Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hill, Nathan W.
Publisher: Slovak Association for the Study of English
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: 8630, 2200, 3100
DeLancey (2012) eloquently makes the point that the generativist notion of\ud 'grammaticality' is a misleading metaphor by which to understand human language. Despite this, DeLancey himself claims that a number of constructions in 'Lhasa' Tibetan cannot be said at all, cannot be said by ethnic Tibetans, or can only be said by ethnic Tibetan. These purported usage restrictions are not accurate. The contextual semantics of 'Lhasa' Tibetan evidentials falsify DeLancey's and Aikhenvald's use of hierarchies of information source to explain the use of evidentials. 'Lhasa' Tibetan also falsifies several other of Aikhenvald's typological generalizations.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • AIKHENVALD, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
    • AIKHENVALD, Alexandra. 2012. The essence of mirativity. In Linguistic Typology, 2012, vol. 16, no.3, pp. 435-485.
    • BARTEE, Ellen. 2011. The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In TURIN, M., ZEISLER, B. (eds.), Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax. Leiden: Brill, 2011, pp. 133-182.
    • CHANG, Kun, CHANG, Betty Shefts. 1984. The certainty hierarchy among Spoken Tibetan verbs of being. In Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 1984, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 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, 2003.
    • DENWOOD, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
    • DELANCEY, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In CHAFE, W., NICHOLS, J. (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1986, pp. 203-13.
    • DELANCEY, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. In Cognitive Linguistics, 1990, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 289-321.
    • DELANCEY, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. In Journal of Pragmatics, 2001, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 369-382.
    • DELANCEY, Scott. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. In Linguistic Typology, 2012, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 529-564.
    • DICKINSON, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. In Studies in Language, 2000, vol. 24, no. 379- 421.
    • GARRETT, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD thesis at University of California Los Angeles, 2001.
    • HARGREAVES, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. In Himalayan Linguistics, 2005, vol. 3, no., pp. 1-48.
    • HILL, Nathan W. 2012. 'Mirativity' does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. In Linguistic Typology, 2012, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 389-433.
    • MCENERY, Tony, WILSON, Andrew. 2001. Corpus linguistics: an introduction. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001.
    • MILLER, Roy Andrew. 1955. The Independent Status of Lhasa dialect within Central Tibetan. In Orbis, 1955, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 49-55.
    • PEREIRA, Fernando. 2000. Formal grammar and information theory: together again? In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. (Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences) 358.1769, 2000, 1239-1253.
    • RÓNA-TAS, András. 1985. Wiener Vorlesungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte Tibets. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1985.
    • SAPIR, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Bruce and company, 1921.
    • VOLKART, Marianne. 2000. The meaning of the auxiliary morpheme 'dug in the aspect systems of Central Tibetan dialects. In Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 2000, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 127-153.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok