The Emergence of Egophoricity: a diachronic investigation into the marking of the conscious self

这个项目着眼于某些藏语和尼瓦尔语变体在句子中表达说话者视角的方式。例如，在拉萨藏语中，助动词“yin”可以用在说话人是主语的句子中（nga em-chi yin“*我是*医生”），如果说话人想要确定他们的个人关系或占有（“di nga' I bu-mo yin”“这是*我的*女儿”），或者如果说话人选择强调谁做了一个动作（“di kyed -rang-gi gsol-ja yin”“这是你的茶[那*我*为你做的]”）。其他藏语品种，如吉雷尔藏语或南野马藏语也表现出像拉萨藏语“阴”这样的自我赞美标记，但并不总是在相同的语境中。然而，在尼泊尔也使用的Newar语变体中，自我标记由动词结尾的长元音组成，而不是单独的（辅助）动词（ji Manaj napalan-aa“我（说话人）按计划遇到了Manoj”与ji Manaj napalan-a“我碰巧遇到了Manoj”）。最后，在西藏和尼瓦尔品种的较老阶段，这种自我标记不能被发现。该项目旨在回答的核心问题是，即使在密切相关的语言中，表明说话者参与的特定语法标记如何以及为什么会随着时间的推移以略有不同的方式出现。在这些语言的早期阶段可以发现哪些微妙的语法线索，这些线索在后期阶段导致自我标记？在这个项目中，我们首先研究现代藏语和尼瓦尔语变体如何从语法上表达说话人的参与。为此，我们将创建带注释的语料库：富含句子中每个元素的结构和意义的语言信息的数字文本集合。由于目前还没有高度濒危的Lalitpur Newar品种的数据，我们将在尼泊尔进行实地调查，记录语言并为我们的语料库收集文本。然后，我们将相同的语言信息添加到历史文本中。例如，南野马藏文的旧档案文本将与18-19世纪用标准古典藏文写的文本进行比较，以调查当今拉萨藏文的自我表示符号“byung”的发展，“byung”表示说话者是一个动作的接受者（khong gis ngar yige btang byung’He sent *me* a letter.’）。今天的南野马藏语也有一个动词“byung”，它可以追溯到古藏语和古典藏语的“byung”，意思是“接受，得到”。但与拉萨藏语不同的是，野马南藏语中这个动词并没有变成修饰助动词。由于我们的语料库广泛而一致的语言注释，我们将能够系统地研究像“byung”这样的动词使用的细微差异。由于我们的语料库不仅包含形态句法注释，还包含话语语境中的意义和功能信息，因此我们将处于一个独特的位置来研究复杂的语法现象，如自我性。在历史背景下调查这个问题，让我们有机会检验语言变化的理论，这些理论对变化的触发因素和机制做出了预测。语言内部因素（如音系的变化）是否对自我标记的出现负责，语言外部因素（语言接触）是否起作用，以及/或者我们是否可以观察到这些历史上由尼泊尔近距离人群使用的语言中的因素组合？最后，由于即使是关系密切的藏语和尼瓦尔语也表现出一些显著的差异，因此与其他语言的自我标记进行比较可以为这一复杂现象提供进一步的线索。因此，在项目的最后一年，我们将从跨语言的角度来研究藏语和纽瓦语的发现。

This project looks at the way certain Tibetan and Newar varieties express the perspective of the speaker in the sentence. In Lhasa Tibetan, for example, the auxiliary verb 'yin' can be used in sentences where the speaker is the subject (nga em-chi yin '*I'm* a doctor'), if the speaker wants to identify their personal relation or possession ('di nga'i bu-mo yin 'This is *my* daughter') or if the speaker chooses to emphasise who performed an action ('di khyed-rang-gi gsol-ja yin 'This is your tea [that *I* have made for you]'). Other Tibetan varieties, such as Jirel or South Mustang Tibetan also exhibit egophoric markers like Lhasa Tibetan 'yin', but not always in the same contexts. In Newar varieties that are also spoken in Nepal, however, egophoric marking consists of long vowels in verbal endings rather than separate (auxiliary) verbs (ji Manaj napalan-aa 'I (the speaker) met Manoj as planned' vs. ji Manaj napalan-a 'I met Manoj by coincidence'). Finally, in older stages of both Tibetan and Newar varieties, this egophoric marking cannot be found. The central question that this project aims to answer is how and why specific grammatical markers to indicate the speaker's involvement emerge over time in ways that slightly differ, even in closely related languages. What subtle grammatical clues can be found in olders stages of these languages that in later stages result in egophoric marking?In this project we first investigate how Present-Day Tibetan and Newar varieties grammatically express the speaker's involvement. For this purpose we will create annotated corpora: digital text collections enriched with linguistic information about the structure and meaning of each element in the sentence. Because there is no data available yet for the highly endangered Lalitpur Newar variety, we will conduct fieldwork in Nepal to document the language and collect texts for our corpora. We then add the same linguistic information to historical texts. Older archive texts in South Mustang Tibetan, for example, will be compared to 18-19th texts written in standard Classical Tibetan to investigate the development of the Present-Day Lhasa Tibetan egophoric marker 'byung', which indicates the speaker is the recipient of an action (khong gis ngar yige btang byung 'He sent *me* a letter.'). Present-Day South Mustang Tibetan also has a verb 'byung', which goes back to Old and Classical Tibetan 'byung' meaning 'receive, get'. But unlike Lhasa Tibetan, this verb in South Mustang Tibetan has not changed into an egophoric auxiliary verb. Because of the extensive and consistent linguistic annotation of our corpora, we will be able to systematically study subtle differences in use of verbs like 'byung'. Since our corpora will not only contain morphosyntactic annotation, but information about meaning and function in discourse context as well, we will be in a unique position to investigate complex grammatical phenomena like egophoricity. Investigating this in a historical context gives us the opportunity to test theories of languages change that make predictions about triggers and mechanisms of change in particular. Are language-internal factors (e.g. changes in phonology) responsible for the emergence of egophoric marking, can language-external factors (language contact) play a role and/or can we observe a combination of factors in these languages that have throughout history been spoken by people in close promixity in Nepal? Finally, since even closely-related Tibetan and Newar varieties exhibit some significant differences, comparison with egophoric marking on other languages can provide further clues on this complex phenomenon. In the final year of the project, we will therefore put our findings from Tibetan and Newar in crosslinguistic perspective.