Chapter 19 Epistemic Modality in Southeastern Tepehuan

In: Evidentials and Modals
Author:
Thomas Willett
Search for other papers by Thomas Willett in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

Abstract

Epistemic modality reflects the speaker’s degree of commitment to the truth of what he or she is saying. This involves both the reliability and the source of his or her knowledge about the situation described. Unlike many languages, all epistemic contrasts in Southeastern Tepehuan are encoded in the verbal particles.

Four types of reliability are distinguised in Southeastern Tepehuan: multiple degrees of emphasis as well as affirmation, disclaimer, and doubt. Three types of sources are distinguished: that which is perceived by the speaker; that which is reported to the speaker; and that which causes the speaker to infer the situation. Reported evidence is further distinguished by whether or not the speaker assumes the hearer already is aware of the situation.

1 Introduction

In this paper I discuss the morphology and semantics of modal particles in Southeastern Tepehuan.1 These particles are all used to express two specific kinds of epistemic modality: evaluations and evidentials.

First I summarize the formal properties of these modal particles (section 2). Then I explain their meanings, both in isolation and in combination with other particles in the light of cross-linguistic tendencies (section 3). Last I give a summary of this form-meaning covariance and offer some conclusions from this study (section 4).

2 Formal Properties

Southeastern Tepehuan is a poly-synthetic language in which most propositional meaning is conveyed through the verb (Willett, 1991, 2002). It is a verb-initial language, since nouns occur after verbs when not focused or topicalized by fronting. Linking particles, such as interjections and conjunctions, occur at the beginning of the clause, as shown in (1).

(1)

Linking particles

(Focus position)

VERB PHRASE

Noun phrases

Adverb phrases

The verb phrase in Southeastern Tepehuan consists of a verb word plus modifying particles, as shown in (2), where a plus sign separates free forms and an equals sign separates bound forms. Particles occur after the verb word except when in focus.

(2) prefixes = STEM = suffixes + particles

Verb stems are composed of a root which can be modified by reduplication, truncation, suppletion, and the addition of stem-formation suffixes. To the stem are bound numerous affixes which augment the meaning of the stem for tense, aspect, and person-number. The verbal particles all have modal meanings, as I explain in section 3.

I use the term particle in the same sense as Bybee (1985). That is, it is a grammatical form that is freer, or less grammaticalized, than an inflectional affix, but not as free as those that occur in periphrastic expressions. It has one, uninflected form; it belongs to a closed class of similar forms; and it occurs in a fixed position relative to the stem it modifies.2

3 Meanings

Modality as a notional domain can be divided into three broad areas (Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca, 1994): (a) the modes of speech, or the interactional role the utterance plays in the speech act; (b) agent-oriented modality, or the conditions under which the agent carries out the situation described; and (c) epistemic modality, or how the speaker views the factuality of his or her description of the situation.

In Southeastern Tepehuan there are four modes of speech: indicative, interrogative, imperative, and conditional. Whenever the other two areas of modality are expressed, they operate within these modes (Willett, 1991). Agent-oriented modality involves the deontic notions of obligation and permission, as well as those of ability, desire, and intention (Bybee, 1985).3 Epistemic modality reflects the speaker’s degree of commitment to the truth of what he or she is saying (Willett, 1988).

Southeastern Tepehuan, like most of the world’s languages, expresses agent-oriented modality primarily by periphrastic means, rather than by the use of affixes or grammatical particles (Willett, 1996). Epistemic modality, however, also like most other languages, is represented by grammatical morphemes in Southeastern Tepehuan. In fact, all epistemic contrasts are encoded in the verbal particles of this language.

Several cross-linguistic studies (e.g. Palmer, 1986; Willett, 1988; Bybee, Perkins and Pagluica, 1994) have shown that the speaker’s judgment as to the epistemic value of the proposition involves both the reliability and the source of his or her knowledge about the situation described. For ease of reference, I refer to these as evaluation and evidence respectively.

3.1 Evaluation

First, I illustrate the varying degrees of evaluation on the part of a Southeastern Tepehuan speaker about the probability that his or her description of a given situation is accurate. The seven evaluation particles are listed in (3), where they are ranked on a continuum from strong to weak.4

(3)

Strong Evaluation

Certainty

Emphasis

ji gu(i)Ꞌ

jia

ji

Affirmation

ku gi

Uncertainty

Disclaimer

moo

Doubt

chi

Weak Evaluation

The strongest of the evaluations, signaled by varying forms of the particle ji, signals a categorical assertion by which the speaker signals full commitment to the truth of the statement made. This assertion, which I call emphasis, can take one of four forms, the strongest of which, ji guiꞋ, is the lengthiest and the least strong of which, ji, is the shortest. Two of these are illustrated in (4).5

(4)

Mummu

na-t

gɨi,

miꞋ

pup

giꞋbok

pu

tukaam

ji guiꞋ,

miꞋ

pup

muukix

ooras

gu

gagox,

na-t

guꞋ-x

ioꞋm

gɨi

jia.

over.there

sub-prf

fell

there

merely

tremble

simply

lay

Emph

there

merely

dead

awhile

the

dog

sub-prf

adv-is

hard

fell

emph

‘The dog just lay trembling for a while there where it fell, as if it were dead, because it had fallen so hard onto the ground.’

The longest forms of emphasis are also the least common forms. Instances of ji guiꞋ and its pronunciation variant ji guꞋ are infrequent, while instances of jia are more frequent. But ji is by far the most common form of emphasis used. Examples of the use of ji alone are given in (5) and (6).

(5)

Jix

juuk

ji

mu

jaꞋp

tatsab,

na

guꞋ-r

bɨptaꞋn.

is

warm

emph

there

area

hot.clime

sub

adv-is

lowland

‘It’s warm in hot country, because it’s lowland.’

(6)

Jugi-aꞋ

ap

ji

dhiꞋ.

ChaꞋ-p

miꞋ

pɨx

dhaa

ka-Ꞌ.

eat-fut

2s

emph

this

not-2s

there

just

sit

sta-fut

‘Eat this. Don’t just sit there.’

Approximately half of the known occurrences of ji are in combination with other particles. Three of these are the complex conjunctions listed in (7), all of which involve the adversative particle guꞋ ‘but’.

(7)

guꞋ ji na guꞋ

‘but (stronger)’

ku ji guꞋ

‘but (weaker)’

dai ji na guꞋ

‘but; it’s just that’

A fourth common combination with ji is illustrated in (8), where it is fronted in coordination with the interrogative alternative particle kaꞋ.

(8)

MiꞋ

puiꞋ

ba

bhɨi-x

ka-Ꞌ

aa

dhi

alamri,

kaꞋ-ch

ji

tɇꞋkob

iam

bhɨi-ch-dha-Ꞌ?

there

thus

rlz

pass-res

sta-fut

conf

this

wire

or-we

emph

high

a.bit.more

pass-cause-apl-fut

‘Is this where the wire should go, or should we put it up a little higher?’

The emphatic particle jia is often used to signal rhetorical questions or tag questions. These meanings point to the probable origin of the particle, namely a combination of ji and the interrogative confirmation particle aa. Depending on the amount of question intonation used, jia can mean anything from simple emphasis, as in (4), to an overt request for confirmation, which begins with jia, as in (9).

(9)

¿Jia

na-t

yaꞋ

ɇɇk

takab?

emph

sub-prf

here

came

yesterday

‘Isn’t it true that he came here yesterday?’

Other uses of jia are somewhere between these two extremes. In (10), for instance, it is used rhetorically where the answer is obvious and no response is necessary.

(10)

JɨɨꞋ,

dai

na

ba-x

jɨpdhar

jia.

yes

just

sub

already-is

cold

emph

‘Yes, hasn’t it gotten cold, though?’

But in (11) it is used as a tag question, requiring a conversationally appropriate response.

(11)

Chakui

bhai

jia

dhi

turasno.

not.yet

ripe

emph

these

peaches

‘These peaches aren’t ripe yet, are they?’

When jia is used as a request for confirmation, it can combine with ji in which case both emphasis and a degree of questioning are clearly present, as in (12).

(12)

¡Aa

guꞋ

muiꞋ

juruñ

jap-ich

ji

jia!

oh

but

many

stay

2s-prf

emph

tag

‘Oh, so you stayed a long time, didn’t you?’

The next strongest degree of evaluation used by Southeastern Tepehuan speakers is signaled by ku gi. This particle is used to affirm the certainty of a statement with an average degree of commitment, as illustrated in (13).

(13)

Intonsis,

aach

bhai-Ꞌ

ba

tɨɨtɨs

ku gi,

ba

jii

ch-ich.

so

we

up-prec

rlz

ascended

aff

rlz

left

1p-prf

‘So we got on (the train) and left.’

This particle most likely derives from the enablement conjunction ku plus the interrogative clarification particle gi. Although the sum of the meanings is somewhat anomalous, the combined meaning of affirmation is constant across all occurrences. Thus the interrogative meaning of gi has apparently been affected by the close causal relation of ku, so that together they constitute a definitive clarification. This analysis seems further justified by the fact that the particle ku gi occurs most often in frozen phrases of positive response, such as those listed in (14).

(14)

jix bhaiꞋ ku gi

‘that’s good/fine/great’

ea ku gi

OK; fine; agreed’

puiꞋ ku gi

‘fine; good; all right’

Whereas the first two evaluations express degrees of relative certainty, the second two express degrees of relative uncertainty. Moo is a type of disclaimer signaling that the content of the utterance is probably true, as shown in (15).

(15)

GanaiꞋ

pɨx

oirɨ

dhi-m

kabaiꞋ.

Dhi-Ꞌ

moo-m

oꞋñxidha-Ꞌ.

back.forth

just

walks

this-2s

horse

this-prec

disc-2s

lose-fut

‘Your horse is pacing back and forth. He might get away from you.’

In contrast, the use of the particle chi expresses only marginal certainty, or doubt, on the speaker’s part, as in (16).

(16)

MiꞋ

chi

pa-iꞋ

oirɨ.

there

dbt

where-prec

walks

‘Perhaps he’s around there somewhere.’

To qualify more overtly what he or she believes to be possibly true, Southeastern Tepehuan speakers have two choices: either they can present the description of the situation as the complement of the verb think, as in (17), or they can combine moo with a negative adverb to preface the statement, as in (18). Both of these signal an unwillingness to definitely commit oneself to the truth of the situation.

(17)

Aañ

ɨlhiꞋñ

na

bhammu-ni

dhaa

kiaꞋmi-Ꞌñ.

1s

think

sub

way.up-prec

sits

house-3s

‘I think he’s up at his house.’

(18)

Cham

moo

bhai-Ꞌ

dhaa.

not

disc

up-prec

sits

‘He’s probably up there.’

The meaning of moo varies a bit depending on the mode of speech in which it occurs. In the indicative mode, as in (15), it indicates probability. In the imperative mode, it often softens a request by emphasizing its subjectivity, as in (19).

(19)

Moo

pim

kɇkɇꞋ

na-m

jaroiꞋ

ji

aaga-Ꞌ

na-r

jix kaiꞋ

ka-Ꞌ.

disc

2p

ext

listen

sub-3p

who

start

say-fut

sub-is

judge

sta-fut

‘You (all) should listen to see who they say will be the new tribal authority.’

In both the conditional and interrogative modes, it indicates surprise or incredulity that the situation is likely to occur, as in (20) and (21).

(20)

¿Pa-p

duuk

jaꞋk

gɨxi-aꞋ,

noꞋ

p-ich

moo

ma

paxiara-m?

where-2s

is.sun

dir

return-fut

if

2s-prf

disc

dst

visit-purpose.prf

‘When will you return if, in fact, you go visiting?’

(21)

¿Moo-x

ooꞋ

aa

dhi

ubii

na baꞋ

giilhim

sarbak

mootoꞋ

gu

kuꞋaꞋ?

disc-is

strong

conf

this

woman

sub then

very

thick

carry.on.head

the

firewood

‘Is that woman strong, or what? She’s carrying thick pieces of firewood on her head!’

As with the markers of certainty described above, moo also occurs frequently with other modal particles. Two common such combinations, listed in (22), are dho guꞋ moo, which is used to introduce statements in an unassuming manner, and ee koñ moo,6 which is used to introduce statements of intention, where the probability of accomplishing the intended action is not certain.

(22)

Dho guꞋ moo

‘Well, ah …’

Ee koñ moo

‘I think I will …’

The doubt particle chi is much less frequent than moo, and often occurs with other particles, including moo. This latter combination is used as an interjection signaling moderate uncertainty, somewhere between the meanings of the particles in isolation, as in (23).

(23)

Cham

bhaiꞋ

bopgɨ

dhi-ñ

mataimaꞋn.

Moo

chi

cham

ka

kaak

dhi

matai.

not

good

soften

this-1s

boiled.corn

disc

dbt

not

still

tastes

this

lime

‘My boiled corn won’t get soft. Maybe the lime has lost its taste.’

Examples of chi with two other particles are given in (24) and (25), the former with the sequential particle baꞋ and the latter with the adversative particle guꞋ.

(24)

Xib

cham.

Jumai

tanolh

chi

baꞋ.

now

not

another

day

dbt

then

‘Not now. Perhaps another day.’

(25)

Ɨɨ

gu

jiil

damdɨr.

GuꞋ

chi

xiꞋ-x

kumaalhik

dhi

jannulh,

piam

ku-r

ardiꞋch

dhi

jiil.

broke

the

thread

on.top

but

dbt

too.much-is

thick

this

cloth

or

enab-is

thin

this

thread

‘The top thread broke. Perhaps the cloth is too thick, or else the the thread is too thin.’

3.2 Evidence

The second major meaning of epistemic modals is that of the type of the evidence the speaker has for the statement he or she makes. It is a meaning less often expressed grammatically in the world’s languages.

Elsewhere (Willett, 1988) I show that in those languages that grammaticize the source of the speaker’s information, three major types of evidence are distinguishable: (a) that which is perceived by the speaker, for which first-hand knowledge is claimed; (b) that which is reported to the speaker, for which only second-hand or third-hand knowledge is claimed; and (c) that which causes the speaker to infer the situation described from the circumstantial evidence at his or her disposal. Southeastern Tepehuan speakers distinguish these three types of evidence by the four grammatical particles shown in (26).

(26)

a.

Perceived by speaker

dho

b.

Reported to speaker:

Unknown to hearer

sap

Known to hearer

saak

c.

Inferred by speaker

bak

Perceived evidence, or evidence that is personally attested to by the speaker via one or more of the physical senses, is signaled by dho. This particle is normally used in response to a question or a declaration to show that the speaker can personally vouch for the validity of the statement. For instance, (27) is appropriate as a response to either the question ‘What are you doing?’ or the informal form of greeting ‘You’re working, are you?’.

(27)

Tujuan

dho.

work

1s

pe

‘I’m working, all right.’

The particle dho follows the verb, as in (28), whenever it is the entire situation that is attested by the speaker.

(28)

Jiñ

kapiasa

dho

gu

kabai

takaab

na-ñ

ka

ulhiis.

1s

kick.prf

pe

the

horse

yesterday

sub-1s

while

unsaddle.prf

‘The horse kicked me yesterday while I was unsaddling it.’

If, however, only a part of the situation is the focus of the response that asserts perceived evidence, then dho follows the fronted noun or adverb, as in (29).

(29)

Kabuimuk

jañ

dho

miꞋ

aaya-Ꞌ.

tomorrow

1s

pe

there

arrive-fut

‘I will definitely arrive there tomorrow.’

The exact nature of the perceived evidence is unstated when it is assumed to be visual—the so-called eye-witness. If challenged to state the means by which he perceives the situation described, however, the speaker can make it explicit, as in (30).

(30)

NɨiꞋñ

dho,

na-ñ

guꞋ

aañ

bɨɨx

jim-da-t

na-r

piasta

ka-t.

saw

1s

pe

sub-1s

adv

1s

also

go-cont-past

sub-is

festival

sta-past

‘Yes, I saw it, because I too went to the festival.’

The particle dho can also be used at the beginning of the clause as an interjection, either alone or followed by the coordinating particle guꞋ ‘but’, as in (22). This is an extension of the meaning of perceived evidence, since an interjection expresses the speaker’s opinion.

Two types of reported evidence can be expressed grammatically in Southeastern Tepehuan: that which the speaker assumes was previously known to the hearer and that which was not.

The latter of these, reported evidence previously unknown to the hearer, is expressed by the particle sap. This particle is common both in everyday conversation and in folklore. In conversation it is used to repeat what the speaker heard someone else say. This report can be either second-hand, i.e. from a direct witness, as in (31); or it can be third-hand, such as from a rumor, as in (32).

(31)

OidhaꞋ

ap

gu-m

taat.

Jimi-aꞋ

sap

Boodamtam

jaꞋk

kabuimuk.

accompany

2s

the-2s

father

go-fut

reu

Mezquital

dir

tomorrow

‘You should go with your father. He’s going to El Mezquital tomorrow.’

(32)

Maik

jach

tubiñ-poꞋ

gu

junboꞋ.

BhaꞋ-ñi

pa-iꞋ

sap

ba-m

aich.

hort

1p

suck-go

the

sugar.cane

up.there-prec

where-prec

reu

rlz-rfl

deliver.prf

‘Let’s go eat some sugar cane. Some supposedly was delivered up there.’

This conversational use of sap is extended in folklore to mean that the story being told is not original with the speaker, but comes from oral tradition. In this use it occurs frequently, about once per clause. In conversation, sap normally occurs pre-verbally, and this is often the case in folklore as well, as in (33), which is a typical beginning for a folktale.

(33)

MaaꞋn

sap

mu

pa-iꞋ

kio

ka-Ꞌ

gu

maaꞋnkam.

one

reu

there

where-prec

live

sta-fut

a

person

‘It is told that there once lived a man in a certain place.’

But sap also gets put to extensive use in folklore as a conjunction, usually in combination with the additive particle baꞋ, in which case it occurs at the beginning of the clause as in (34).

(34)

Sap

baꞋ-r

poobhri

ka-Ꞌ

gu-iꞋ

na

bha-iꞋ

puiꞋ-r

kɨɨkam.

reu

then-is

poor

sta-fut

the-prec

sub

up.there-prec

thus-is

holy.one

‘Now he who was the Holy One was very poor.’

A more common use of sap in folklore is in the quotative formulas listed in (35). The first two are used to report the action of speaking, one intransitive and the other transitive. The third reports the action of thinking to oneself.

(35)

jaꞋp sap kaiꞋch

‘thus s/he said’

jaꞋp sap tɨtda

‘thus s/he told him/her’

jaꞋp sap jum aaꞋ

‘thus s/he thought’

If part of the description reported about the situation was, in the speaker’s estimation, previously known by the hearer, this is marked by the particle saak. This is a much less frequently used marker of reported evidence. It is only used when the speaker reminds the hearer of information that either the speaker considers to be common knowledge, as in (36); or that the hearer has previously said to the speaker, as in (37). These examples also illustrate the fact that saak normally occurs pre-verbally.

(36)

Aañ

miꞋ-ñi

dhɨr

jaꞋk

jim

na

saak

jir

Jaarax

Cham.

1s

there-prec

from

dir

come

sub

rek

is

crab

place

‘I’m coming from a place over there called Crab Place.’

(37)

Ba

jɨɨpir

gu-m

bhii

na-p

saak

tujugi-aꞋ.

rlz

got.cold

the-2s

food

sub-2s

rek

eat-fut

‘The food you were going to eat is already cold.’

If the speaker wishes to indicate that the situation described is only inferred, instead of directly observed, he or she does so by means of the particle bak.7 This informs the listener that the causing situation is being inferred on the basis of observable results, as in (38), where the evidence motivating the inference is also mentioned.

(38)

Daaman

darat

bak

dhi

turasno.

PuiꞋ

kut

baꞋ

iaꞋrai

gu

jɨbɨlh.

shallow

planted

inf

these

peach.tree

thus

that

then

knocked.down

the

wind

‘These peach trees must have been planted shallow. That’s why the wind blew them over.’

The inferential particle bak is infrequently used, and it seldom occurs alone. It most often occurs in combination with one of the emphatic particles. The idea of emphasis combines easily with that of inference, since the speaker who makes an inference often will emphasize it to make the assertion of truth stronger, as in (39).

(39)

KiaꞋpɨx

ba-x

kooxim

ka-t

na-t

baꞋ

ba

xiaꞋ.

Jir

ɨlhiꞋch

tukaaꞋ

bak

jia.

barely

now-be

sleepy

sta-past

1s

sub-prf

then

rlz

dawned

is

little

night

inf

emph

‘I just got to sleep and it was morning. It must have been a short night.’

But bak also occasionally occurs with the perceived evidence particle dho, which at first seems contradictory. Several of the instances of this cooccurrence, however, are of dho in its use as an interjection. Those that are not are utterances where the speaker makes an inference based on information he has just received. For instance, immediately preceding the utterance given in (40), the hearer informed the speaker that it takes a day and a half to walk to his ranch from where they are now talking.

(40)

Uu,

jir

mɨk

dho

bak.

wow

is

far

pe

inf

‘Wow, it is a long way!’

Another thing all cooccurrences of dho and bak have in common is that they all describe states. In fact, all inferences in Southeastern Tepehuan are either based on existing states or on past actions, the results of which are still observable; no inferences are known to be made about present actions or about future states or actions.

4 Conclusion

Like most other languages of the world, Southeastern Tepehuan expresses epistemic modality by means of grammatical morphemes rather than by periphrasis. However, unlike many languages, all epistemic contrasts in this language are encoded in the verbal particles.

Specifically, the speaker’s judgment as to the reliability of his or her knowledge about the situation described in the utterance is expressed by evaluative particles, and his or her judgment about the source of that knowledge is expressed in evidential particles.

The seven evaluative particles cover the full range of reliability judgments from strong certainty to strong uncertainty. Similarly, the four evidential particles cover the full range of source judgments from direct, reported or inferred knowledge of the situation.

These epistemic modal particles can combine in both predictable and unpredictable ways. There are other known coocurrences of these particles which have not yet been fully investigated. The subtleties of meaning of the various combinations of meanings may be difficult to determine by non-native speakers, since these particles have become highly grammaticized. However, those that I have described here are the most common and serve to illustrate the meaning of each particle in various contexts.

1

Southeastern Tepehuan is spoken by the approximately fifteen thousand inhabitants of the Community of Santa María Ocotán, located in the Municipio of El Mezquital in the State of Durango in northwestern Mexico. Field work was done there from 1975 to 1980, and in nearby Durango City from 1980 to 2008. A bibliography of this research is available at: https://www.sil.org/resources/search/language/stp.

2

This is in contrast to clitics which, although also members of a closed class of grammatical morphemes, have several forms of inflection and whose position is fixed in relation to a major constituent rather than to a stem in that constituent. Thus a clitic is more fused than a particle; it occurs between an inflectional affix and a particle on a continuum of the means of grammatical expression (Willett, 2002). The only clitics in Southeastern Tepehuan are the subject clitics, which are bound to the first constituent of the clause, i.e. linking particle, focused noun or adverb, or the verb (Willett, 1994).

3

In Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994), permission is part of a smaller set of speaker-oriented modal meanings.

4

Examples cited in this paper are written using the alphabet approved by the bilingual Tepehuan teachers in 1990. The following phonemes are distinguished: voiced stops and affricates bh [b], d, dh [ʤ], g; voiceless stops and affricates p, t, ch [ʧ], k, [ʔ]; spirants b [β], s, x [ʃ], j [h]; nasals m, n, ñ [ɲ]; liquids r [ɾ], lh [ɣɮ]; semi-vowel y; and vowels a, e, ɇ [ɜ], i, ɨ, o, u. Glottal stops are not written word-initially. Accent falls on the second syllable of the stem when it is long, i.e. when it is closed or contains a long vowel or diphthong; otherwise accent falls on the first syllable.

5

Abbreviations used in examples are: 1p ‘first person plural’, 1s ‘first person singular’, 2p ‘second person plural’, 2s ‘second person singular’, 3p ‘third person plural’, 3s ‘third person singular’, adv ‘adversative’, aff ‘affirmative’, conf ‘confirmative’, cont ‘continuative’, dbt ‘dubative’, dir ‘direction’, disc ‘disclaimer’, dst ‘distal’, emph ‘emphasis’, enab ‘enablement’, ext ‘extension’, fut ‘future’, hort ‘hortative’, inf ‘inference’, pe ‘perceived evidence’, prec ‘precisely’, prf ‘perfective’, rek ‘reported evidence known’, res ‘resultative’, reu ‘reported evidence unknown’, rfl ‘reflexive’, rlz ‘realized’, sta ‘non-present state’, sub ‘subordinator’, tag ‘tag question’. See Willett (1991) for details.

6

Also pronounced ii kuñ moo, where =ñ is the first person singular subject clitic.

7

Some speakers pronounce this particle tak.

References

  • Bybee, Joan (1985), Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

  • Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere and Pagliuca, William (1994), The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World, University of Chicago.

  • Palmer, F.R. (1986), Mood and Modality, Cambridge University, Cambridge.

  • Willett, Thomas (1988), “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality”, Studies in Linguistics, Vol. 12, pp. 51–97.

  • Willett, Thomas (1991), A Reference Grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. Summer Instutute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington, Dallas, TX.

  • Willett, Thomas (1994), “Los morfemas gramaticales de persona y número en el tepehuán del sureste”, in Estrada Fernández, Zarina (Ed.), Memorias del Segundo Encuentro de Lingüística en el Noroeste, pp. 351–366, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico.

  • Willett, Thomas (1996), “Acciones con propósito en el tepehuán del sureste”, in Estrada Fernández, Zarina, Figueroa Esteva, Max and López Cruz, Gerardo (Eds.), Memorias del Tercer Encuentro de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Vol. 2, pp. 555–571, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico.

  • Willett, Thomas (2002), “Cuando una partícula no es una partícula”, in Estrada Fernández, Zarina and Ortiz Ciscomani, Rosa María (Eds.), Memorias del Sexto Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Vol. 1, pp. 231–250, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico.

  • Willett, Thomas and Willett, Elizabeth (2015), Diccionario tepehuano de Santa María Ocotán, Durango, Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, Mexico City.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 140 30 0
Full Text Views 3 0 0
PDF Views & Downloads 4 0 0