. Making research methods more transparent, and the open sharing of data and materials, allows us to move forward with better understanding of the contexts of evidential use, and more nuanced cross-linguistic typological analysis of evidential systems.
- Abbreviations
- 1
first person;
- 2
second person;
- 3
third person;
- cop
copula;
- dub
dubitative;
- emph
emphatic;
- erg
ergative;
- f
female;
- foc
focus;
- gen
genitive;
- loc
locative;
- m
male;
- neg
negative;
- non.pst
non-past;
- part
particle;
- pe
perceptual evidential;
- pers
personal evidential;
- pftv
perfective;
- pst
past;
- rs
reported speech;
- sens
sensory;
- sg
singular.
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality (Typological Studies in Language 54), 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.54.04aikSearch in Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle & Nicholas Evans. 2017. SCOPIC design and overview. In Danielle Barth & Nicholas Evans (eds.), The Social Cognition Parallax Interview Corpus (SCOPIC) (Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication 12), 1–21. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel. 2017. Tense and mood marking in Xining Mandarin. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 4(1). 62–93. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.4.1.03bel.Search in Google Scholar
Berez-Kroeker, Andrea L., Lauren Gawne, Susan Kung, Barbara F. Kelly, Heston Tyler, Gary Holton, Pulsifer Peter, David Beaver, Shobhana Chelliah, Dubinsky Stanley, Richard P. Meier, Nick Thieberger, Keren Rice & Woodbury Anthony. 2018. Reproducible research in linguistics: A position statement on data citation and attribution in our field. Linguistics 56(1). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0032.Search in Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood (Studies in Language Companion Series 49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.49Search in Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, Marianne Gullberg, Asifa Majid & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2004. Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In Asifa Majid (ed.), Field manual volume 9. 10–24. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 43). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219036.Search in Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia M. & Monica Macaulay 2015. Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology 19(2). 201–237. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0007.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Suzanne Fleischman 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. In Joan L. Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (Typological Studies in Language 32), 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.32Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.). 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 203–213. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 1997. The interaction of modality and negation: A typological study. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2001. The place of inference within the evidential system. International Journal of American Linguistics 67(2). 193–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/466455.10.1086/466455Search in Google Scholar
de Villiers, Jill G., Jay Garfield, Harper Gernet Girard, Tom Roeper & Margaret Speas. 2009. Evidentials in Tibetan: Acquisition, semantics and cognitive development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 125. 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.248.Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. & Jan Peter de Ruiter. 2003. The diff-task: A symmetrical dyadic multimodal interaction task. In Nicholas J. Enfield (ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation. 17–21. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, S. C. Levinson, Nicholas J. Enfield, Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid. 2004. Reciprocal constructions and situation type. In Asifa Majid (ed.), Field manual volume 9, 25–30. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Anthony S. Gillies. 2007. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Tamar Szabó Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology, vol. 2, 32–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Elizabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity (Typological Studies in Language 118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.118Search in Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward J. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward & Leah Bateman. 2007. Symbiosis between documentary linguistics and linguistic pragmatics. In Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond & David Nathan (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory. 83–93. London: SOAS.Search in Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2009. Yolmo (also known as Helambu Sherpa, Nepal) (LG1). Digital collection managed by PARADISEC. https://doi.org/10.4225/72/56E825B0B80EA.Search in Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2013. Lamjung Yolmo copulas in use: Evidentiality, reported speech and questions. Melbourne: University of Melbourne dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2014. Evidentiality in Lamjung Yolmo. Journal of the South East Asian Linguistics Society 7. 76–96.Search in Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2015a. Language documentation and division: Bridging the digital divide. Digital Studies 6(2). https://doi.org/10.16995/dscn.38.Search in Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2015b. The reported speech evidential particle in Lamjung Yolmo. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 38(2). 292–318. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.38.2.09gaw.Search in Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2016a. A sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo (Asia-Pacific Linguistics 30). Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/110258.Search in Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2016b. Questions and answers in Lamjung Yolmo. Journal of Pragmatics 101. 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.002.Search in Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar (Mouton Grammar Library 40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198812.Search in Google Scholar
Hari, Anna Maria. 2010. Yohlmo sketch grammar. Kathmandu: Ekta Books.Search in Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan 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.Search in 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 (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 302), 1–40. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-001.Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle, Kazuki Sekine, Schembri Adam & Trevor Johnston. 2019. Comparing signers and speakers: Building a directly comparable corpus of Auslan and Australian English. Corpora 14(1). 63–76. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2019.0161.Search in Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2003. Evidentials: Summation, questions, prospects. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality (Typological Studies in Language 54), 307–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.54.17josSearch in Google Scholar
Kelly, Barbara F. 2004. A grammar of Sherpa. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa (Pacific Linguistics 557), 232–440. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Kelly, Barbara F. & Lauren Gawne 2011. Don’t forget the kids! Recording children’s talk in language documentation. Poster presented at the 2nd International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation, University of Hawaiʻi, 11–13 February.Search in Google Scholar
Knappert, Jan. 1985. Myths and legends of Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland (Nisaba 14). Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Kratochvíl, František, Nur Izidhar Binte Ismail & Diyana Hamzah. 2018. Stance, categorisation, and information structure in Malay. In Sonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara & Atsuko Utsumi (eds.), Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages, 41–80. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1402537.Search in Google Scholar
La Fontaine, Jean de & A. Tastu. 1842. Fables de la Fontaine. Paris: Furne et Cie.Search in Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis & Hotze Rullmann. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7. 201–254.10.1075/livy.7.07matSearch in Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Pied Piper.Search in Google Scholar
Nordén, Anton H. 2016. Epistemic modality in Ghanaian Pidgin English. Stockholm: Stockholm University MA thesis. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-131516 (accessed 2 February 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L. 1986. The evidential system of Kashaya. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 20–29. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167178Search in Google Scholar
Perry, Ben E. 2007. Aesopica: A series of texts relating to Aesop or ascribed to him. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Search in Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Lauren Gawne, Daria Hoenigman, Julia C. Miller, Stef Spronck, Alan Rumsey, Alice Carroll & Nicholas Evans. 2012. Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Language Documentation and Conservation 6. 135–174. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4504.Search in Google Scholar
Silva, Wilson & Scott, AnderBois. 2016. Fieldwork game play: Masterminding evidentiality in Desano. Language Documentation & Conservation 10. 58–76. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24687.Search in Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2003. Encoding shape: Formal means and semantic distinctions. In Nicholas J. Enfield (ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation, 57–59. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul, Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier, 281–308. Saale: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2017. A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetic languages (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 302), 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-004.Search in Google Scholar
Vokurková, Zuzana. 2008. Epistemic modalities in spoken Standard Tibetan. Prague & Paris: Université Charles & Université Paris 8 dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11956/18016.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
