# A corpus study of egophoric markers in spoken Lhasa Tibetan

Éric Mélac

► To cite this version:

Éric Mélac. A corpus study of egophoric markers in spoken Lhasa Tibetan. 57th Annula Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europea, University of Helsinki, Aug 2024, Helsinki, France. hal-04859410

HAL Id: hal-04859410

https://hal.science/hal-04859410v1

Submitted on 30 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# A corpus study of egophoric markers in spoken Lhasa Tibetan

Eric Mélac (Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3)

Jan Nuyts (University of Antwerp)

## The issue

Notion of egophoricity first proposed for Lhasa Tibetan by Tournadre (1992).

"Certain auxiliary verbs are associated only with the first person (singular or plural), irrespective of the function of that person in the sentence, i.e., as subject, object or complement. The use of an 'egophoric' auxiliary expresses the speaker's knowledge or personal intention, often directly implied in the event that is being described." (Tournadre & Dorje 2003: 93)

More broadly, egophoricity signals that the speaker has privileged access to what (s)he states. Overviews e.g. in San Roque et al. (2018), Zeisler (2024).

Still, no unequivocal definition of the category yet, no clear picture of its behavioral properties, and no clarity about its position relative to, among others, evidentiality or subjectivity. Issues not only arise in a typological perspective, but even within the Tibetic family, and within individual Tibetic languages.

Goal of this paper: check some of the most salient assumptions about the properties of egophoric markers against a corpus of spoken Lhasa Tibetan.

## Method

'Tibet Student Corpus' (Mélac 2014): 4 hours - app. 26,000 words - of semi-guided conversations with 8 native speakers of Lhasa Tibetan, collected in 2010-2011.

Forms considered:

* yod used as copula, as possessive-existential-locative verb, and as suffix (perfect -yod and imperfective -gi yod);

* yin used as copula and as suffix (past perfective -pa yin and future -gi yin);

* byung used as copula and as suffix (past perfective 'receptive' -byung).

Only forms in independent matrix clauses. Subordinate clauses were excluded because most of them obligatorily require the egophoric marker and no alternatives are allowed, hence no egophoric meaning involved.

Hits (413 in total): 248 yod, 88 yin, 77 byung.

Statistics Fisher Exact (performed in R).

All examples cited in this paper are taken from the corpus samples.

## Person sensitivity

Egophoric markers are assumed to typically occur with 1st person subjects in declaratives, as in (1), and with 2nd person subjects in interrogatives, as in (2) (the 'anticipation rule'; Hale 1980, Tournadre 2001).

(1) mang po zhe drags ngas ha go-gi med
much INTS I:ERG know-IMPFV.EGO.NEG
'I really don't know much.'

(2) khyed rang ha go-gi yod-pas
you know know-IMPFV.EGO-INT
'Do you know?'

Exceptions are acknowledged e.g. in reported speech, rhetorical questions, or talk about third person subjects if the speaker is personally involved.

<table><caption>Table 1: Clause types</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">yod</th><th colspan="4">yin</th><th colspan="4">byung</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>DECL</th><th>INT</th><th>PHAT</th><th></th><th>DECL</th><th>INT</th><th>PHAT</th><th></th><th>DECL</th><th>INT</th><th>PHAT</th><th></th><th>DECL</th><th>INT</th><th>PHAT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>suffix</th><td>81</td><td>79</td><td>14.8</td><td>6.2</td><td>56</td><td>100</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>58</td><td>87.9</td><td>12.1</td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>copula</th><td>38</td><td>23.7</td><td>68.4</td><td>7.9</td><td>32</td><td>90.6</td><td>9.4</td><td>0</td><td>19</td><td>89.5</td><td>10.5</td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>posses./exist./loc.</th><td>129</td><td>78.3</td><td>13.2</td><td>8.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>total</th><td>248</td><td>70.2</td><td>22.2</td><td>7.7</td><td>88</td><td>96.6</td><td>3.4</td><td>0</td><td>77</td><td>88.3</td><td>11.7</td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 2: Share of 1st person (SG+PL) subjects in declaratives</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">yod</th><th colspan="3">yin</th><th colspan="3">byung</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>n 1 in</th><th>% 1 of</th><th>n</th><th>n 1 in</th><th>% 1 of</th><th>n</th><th>n 1 in</th><th>% 1 of</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>DECL</th><th>DECL</th><th>DECL</th><th>DECL</th><th>DECL</th><th>DECL</th><th>DECL</th><th>DECL</th><th>DECL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>suffix</th><td>64</td><td>58</td><td><strong>90.6</strong></td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td><strong>100</strong></td><td>51</td><td>44</td><td><strong>86.3</strong></td></tr><tr><th>copula</th><td>9</td><td>6</td><td><strong>66.6</strong></td><td>29</td><td>13</td><td><strong>44.9</strong></td><td>17</td><td>6</td><td><strong>35.3</strong></td></tr><tr><th>posses./exist./loc.</th><td>101</td><td>92</td><td><strong>91.1</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>total</th><td>174</td><td>156</td><td><strong>89.6</strong></td><td>85</td><td>69</td><td><strong>81.2</strong></td><td>68</td><td>50</td><td><strong>73.5</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3: Share of 2nd person (SG+PL) subjects in interrogatives</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">yod</th><th colspan="3">yin</th><th colspan="3">byung</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>n 2 in</th><th>% 2 of</th><th>n</th><th>n 2 in</th><th>% 2 of</th><th>n</th><th>n 2 in</th><th>% 2 of</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>suffix</th><td>12</td><td>9</td><td><strong>75.0</strong></td><td>0</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td><strong>100</strong></td></tr><tr><th>copula</th><td>26</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td><strong>66.6</strong></td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><th>posses./exist./loc.</th><td>17</td><td>8</td><td><strong>47.1</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>total</th><td>55</td><td>17</td><td><strong>30.9</strong></td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td><strong>66.6</strong></td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td><strong>77.8</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 4: Share of 2nd person (SG+PL) subjects in interrogatives with yod - excluding interro-negative med-pas</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">yod</th><th colspan="3">yin</th><th colspan="3">byung</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>n 2 in</th><th>% 2 of</th><th>n</th><th>n 2 in</th><th>% 2 of</th><th>n</th><th>n 2 in</th><th>% 2 of</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th><th>INT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>suffix</th><td>9</td><td>9</td><td><strong>100</strong></td><td></td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td><strong>100</strong></td></tr><tr><th>copula</th><td>0</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td></td><td>2</td><td><strong>66.6</strong></td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><th>posses./exist./loc.</th><td>11</td><td>7</td><td><strong>63.6</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>total</th><td>20</td><td>16</td><td><strong>80.0</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

General observation: there are considerable differences between the three markers, and even between the types of uses within each. The suffixal use tends to be better according to expectation than the other uses.

Still, declaratives (cf. table 2) are fairly well in tune with expectation. Exceptions are by and large explicable in terms of two factors, more or less in line with assumptions in the literature:
* occurrence of the marker in hybrid reported speech, cf. (3);

(3) spun skyag des kho rang-tso'i nang-la sku zhab-s-lags cousin DEM:ERG 3-PL:GEN in-LOC monk-HON gdan 'dren zhus-yod gsung-gis invitation LV-PFCT.EGO say.HON-IMPFV.DPERC 'That cousin said they had invited a monk at their home.'

* the speaker or a person/thing very close to him/her is a direct participant – even if not the subject – in the state of affairs, cf. (4); specifically for *byung*: the speaker is the recipient of the state of affairs, cf. (5).

(4) byams po zhe po cig gnang-gi yod affection INTS give.HON-IMPFIVE.EGO 'She was giving me a lot of affection.'

(5) de ring kha par slebs-byung today phone arrive-PFIVE.EGO.REC 'I received a call today.'

Hence in Lhasa Tibetan egophorics cannot be used merely to mark the speaker's emotional involvement/subjectivity or his/her own territory of knowledge.

Interrogatives (cf. table 3) appear far less in tune with the anticipation rule. Yet numbers for *yin* and *byung* are too small to allow conclusions. And figures for *yod* are biased due to interro-negative *med-pas*, which has no egophoric meaning and is not person-sensitive – cf. (6).

(6) zhing kha'i nang 'gro-mkhan cig med-pas field:GEN in go-NOM iNDF NEG.EGO-INT 'Isn't that a person walking in a field?'

Without *med-pas* (cf. table 4) figures for *yod* are much better in line with expectation, and the few exceptions are perfectly explicable.

In sum, our data support the assumption that egophoric markers are person-sensitive. There is some flexibility in this, though maybe even less than is sometimes suggested.

Yet note: the anticipation rule is not specific for egophoric markers, TAM markers in interrogatives in general typically concern anticipation of what the addressee might think or is expected to answer. In *do you travel to Paris often?*, the aspect marker anticipates the hearer's situation, not the speaker's.

## Link with intentional/volitional action

Egophoricity would typically concern expressions of the speaker's personal experience of his/her own volitional and intentional actions – cf. (7). It is presumably not used in non-volitional contexts – cf. (8).

(7) kha lag za-gar 'gro-gi yod food eat-PURP go-IMPFIVE.EGO 'I was going to have some food.'

(8) rgyas pos 'dzegs-byas 'gro-gi 'dug-ga ri-la INTS climb-CO go-IMPFV.DIR-PHAT mountain-LOC 'I was going to climb a lot... on that mountain.' [the speaker is referring to himself in a dream, so is not in control of the action]

In terms of a typology of states of affairs ('aktionsart') such as Dik's (1997), one should thus expect egophoric markers to predominantly occur with dynamic and controlled states of affairs.

<table><caption>Table 5: Share of dynamic SoAs</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>yod<br>n<br>+DYN</th><th>%<br>+DYN</th><th>n</th><th>yin<br>n<br>+DYN</th><th>%<br>+DYN</th><th>n</th><th>byung<br>n<br>+DYN</th><th>%<br>+DYN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>suffix</td><td>81</td><td>45</td><td><strong>55.6</strong></td><td>56</td><td>45</td><td><strong>80.4</strong></td><td>58</td><td>45</td><td><strong>77.6</strong></td></tr><tr><td>copula</td><td>38</td><td>1</td><td><strong>2.6</strong></td><td>32</td><td>5</td><td><strong>15.6</strong></td><td>19</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>posses./exist./loc.</td><td>129</td><td>52</td><td><strong>40.3</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>248</td><td>98</td><td><strong>39.5</strong></td><td>88</td><td>50</td><td><strong>56.8</strong></td><td>77</td><td>45</td><td><strong>58.4</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 6: Share of controlled SoAs</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>yod<br>n<br>+CON</th><th>%<br>+CON</th><th>n</th><th>yin<br>n<br>+CON</th><th>%<br>+CON</th><th>n</th><th>byung<br>n<br>+CON</th><th>%<br>+CON</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>suffix</td><td>81</td><td>31</td><td><strong>38.3</strong></td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td><strong>100</strong></td><td>58</td><td>9</td><td><strong>15.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>copula</td><td>38</td><td>10</td><td><strong>26.3</strong></td><td>32</td><td>12</td><td><strong>37.5</strong></td><td>19</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>posses./exist./loc.</td><td>129</td><td>61</td><td><strong>47.3</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>248</td><td>102</td><td><strong>41.1</strong></td><td>88</td><td>68</td><td><strong>77.3</strong></td><td>77</td><td>9</td><td><strong>11.7</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 7: Share of controlled dynamic SoAs</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>yod<br>n<br>+C+D</th><th>%<br>+C+D</th><th>n</th><th>yin<br>n<br>+C+D</th><th>%<br>+C+D</th><th>n</th><th>byung<br>n<br>+C+D</th><th>%<br>+C+D</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>suffix</td><td>81</td><td>31</td><td><strong>38.3</strong></td><td>56</td><td>45</td><td><strong>80.4</strong></td><td>58</td><td>9</td><td><strong>15.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>copula</td><td>38</td><td>1</td><td><strong>2.6</strong></td><td>32</td><td>5</td><td><strong>15.6</strong></td><td>19</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>posses./exist./loc.</td><td>129</td><td>21</td><td><strong>16.3</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>248</td><td>53</td><td><strong>21.4</strong></td><td>88</td><td>50</td><td><strong>56.8</strong></td><td>77</td><td>9</td><td><strong>11.7</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

There are again enormous differences between the markers and their different uses, but overall there is no real match in our data with this common assumption.

## Co-occurrence with elements relating to 'personal experience'

Definitions of egophoricity typically include 'personal experience' as an essential component (even if there are different interpretations of what this involves). If this is accurate, one might expect a few semantic elements to often co-occur with egophoric markers in a clause.

### (i) Subjectivity marking

Talking about personal experience to which one has privileged access might also trigger, more than average, subjectivity markers signaling that the speaker is expressing a personal perspective – cf. (9).
(9) **ngas byas na lug-gi skad 'dra po 'dug**
I-ERG do.PFIVE if sheep-GEN sound similar COP.IMPFIVE.DPERC
'In my opinion, it sounds like a sheep bleating.'

We checked the presence of the markers in (10) (in case of polysemy, only subjective uses were counted).

(10) **bsam-gyis** 'I think'
**bsam-byung** 'I thought'
**ngas byas-na** 'in my opinion'
**ngas ltas-na** 'from what I see'

<table><caption>Table 8: Presence of subjectivity markers</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">yod</th><th colspan="3">yin</th><th colspan="3">byung</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>n SBJ</th><th>% SBJ</th><th>n</th><th>n SBJ</th><th>% SBJ</th><th>n</th><th>n SBJ</th><th>% SBJ</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>suffix</td><td>81</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>56</td><td>1</td><td><strong>1.8</strong></td><td>58</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>copula</td><td>38</td><td>2</td><td><strong>5.3</strong></td><td>32</td><td>1</td><td><strong>3.1</strong></td><td>19</td><td>1</td><td><strong>5.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>posses./exist./loc.</td><td>129</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>248</td><td>2</td><td><strong>0.8</strong></td><td>88</td><td>2</td><td><strong>2.3</strong></td><td>77</td><td>1</td><td><strong>3.9</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

For a comparison: estimated average frequency of these markers in independent and matrix clauses overall is 2.9%.

Again huge differences between the markers and their different uses, but they do not systematically attract subjectivity markers more than average.

Conclusion: expectation is not borne out.

## (ii) Experiential auxiliary

Talking about personal experience might also invite use above average of the experiential auxiliary *myong* – as in (11).

(11) **ma gzhi par-dang ltas mo'i nang-la mthong**
basically picture-ADD movie:GEN in-LOC see
**myong yod**
EXP COP.IMPFIVE.EGO
'I've only seen them in pictures and films.'

<table><caption>Table 9: Presence of experiential auxiliary</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">yod</th><th colspan="3">yin</th><th colspan="3">byung</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>n EXP</th><th>% EXP</th><th>n</th><th>n EXP</th><th>% EXP</th><th>n</th><th>n EXP</th><th>% EXP</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>suffix</td><td>81</td><td>1</td><td><strong>1.2</strong></td><td>56</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>58</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>copula</td><td>38</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>32</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>19</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>posses./exist./loc.</td><td>129</td><td>56</td><td><strong>43.4</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>248</td><td>57</td><td><strong>23.0</strong></td><td>88</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>77</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

For a comparison: average frequency of the experiential auxiliary in independent and matrix clauses overall is 2.8%.

The experiential auxiliary more or less exclusively combines with possessive *yod*. But *myong yod* is special as a fixed phrase in which *yod* modifies the auxiliary, not the main verb of the clause.

Conclusion: expectation is not borne out.

## (iii) Habituality

One may expect things that one encounters often and on a regular basis – habituality – to create experience.

(12) **nga yang se dgon pa gnyid lam btang-gi yod**
I often monastery dream LV-IMPFIVE.EGO
'I often have a dream about a monastery.'

We checked the presence of the markers in (13):

(13) **rtag par 'always'**
**yang se 'often'**
**ga dus re bzhin 'each time'**
**spyir btang 'generally, usually'**
**nam rgyun 'usually, generally'**

<table><caption>Table 10: Presence of marking of habituality</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">yod</th><th colspan="3">yin</th><th colspan="3">byung</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>n HAB</th><th>% HAB</th><th>n</th><th>n HAB</th><th>% HAB</th><th>n</th><th>n HAB</th><th>% HAB</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>suffix</td><td>81</td><td>5</td><td><strong>6.2</strong></td><td>56</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>58</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>copula</td><td>38</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>32</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>19</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>posses./exist./loc.</td><td>129</td><td>1</td><td><strong>0.8</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>248</td><td>6</td><td><strong>2.4</strong></td><td>88</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>77</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

For a comparison: average frequency of habitual markers in independent and matrix clauses is 1.2%.

Once more huge differences between forms and their uses. Only suffixal *yod* is in line with expectation, all others are not at all.

Conclusion: expectation is not really borne out.

## (iv) Pastness/perfectivity

One might expect personal experience to typically concern events that lie in the past (cf. San Roque et al. 2018). Maybe the correlate for this in Lhasa Tibetan is perfectivity?

(14) **e 'dras skad cha dris-pa yin**
**like-that question ask-PFIVE.EGO**
'I asked a question like that.'

<table><caption>Table 11: Share of perfective instances</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">yod</th><th colspan="3">yin</th><th colspan="3">byung</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>n PF</th><th>% PF</th><th>n</th><th>n PF</th><th>% PF</th><th>n</th><th>n PF</th><th>% PF</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>suffix</td><td>81</td><td>10</td><td><strong>12.3</strong></td><td>56</td><td>53</td><td><strong>94.6</strong></td><td>58</td><td>58</td><td><strong>100</strong></td></tr><tr><td>copula</td><td>38</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>32</td><td>1</td><td><strong>3.1</strong></td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td><strong>100</strong></td></tr><tr><td>posses./exist./loc.</td><td>129</td><td>0</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>248</td><td>10</td><td><strong>4.0</strong></td><td>88</td><td>54</td><td><strong>61.4</strong></td><td>77</td><td>77</td><td><strong>100</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

For a comparison: average frequency of perfectivity (excluding future perfectivity) in independent and matrix clauses overall is 14.8%.

Once again huge differences between forms and their uses. Some forms are in line with expectation, but others not.
Conclusion again: expectation is not really borne out.

General conclusion from (i)-(iv) is that none of the four elements that one might expect to correlate with egophoricity actually does in a systematic way.

Also, again note the enormous differences between the markers and between individual form types of the markers, in each of the dimensions.

## Conclusion

Only person sensitivity is supported. All other features we looked at that are often ascribed to egophoricity do not withstand the data.

Especially striking: the enormous difference between the three markers, and between the different usage types of each.

Does this mean the markers we looked at are not egophoric? Not very credible, as these are the forms on which the concept of egophoricity was originally based.

So the problem may rather lie with the concept of egophoricity as such.

What this means for the notion is food for another paper. And maybe for the discussion

## References

Dik, Simon C. 1997. *The theory of functional grammar*. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. *Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics* 7 - A-53: 95-106.

Mélac, Eric. 2014. *L'évidentialité en Anglais: Approche contrastive à partir d'un corpus Anglais-Tibétain*. PhD dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3.

San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe. 2018. Egophoricity: An introduction. In Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), *Egophoricity*, 1-78. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Tournadre, Nicolas. 1992. La déixis en tibétain. In M.-A. Morel & L. Danon-Boileau (eds.), *La deixis*, 197-208. Paris: PUF.

Tournadre, Nicolas & Konchok Jiatso. 2001. Final auxiliary verbs in literary Tibetan and in the dialects. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area* 24: 49-111.

Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje. 2003. *Manual of Standard Tibetan*. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.

Zeisler, Bettina (2024). Report and comments on the workshop 'Egophoric-evidentiality and the right(s) to know (better)', Tübingen, April 25-26, 2024. (https://uniteubingen.de/fakultaeten/philosophische-fakultaet/fachbereiche/asien-orient-wissenschaften/indologie/personen/bettina-zeisler/international-workshop-april-25-26-2024-ego-evidentiality-and-the-rights-to-know-better/)