Abstract
Based on personal experience during long term fieldwork in Ladakh, this article will discuss a special technique for field research. It will emphasise the need to access the speakers’ creative unconsciousness by applying the time-consuming ‘ping-pong game’, that is, by confronting every speaker with real language data, by rechecking each speaker’s statement with at least one other speaker, and by feeding back evaluations from a second or third speaker to an original speaker and back in an almost endless repetition. A special focus here will be on the collection of compounds showing the phenomenon of consonant migration and on data gathering with respect to verb semantics and verb valency.
Acknowledgments
I should like to thank the anonymous German taxpayer, who, mainly through the German Research Foundation, DFG, sponsored my research on the Ladakhi language (2010–2012 for my research project A Valency Dictionary of Ladakhi Verbs at the Universität Tübingen and 2002–2008 for the research project Semantic roles, case relations, and cross-clausal reference in Tibetan, in the Collaborative Research Centre 441 at the Universität Tübingen; I further received a PhD grant from the State Berlin for the years 1995–1997 and a travel grant from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, DAAD in 1996).
I am, however, even more indebted to all informants, interlocutors, narrators, and friends involved in all field stays for their willingness to talk with me, narrate a story, or explain details of their language, life, and culture and, moreover, for their erratic associations, which led to new meanings or constructions, and for their great patience in view of my boring and torturing questions, and, alas, sometimes also my impatience.
References
Aikhenvald, A. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bailey, T. G. 1920. Linguistic studies from the Himalayas. Being studies in the grammar of fifteen Himalayan dialects. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.49Search in Google Scholar
Bielmeier, R. et al. to appear. Comparative dictionary of Tibetan dialects.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, K. & B. Shefts. 1965. A morphophonemic problem in the spoken Tibetan of Lhasa. Journal of the American Oriental Society 85: 34–39.10.2307/597700Search in Google Scholar
Cooreman, A., B. Fox & T. Givón. 1984. The discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8: 1–34.10.1075/sl.8.1.02cooSearch in Google Scholar
Csoma de Kőrös, A. 1834. A grammar of the Tibetan language in English. Prepared under the patronage of the government and the auspices of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press. Reprint 1984. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford, New York: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Francke, A. H. 1905–41. Gšam.yul.na bšad.paḥi Kesar.gyi sgruŋs bžugs. A Lower Ladakhi version of the Kesar saga. Calcutta 1905–1909 (Fasc. 1–4), 1941 (Fasc. 5): Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.Search in Google Scholar
Grierson, G. A. (ed.). 1909. Linguistic survey of India. Vol. III: Tibeto-Burman family, Part I: General introduction, specimens of the Tibetan dialects, and the North Assam group. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing. Reprint 1967, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Search in Google Scholar
Hogan, L. C. 1996. The moraic structure of Classical Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 19(1). 115–149.Search in Google Scholar
Jäschke, H. A. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary. With special reference to prevailing dialects. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Reprint 2007, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.Search in Google Scholar
Koshal, S. 1979. Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Search in Google Scholar
Miller, P. M. 1951. The phonemes of Tibetan (U-Tsang dialect) with a practical romanized orthography for Tibetan-speaking readers. Journal of the Asiatic Society. Letters 17. 191–216.Search in Google Scholar
Miller, R. A. 1954. Morphologically determined allomorphs in spoken Tibetan. Language 30. 458–460.10.2307/410468Search in Google Scholar
Norman, R. in preparation. A dictionary of the language spoken by Ladakhis.Search in Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1920. Principien der Sprachgeschichte. 5. Aufl. Halle: Niemeyer. Nachdruck 1995. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Shawe, F. B. 1894. On the relationship between Tibetan orthography and the original pronunciation of the language. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 63. 4–19.Search in Google Scholar
Shefts, B. & K. Chang. 1967. Spoken Tibetan morphophonemics: p. Language 43. 512–525.10.2307/411550Search in Google Scholar
Shirai, S. 1999. Chibettogo gendai Rasa hogenno 2 onsetsukanni arawareru -b- nitsuite [On the inter-syllabic -b- in Modern Lhasa Tibetan]. Gengogaku Kenkyu [Linguistic Research] 17–18. 59–72.Search in Google Scholar
Sprigg, R. K. 2002. Balti-English English-Balti dictionary. London, New York: RoutledgeCurzon.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, J. T.-S. 1986. Aspects of the phonology of Amdo Tibetan Ndzorge Śæme Xɤra dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Search in Google Scholar
Zeisler, B. 2007. Case patterns and pattern variation in Ladakhi: A field report. In Roland Bielmeier & Felix Haller (eds.), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond 399–425. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Zeisler, B. 2009a. Mainstream linguistics for minor(ity) languages? Or: What is it like to speak Ladakhi? In A. Saxena & Å. Viberg (eds.) Multilingualism. Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics Uppsala University 1–3 October 2008, 305–319. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Search in Google Scholar
Zeisler, B. 2009b. Skaddi gyurcanaŋ | rdobaḥi mentogtsogsla luskanni sŋonḥjug baḥi rdzessiskorla | – Language change and the fossilization of the Old Tibetan b- prefix in Ladakhi and Balti. In M. Ahmed & J. Bray (eds.) Recent Research on Ladakh 2009. Papers from the 12th colloquium of the International Association for Ladakh Studies, Kargil, 81–96. Kargil & Leh, Ladakh: International Association for Ladakh Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Zeisler, B. 2011. Kenhat, the dialects of Upper Ladakh and Zanskar. In M. Turin & B. Zeisler (eds.), Himalayan languages and linguistics. Studies in phonology, semantics, morphology and syntax, 235–301. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i-322Search in Google Scholar
Zeisler, B. To appear. Semantically related verb verb combinations in Tibetan and Ladakhi (1200 years of stable transition). In T. Kageyama, P. Hook & P. Pardeshi (eds.), Verb-verb complexes in Asian languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
