{"title":"作为语法化乘客的证据性","authors":"Eric Mélac, Joanna Bialek","doi":"10.1075/sl.23009.mel","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article investigates the grammaticalization patterns of evidentiality from a cross-linguistic perspective\n with a focus on Lhasa Tibetan. It documents the history of the evidential morphemes ’dug, -song, -bzhag, and\n =ze from Old Literary Tibetan to modern spoken Lhasa Tibetan. Our analyses show that these morphemes started\n grammaticalizing before encoding evidentiality. We argue that, through pragmatic strengthening, evidentiality tends to infiltrate\n forms which have already grammaticalized to express other semantic domains. These patterns of grammaticalization are confirmed by\n diachronic and reconstructed data from genetically unrelated languages. Evidentiality thus tends to be a ‘grammaticalization\n passenger’ (i.e., a conventionalized meaning which used to be merely implied from the recurrent contexts of a grammaticalized\n form) rather than a ‘grammaticalization target’ (i.e., a functional domain which triggers grammaticalization). This may explain\n why evidentiality is less often grammaticalized than other notions, such as time or modality, in the world’s languages.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidentiality as a grammaticalization passenger\",\"authors\":\"Eric Mélac, Joanna Bialek\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/sl.23009.mel\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article investigates the grammaticalization patterns of evidentiality from a cross-linguistic perspective\\n with a focus on Lhasa Tibetan. It documents the history of the evidential morphemes ’dug, -song, -bzhag, and\\n =ze from Old Literary Tibetan to modern spoken Lhasa Tibetan. Our analyses show that these morphemes started\\n grammaticalizing before encoding evidentiality. We argue that, through pragmatic strengthening, evidentiality tends to infiltrate\\n forms which have already grammaticalized to express other semantic domains. These patterns of grammaticalization are confirmed by\\n diachronic and reconstructed data from genetically unrelated languages. Evidentiality thus tends to be a ‘grammaticalization\\n passenger’ (i.e., a conventionalized meaning which used to be merely implied from the recurrent contexts of a grammaticalized\\n form) rather than a ‘grammaticalization target’ (i.e., a functional domain which triggers grammaticalization). This may explain\\n why evidentiality is less often grammaticalized than other notions, such as time or modality, in the world’s languages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23009.mel\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23009.mel","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article investigates the grammaticalization patterns of evidentiality from a cross-linguistic perspective
with a focus on Lhasa Tibetan. It documents the history of the evidential morphemes ’dug, -song, -bzhag, and
=ze from Old Literary Tibetan to modern spoken Lhasa Tibetan. Our analyses show that these morphemes started
grammaticalizing before encoding evidentiality. We argue that, through pragmatic strengthening, evidentiality tends to infiltrate
forms which have already grammaticalized to express other semantic domains. These patterns of grammaticalization are confirmed by
diachronic and reconstructed data from genetically unrelated languages. Evidentiality thus tends to be a ‘grammaticalization
passenger’ (i.e., a conventionalized meaning which used to be merely implied from the recurrent contexts of a grammaticalized
form) rather than a ‘grammaticalization target’ (i.e., a functional domain which triggers grammaticalization). This may explain
why evidentiality is less often grammaticalized than other notions, such as time or modality, in the world’s languages.