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在句子中表达说话人观点的方式。例如，在拉萨藏语中，助动词“印”可以用在说话者是主语的句子中(NGA em-chi Yen‘*I’m*a Doctor‘)，如果说话者想要表明他们的人际关系或财产(’di NGa‘i bu-mo in’This is*my*女儿‘)，或者如果说话者选择强调谁做了一件事(’di khyed-rang-gi gsol-ja‘这是你的茶[That*I*Have For You])。其他藏族品种，如吉雷尔藏族或南野马藏族，也表现出与拉萨藏族‘阴’一样的自指标记，但并不总是在相同的背景下。然而，在尼泊尔也说的Newar变体中，自指标记由动词结尾的长元音组成，而不是单独的(助动词)(ji Manaj napalan-AA‘i(说话者)按计划与Manoj相遇，vs.ji Manaj napalan-a’I遇到Manoj是巧合的‘)。最后，在藏族和纽瓦尔品种的较老阶段，都找不到这种隐晦的标记。这个项目旨在回答的中心问题是，如何以及为什么特定的语法标记随着时间的推移以略有不同的方式出现，即使在密切相关的语言中也是如此。在这些语言的较老阶段中，有什么微妙的语法线索可以在后期导致外指标记？在这个项目中，我们首先调查现代藏语和纽瓦尔变体是如何在语法上表达说话者的参与的。为此，我们将创建注释语料库：数字文本集合，其中包含有关句子中每个元素的结构和意义的语言信息。由于目前还没有关于高度濒危的Lalitpur Newar物种的数据，我们将在尼泊尔进行田野工作，记录这种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，用南野马藏文的旧档案文本将与用标准古典藏文写成的18-19文本进行比较，以调查今天拉萨藏文标记语“Byung”的发展，这表明说话者是一项行动的接受者(Khong gis nga Yige btang Byung‘he Sent*Me*a Letter.’)。今天的南野马藏语还有一个动词‘Byung’，这个词可以追溯到古老的古典藏语‘Byung’，意思是‘收到，得到’。但与拉萨藏语不同的是，南野马藏语中的这个动词并没有变成自指助动词。由于我们的语料库有广泛而一致的语言注释，我们将能够系统地研究像‘Byung’这样的动词用法的细微差异。由于我们的语料库将不仅包含形态句法注释，还将包含关于语篇语境中的意义和功能的信息，因此我们将处于一个独特的位置来研究像隐喻性这样的复杂语法现象。在历史背景下研究这一点给了我们测试语言变化理论的机会，这些理论对变化的触发因素和机制做出了特别的预测。语言内部因素(如音位的变化)是否导致了隐喻性标记的出现，语言外部因素(语言接触)能否发挥作用，以及/或者我们能否观察到这些语言中的多种因素的组合，这些因素在尼泊尔历史上一直是人口密集的人所说的？最后，由于即使是关系密切的藏语和那雅语也表现出一些显著的差异，与其他语言上的外指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，我们将把藏语和纽瓦尔人的研究结果放在跨语言的角度。

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.