1887
Volume 23, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067

Abstract

Abstract

A tensed clause that undergoes nominalization marked with (-phrase) in Lhasa Tibetan can give either an event reading or a participant reading. A syntactic analysis of the -phrase is conducted by proposing the Differential Nominalizer Hypothesis (DNH). Specifically, selects an AspP as its complement and projects an NP; enters the derivation either as a grammatical item that shifts an AspP to an NP or as a lexical item that binds an empty category in the position within the AspP. This categorial difference of and the consequent derivational difference of the -phrase provide a plausible account of the semantic ambiguity of -nominalization. The idea that the nominalizer has a double category is supported with an assumption of grammaticalization, as is evidenced by the functional multiplicity of in Lhasa Tibetan: it is a productive grammatical marker but still bears lexical content of a lexical formative. The assumption of grammaticalization lends support to the DNH.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00118.che
2022-09-12
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00118.che.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00118.che&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis
    2001Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mark C. & Vinokurova, Nadya
    2009 On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language85(3). 517–556. 10.1353/lan.0.0144
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0144 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbosa, Pilar P.
    2019Pro as a minimal nP: Toward a unified approach to pro-drop. Linguistic Inquiry50(3). 487–526. 10.1162/ling_a_00312
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00312 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bottari, Piero
    1992 On the predicate-argument structure of Romance passive nominals. InStarke, Michal (ed.), Geneva generative papers, 66–80. Geneva: Department of Linguistics, University of Geneva.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang, Kun & Chang, Betty Shefts
    1984 The certainty hierarchy among spoken Tibetan verbs of being. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology55(4). 603–634.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky, Noam
    1971 Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. InSteinberg, Danny D. & Jakobovits, Leon A. (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1995a Bare phrase structure. InCampos, Héctor & Kempchinsky, Paula (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Studies in honor of Carlos P. Otero, 51–109. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 1995bThe minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Comrie, Bernard & Haspelmath, Martin & Bickel, Balthasar
    2015The Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Leipzig: Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology & Department of Linguistics, University of Leipzig. (www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php) (Accessed2019-01-01.)
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DeLancey, Scott
    1986 Relativization as nominalization in Tibetan and Newari. (Paper presented at the19th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 11–14 September 1986.)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1990 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics1(3). 289–322. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1999 Relativization in Tibetan. InYadava, Yogendra P. & Glover, Warren W. (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 231–249. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2002 Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. InChew, Patrick (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. 10.3765/bls.v28i2.1039
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v28i2.1039 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2003 Lhasa Tibetan. InThurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 270–288. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Denwood, Philip
    1999Tibetan (London Oriental and African Language Library 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/loall.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Francke, August Hermann & Simon, Walter
    1929 Addenda. InFrancke, August Hermann & Simon, Walter (eds.), Tibetan grammar: Addenda by A. H. Francke, assisted by W. Simon, 105–160. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111492902‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111492902-007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Genetti, Carol
    2011 Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: A typological perspective. InYap, Foong Ha & Grunow-Hårsta, Karen & Wrona, Janick (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 96), 163–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.96.06gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.96.06gen [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldstein, Melvyn C. & Rimpoche, Gelek & Phuntshog, Lobsang
    1991Essentials of modern literary Tibetan: A reading course and reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Grimshaw, Jane
    1990Argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay
    1993 On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic relations. InHale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2002Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
    1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. InHale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harley, Heidi
    2011 A minimalist approach to argument structure. InBoeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 427–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
    1998Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hill, Nathan W. & Gawne, Lauren
    2017 The contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of evidentiality. InGawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 302), 1–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110473742‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Horie, Kaoru
    2008 The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive study. InLópez-Couso, María José & Seoane, Elena (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.76.09hor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.76.09hor [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoshi, Izumi
    2003Genndai Chibetto go dousi jitenn (Rasa hougenn) [A verb dictionary of the modern spoken Tibetan of Lhasa: Tibetan-Japanese]. Tokyo: Research Institute for the Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCCA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoshi, Michiyo
    1988Genndai Chibetto go bunnpou (Rasa hougenn) [Modern Tibetan grammar (Lhasa dialect)]. Tokyo: UNESCO Research Center of East Asian Culture.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hu, Tan
    2002 Zangyu dongci de mingcihua [Nominalization of Tibetan verbs]. InHu, Tan (ed.), Zangyu yanjiu wenlun [Treatises on Tibetan language], 428–453. Beijing: China Tibetology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jackendoff, Ray S.
    1972Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jiang, Di
    2016Zangyu Lasa hua yufa biaozhu wenben [Lhasa Tibetan texts with grammatical annotation]. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kayne, Richard S.
    1994The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lasnik, Howard
    2002 The minimalist program in syntax. Trends in Cognitive Sciences6(10). 432–437. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)01977‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01977-0 [Google Scholar]
  34. Magee, William A. & Napper, Elizabeth S. & Hopkins, Jeffrey
    1993Fluent Tibetan: A proficiency oriented learning system, novice and intermediate levels. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Maslova, Elena
    2003A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir (Mouton Grammar Library 27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197174
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197174 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mazaudon, Martine
    1978 La formation des propositions relatives en tibétain [The formation of propositional relatives in Tibetan]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris [Bulletin of the Paris Linguistic Society] 731. 401–414.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Müller, Henrik Høeg
    2017 Agentivity marking in Spanish nominalizations: The use of por ‘by’ vs. de ‘of’. Folia Linguistica51(3). 695–744. 10.1515/flin‑2017‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0026 [Google Scholar]
  38. Noonan, Michael
    1997 Versatile nominalizations. InBybee, Joan L. & Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.21noo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.21noo [Google Scholar]
  39. 2008 Nominalizations in Bodic languages. InLópez-Couso, María José & Seoane, Elena (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), 219–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.76.11noo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.76.11noo [Google Scholar]
  40. Picallo, M. Carme
    1991 Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus3(3). 279–316. 10.1515/prbs.1991.3.3.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1991.3.3.279 [Google Scholar]
  41. Post, Mark W.
    2013 Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. InThornes, Tim & Andvik, Erik & Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Jansen, Joana (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey (Typological Studies in Language 103), 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.103.06pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.06pos [Google Scholar]
  42. Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, Geofrrey & Svartvik, Jan
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InHaegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax (Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics 1), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rozwadowska, Bożena
    2000 Aspectual properties of Polish nominalizations. Journal of Slavic Linguistics8(1–2). 239–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006 Derived nominals. InEveraert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol.21, 24–55. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470996591.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schoorlemmer, Maaike
    1998 Complex event nominals in Russian: Properties and readings. Journal of Slavic Linguistics6(2). 205–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tomioka, Satoshi
    2003 The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. InSchwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 61), 321–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.61.16tom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.61.16tom [Google Scholar]
  48. Toosarvandani, Maziar
    2014 Two types of deverbal nominalization in Northern Paiute. Language90(4).786–833. 10.1353/lan.2014.0086
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0086 [Google Scholar]
  49. Tournadre, Nicolas
    2014 The Tibetic languages and their classification. InOwen-Smith, Thomas & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 266), 105–130. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tournadre, Nicolas & Dorje, Sangda
    2003Manual of Standard Tibetan: language and civilization. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy J.
    2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(2). 240–263. 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
  52. Van linden, An
    2019 Nominalization in Harakmbut. InZariquiey, Roberto & Shibatani, Masayoshi & Fleck, David W. (eds.), Nominalization in languages of the Americas (Typological Studies in Language 124), 455–490. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.124.12lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.124.12lin [Google Scholar]
  53. Walinska de Hackbeil, Hanna
    1984 On two types of derived nominals. InTesten, David & Mishra, Veena & Drogo, Joseph (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics, Chicago, 27–28 April 1984, 308–332. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, Zhijing
    1994Zangyu Lasa kouyu yufa [A grammar of spoken Lhasa Tibetan]. Beijing: China Minzu University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wylie, Turrell V.
    1959 A standard system of Tibetan transcription. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies221. 261–267. 10.2307/2718544
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2718544 [Google Scholar]
  56. Yap, Foong Ha & Matthews, Stephen
    2008 The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. InLópez-Couso, María José & Seoane, Elena (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.76.15yap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.76.15yap [Google Scholar]
  57. Yu, Daoquan
    1983Zang Han duizhao Lasa kouyu cidian [A spoken Lhasa Tibetan-Chinese dictionary]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Yukawa, Yasutoshi
    2017[1975] Lhasa Tibetan predicates. InGawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 187–224. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. (Translated from Yukawa’s 1975 version ofChibetto go no jyutugo [Lhasa Tibetan predicates] byNathan W. Hill, published inAzia Afurika bunnpou kennkyuu [Asian & African Linguistics] 41. 1–14.) 10.1515/9783110473742‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-007 [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhang, Jichuan
    1994 Dui Zangyu jige houzhui de fenxi [An analysis of a group of suffixes in Tibetan]. Zhongguo Zangxue [China Tibetology] 1994(1). 106–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhou, Jiwen & Xie, Houfang
    2003Zangyu Lasahua yufa [A grammar of spoken Lhasa Tibetan]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00118.che
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00118.che
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ambiguity; Lhasa Tibetan; nominalization; pa
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error