Egophoricity is a grammatical category that marks one's personal involvement in an event.^[1] In languages with this category, an egophoric form is used for expressing information to which the self has "privileged access"^[2] as opposed to an allophoric (or non-egophoric) form.^[1][3]

Egophoric forms are typically associated with first-person subject declarative sentences and second-person subject interrogative sentences (egophoric distribution).^[4]

The concept of egophoricity was originally developed in descriptive studies on Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in the Himalayas such as Newar and Tibetan; however, the category has also been found in languages of Northwestern China, the Andean region, Caucasus, New Guinea, and elsewhere.^[5]

Terminology

"Ego-" refers to "self" and "-phor" means "to carry".^[6]

The term "egophoric" was coined by French linguist Nicolas Tournadre in his description of Lhasa Tibetan^[6][7][8] although his former supervisor Claude Hagège had used "égophore" in a different sense prior to that.^[8][9]

Before "egophoricity" came into use in the literature, linguists often referred to the same phenomenon by the term conjunct and disjunct forms.^[10][11] The distinction between conjunct/disjunct was first made in Austin Hale's work on Kathmandu Newar.^[12][13]

Overview

The egophoric distribution

Usually, the marking of egophoricity is correlated with grammatical person and sentence types: egophoric forms typically occur with the first-person subject in declarative sentences and the second-person subject in questions. By contrast, non-egoohoric forms will appear in the other contexts. This pattern is called egophoric distribution.^[4][14][15]

Unlike person agreement, however, the use of (non-)egophoric forms may not follow it under certain semantic or pragmatic situations.

The case of Kathmandu Newar

Kathmandu Newar, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in the capital of Nepal, has two past tense makers for verbs: the egophoric -ā and the non-egophoric -a. The former is normally used in first-person declaratives and second-person questions whereas the latter is applied to the other sentences:^[16][17]

If the verb describes an unintentional action, however, the non-egophoric past tense marker will appear in first-person declaratives and second-person questions as well:^[18]

While the third person subject usually takes the non-egophoric marker both in declaratives and interrogatives, the egophoric counterpart will be used in indirect speech if the main and subordinate clauses share the same subject:^[19]

The case of Lhasa Tibetan

Lhasa Tibetan, another Tibeto-Burman language, has a system of verb endings that express evidentiality and/or egophoricity.^[20]

In a nominal construction, the egophoric copulae (e.g. yin) and the non-egophoric ones (e.g. red) are used in accordance with the egophoric distribution:^[10][21]

However, the distinction between yin and red may also be made according to voluntariness of an action as in Kathmandu Newar.^[22][23] Likewise, the third-person subject in indirect speech is marked by an egophoric marker if it is co-referential with the subject of the main clause.^[23][24]

Also, the third-person subject takes an egophoric marker when the speaker emphasizes their personal involvement in the information conveyed in the statement.

^[25]

Geographical Distribution

Himalayas and Western China

Aside from Newar and Tibetic, egophoricity is found in Tibeto-Burman languages like Galo (Tani), Japhug (Rgyalrongic), Bunan, Kurtöp (East Bodish), and Yongning Na (Naic) as well.^[26] Also, Akha (Loloish) has a system of egophoricity.^[27][28]

Outside of Tibeto-Burman, some languages spoken in Northwestern China such as Salar (Turkic), Mongour (Mongolic) and Wutun developed egophoricity due to contact with Amdo Tibetan.^[26][29]

Other areas

Northern Akhvakh (Northeast Caucasian) marks egophoricity to some extent.^[30]

In South America, Barbacoan languages such as Awa Pit and Cha’palaa exhibit an egophoric system similar to that of Tibeto-Burman.^[31]