Scott DeLancey

Last updated
Delancey, Scott (1982). "Modern Tibetan: A case study in ergative typology". Journal of Linguistic Research. 2 (1): 21–31.
  • Delancey, Scott (1984). "Transitivity and ergative case in Lhasa Tibetan". Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 131–140.
  • (1984). "Categories of non-volitional actor in Lhasa Tibetan." A. Zide et al., eds., Proc. of the Conference on Participant Roles: South Asia and Adjacent Areas, pp. 58–70. IULC.
  • (1984). "Agentivity in syntax." Chicago Linguistic Society Parasession on Agentivity and Causation.
  • (1985). "On active typology and the nature of agentivity." F. Plank, ed., Relational Typology. Mouton.
  • DeLancey, Scott. 1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. In Mary Niepokujet et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 65–72.
  • (1986). "Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan." W. Chafe and J. Nichols, eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 203–13.
  • Delancey, Scott (1990). "Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan". Cognitive Linguistics. 1 (3): 289–321. doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289.
  • Delancey, Scott (1990). "Tibetan evidence for Nungish metathesis". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 12 (2): 25–31.
  • Delancey, Scott (1990). "Contour tones from lost syllables in Central Tibetan". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 12 (2): 33–34.
  • Delancey, Scott (1991). "The origins of verb serialization in Modern Tibetan". Studies in Language. 15 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1075/sl.15.1.02del.
  • Delancey, Scott (1992). "The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman". Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 25: 39–62. doi:10.1080/03740463.1992.10412277.
  • Delancey, Scott (1997). "Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information". Linguistic Typology. 1: 33–52. doi:10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33.
  • (1998). "Semantic categorization in Tibetan honorific nouns." Anthropological Linguistics 40:109-23.
  • (1999). "Relativization in Tibetan [ dead link ]." in Yogendra Yadava and Warren Glover, eds., Studies in Nepalese Linguistics, pp. 231–49. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.
  • 2002. [The mirative and evidentiality]. Journal of Pragmatics 33.3:369-382.
  • DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In G. Thurgood and R. LaPolla, The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 270–288. London: Routledge.
  • 2010. DeLancey, Scott. 2010. 'Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman.' Himalayan Linguistics Journal 9.1. 1-39.
  • 2011. "On the Origins of Sinitic." Proceedings of the 23rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-23), 2011. Volume 1, edited by Zhuo Jing-Schmidt, University of Oregon, Eugene. Pages 51–64.
  • (2012) 'Still mirative after all these years [ dead link ]. Linguistic Typology 16.3
  • 1981. The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6.1:83-102.
  • 1997. The Penutian hypothesis: Retrospect and prospect. (with Victor Golla). International Journal of American Linguistics 63:171-202.
  • Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Sino-Tibetan languages</span> Large language family of Asia

    Sino-Tibetan, also cited as Trans-Himalayan in a few sources, is a family of more than 400 languages, second only to Indo-European in number of native speakers. The vast majority of these are the 1.3 billion native speakers of Chinese languages. Other Sino-Tibetan languages with large numbers of speakers include Burmese and the Tibetic languages. Other languages of the family are spoken in the Himalayas, the Southeast Asian Massif, and the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. Most of these have small speech communities in remote mountain areas, and as such are poorly documented.

    Tani, is a branch of Sino-Tibetan languages spoken mostly in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and neighboring regions.

    In linguistics, mirativity, initially proposed by Scott DeLancey, is a grammatical category in a language, independent of evidentiality, that encodes the speaker's surprise or the unpreparedness of their mind. Grammatical elements that encode the semantic category of mirativity are called miratives.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Bodo–Kachari people</span> Group of ethnic peoples in Northeast India

    Bodo–Kacharis is a name used by anthropologist and linguists to define a collection of ethnic groups living predominantly in the Northeast Indian states of Assam, Tripura, and Meghalaya. These peoples are speakers of either Boro–Garo a subbranch of Tibeto-Burman languages or Assamese of Eastern Indo-Aryan languages and some of them possibly share ancestries. Some Tibeto-Burman speakers who live closely in and around the Brahmaputra valley, such as the Mising people and Karbi people, are not considered Bodo–Kachari. Many of these peoples have formed early states in the late Medieval era of Indian history and came under varying degrees of Sanskritisation.

    Indosphere is a term coined by the linguist James Matisoff for areas of Indian linguistic and cultural influence in South Asia and Southeast Asia. It is commonly used in areal linguistics in contrast with Sinosphere.

    The Sal languages are a branch of Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in northeast India, parts of Bangladesh, and Burma.

    The Bodo-Garo languages are a branch of Sino-Tibetan languages, spoken primarily in Northeast India and parts of Bangladesh.

    The Tibeto-Kanauri languages, also called Bodic, Bodish–Himalayish, and Western Tibeto-Burman, are a proposed intermediate level of classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages, centered on the Tibetic languages and the Kinnauri dialect cluster. The conception of the relationship, or if it is even a valid group, varies between researchers.

    The Nung or Nungish languages are a poorly described family of uncertain affiliation within the Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Yunnan, China and Burma. They include:

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Tibeto-Burman languages</span> Group of the Sino-Tibetan language family

    The Tibeto-Burman languages are the non-Sinitic members of the Sino-Tibetan language family, over 400 of which are spoken throughout the Southeast Asian Massif ("Zomia") as well as parts of East Asia and South Asia. Around 60 million people speak Tibeto-Burman languages. The name derives from the most widely spoken of these languages, Burmese and the Tibetic languages, which also have extensive literary traditions, dating from the 12th and 7th centuries respectively. Most of the other languages are spoken by much smaller communities, and many of them have not been described in detail.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Guillaume Jacques</span> French linguist of Breton descent

    Guillaume Jacques is a French linguist who specializes in the study of Sino-Tibetan languages: Old Chinese, Tangut, Tibetan, Gyalrongic and Kiranti languages. He also performs research on the Algonquian and Siouan language families, and publishes about languages of other families such as Breton. His case studies in historical phonology are set in the framework of panchronic phonology, aiming to formulate generalizations about sound change that are independent of any particular language or language group.

    Sino-Austronesian or Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian is a proposed language family suggested by Laurent Sagart in 1990. Using reconstructions of Old Chinese, Sagart argued that the Austronesian languages are related to the Sinitic languages phonologically, lexically and morphologically. Sagart later accepted the Sino-Tibetan languages as a valid group and extended his proposal to include the rest of Sino-Tibetan. He also placed the Tai–Kadai languages within the Austronesian family as a sister branch of Malayo-Polynesian. The proposal has been criticised by many other linguists who argue that the similarities between Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan more likely arose from contact rather than being genetic.

    Proto-Tibeto-Burman is the reconstructed ancestor of the Tibeto-Burman languages, that is, the Sino-Tibetan languages, except for Chinese. An initial reconstruction was produced by Paul K. Benedict and since refined by James Matisoff. Several other researchers argue that the Tibeto-Burman languages sans Chinese do not constitute a monophyletic group within Sino-Tibetan, and therefore that Proto-Tibeto-Burman was the same language as Proto-Sino-Tibetan.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Gyalrong languages</span> Group of Gyalrongic languages of western Sichuan, China

    Gyalrong or rGyalrong, also rendered Jiarong, or sometimes Gyarung, is a subbranch of the Gyalrongic languages spoken by the Gyalrong people in Western Sichuan, China. Lai et al. (2020) refer to this group of languages as East Gyalrongic.

    Manang, also called Manangba, Manange, Manang Ke, Nyishang, Nyishangte and Nyishangba, is a Sino-Tibetan language spoken in Nepal. Native speakers refer to the language as ŋyeshaŋ, meaning 'our language'. It is one of half a dozen languages of the Sino-Tibetan family. Manang and its most closely related languages are often written as TGTM in literature, referring to Tamang, Gurung, Thakali, and Manangba, due to the high degree of similarity in the linguistic characteristics of the languages. The language is unwritten and almost solely spoken within the Manang District, leading it to be classified as threatened, with the number of speakers continuing to decline. Suspected reasons for the decline include parents not passing down the language to their children, in order to allow for what they see as more advanced communication with other groups of people, and thus gain more opportunities. Due to the proximity of the district to Tibet, as well as various globally widespread languages being introduced into the area, use of the native language is declining in favor of new languages, which are perceived to aid in the advancement of the people and region.

    Japhug is a Gyalrong language spoken in Barkam County, Rngaba, Sichuan, China, in the three townships of Gdong-brgyad, Gsar-rdzong and Da-tshang.

    Longjia is a Sino-Tibetan language of Guizhou, China related to Caijia and Luren. Longjia may already be extinct.

    Mruic or Mru–Hkongso is a small group of Sino-Tibetan languages consisting of two languages, Mru and Anu-Hkongso. Their relationship within Sino-Tibetan is unclear.

    Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) is the reconstructed proto-language of the Sino-Tibetan language family and the common ancestor of all languages in it, most prominently the Chinese languages, the Tibetan language, Yi, Bai, Burmese, Karen, Tangut, and Naga. Paul K. Benedict (1972) placed a particular emphasis on Old Chinese, Classical Tibetan, Jingpho, Written Burmese, Garo, and Mizo in his discussion of Proto-Sino-Tibetan.

    Central Tibeto-Burman or Central Trans-Himalayan is a proposed branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family proposed by Scott DeLancey (2015) on the basis of shared morphological evidence.

    References

    1. Linda Konnerth, 'Review', in Himalayan Linguistics, Vol.13, No.1 pp.94-99.
    2. Scott DeLancey, t (1997). "Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information", in Linguistic Typology, 1997, 1: 33–52. doi : 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33.
    3. Scott DeLancey & Victor .Golla (1997). 'The Penutian hypothesis: Retrospect and prospect,' in International Journal of American Linguistics, 63, 171–202
    4. Scott DeLancey, 'Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman.' Himalayan Linguistics Journal, 2010 Vol. 9, No.1, pp.1-39.
    5. Laurent Sagart, The Roots of Old Chinese, John Benjamins Publishing, 1999, p. 13: "From a typological point of view, Old Chinese was more similar to modern East Asian languages like Gyarong, Khmer or Atayal than to its daughter language Middle Chinese, [...]"
    6. Zev Handel, "The Classification of Chinese: Sinitic (The Chinese Language Family)", in William S-Y. Wang, Chaofen Sun, (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, 2015 (pp. 35–44), p. 38.
    7. Scott DeLancey, 'Language replacement and the spread of Tibeto-Burman,' Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 2010, vol. 3.1 (pp. 40–55), pp. 43-44: "Sinitic is typologically a Mainland Southeast Asian family. The dramatic typological divergence, most conspicuously the word order realignment, between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman reflects a massive reorganization of an originally Tibeto-Burman grammar. This must have been a result of intense contact with Tai and other languages which Sinitic encountered when it migrated eastward into China. The original formation of Chinese resulted through contact between invaders, identified with the Chou dynasty, speaking a SOV Tibeto-Burman-type language, and the indigenous SVO language of the Shang (Benedict 1972, Nishida 1976, see also van Driem 1997, 2008). The substantial vocabulary shared by Sinitic, Tai, and Vietnamese, as well as the astonishing degree of phonological and syntactic convergence among these languages, points to a period of intense contact along and south of the Yangzi (Ballard 1984), involving Blench’s (2009ms) “Southern Yunnan Interaction Sphere”. The morphosyntactic profile which Sinitic shares with Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and the Mon-Khmer languages of Vietnam and Cambodia is strikingly similar to the so-called creole prototype."
    8. Scott De Lancey, "The origins of Sinitic", in Zhuo Jing-Schmidt (ed.) Increased Empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2013 (pp. 73–99), pp. 91–92: "When Zhou takes over the empire, there is, as on Benedict’s model, a temporary diglossic situation, in which genuine Zhou speech is, for a while, retained in the ruling class, but among the former Shang population, Shang speech is gradually replaced not by “pure” Sino-Tibetan Zhou, but by a heavily Tibeto-Burman influenced version of the lingua franca."
    Scott DeLancey
    Born1949
    NationalityAmerican
    OccupationLinguist
    Academic background