On the syntax and semantics of incompleteness of aspectual markers in Gtsangpaba Tibetan

Based on whether aspectual markers enable a clause to stand alone, they can be categorized into three types: completeness (Type I), marginality (Type II), and incompleteness (Type III), each corresponding to distinct syntactic levels. In Gtsangpaba Tibetan, Type I markers fall into the category of outer aspect, while Type II and III markers belong to inner aspect. Generally, all aspectual markers that support clause stand‑alone status undergo syntactic movement, whereas those in non‑eventive clauses require no such movement. Semantically, clause incompleteness correlates with nominal identifiability, both of which reflect the fundamental semantic mechanisms underlying human cognition of the external world — namely classification and localization. Incompleteness effects arise from the absence of localization. In eventive clauses, aspectual markers only perform the function of classification, so they require syntactic movement to achieve localization. By contrast, in non‑eventive clauses, aspectual markers already encode both classification and localization, and thus do not need such movement.