Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 23:4 (2022) ► pp.644–679

The ambiguity with pa-nominalization in Lhasa Tibetan

A marker-centered account

| South China Normal University
A tensed clause that undergoes nominalization marked with pa (pa-phrase) in Lhasa Tibetan can give either an event reading or a participant reading. A syntactic analysis of the pa-phrase is conducted by proposing the Differential Nominalizer Hypothesis (DNH). Specifically, pa selects an AspP as its complement and projects an NP; pa 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 theme position within the AspP. This categorial difference of pa and the consequent derivational difference of the pa-phrase provide a plausible account of the semantic ambiguity of pa-nominalization. The idea that the nominalizer pa has a double category is supported with an assumption of grammaticalization, as is evidenced by the functional multiplicity of pa 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.
Keywords: Lhasa Tibetan, nominalization, pa , ambiguity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The syntactic properties of pa-nominalization
    • 2.1Syntactic functions
    • 2.2Source constituents
  • 3.The semantic properties of pa-nominalization
    • 3.1The event/participant ambiguity
    • 3.2Thematic constraints on the ambiguity
  • 4.A syntactic account of the event/participant ambiguity
    • 4.1 Pa-phase as NP
    • 4.2 Pa as a lexical head
    • 4.3 Pa as a grammatical head
    • 4.4The Differential Nominalizer Hypothesis
  • 5.Multiple uses of pa in Lhasa Tibetan
    • 5.1 Pa in nouns
    • 5.2 Pa as a marker of adjectival nominalization
    • 5.3 Pa in ordinals
    • 5.4 Pa as a marker of aspect
    • 5.5 Pa as a marker of force
    • 5.6Summary
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 12 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00118.che
References (60)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Vinokurova, Nadya. 2009. On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language 85(3). 517–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar P. 2019. Pro as a minimal nP: Toward a unified approach to pro-drop. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3). 487–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bottari, Piero. 1992. On the predicate-argument structure of Romance passive nominals. In Starke, Michal (ed.), Geneva generative papers, 66–80. Geneva: Department of Linguistics, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Chang, Kun & Chang, Betty Shefts. 1984. The certainty hierarchy among spoken Tibetan verbs of being. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 55(4). 603–634.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, Danny D. & Jakobovits, Leon A. (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1995a. Bare phrase structure. In Campos, 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
. 1995b. The minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Haspelmath, Martin & Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. The 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. ([URL]) (Accessed 2019-01-01.)
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Relativization as nominalization in Tibetan and Newari. (Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 11–14 September 1986.)
. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 289–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Relativization in Tibetan. In Yadava, Yogendra P. & Glover, Warren W. (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 231–249. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
. 2002. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Chew, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 270–288. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan (London Oriental and African Language Library 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francke, August Hermann & Simon, Walter. 1929. Addenda. In Francke, August Hermann & Simon, Walter (eds.), Tibetan grammar: Addenda by A. H. Francke, assisted by W. Simon, 105–160. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2011. Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: A typological perspective. In Yap, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Melvyn C. & Rimpoche, Gelek & Phuntshog, Lobsang. 1991. Essentials of modern literary Tibetan: A reading course and reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, 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
. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, 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
Harley, Heidi. 2011. A minimalist approach to argument structure. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 427–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. & Gawne, Lauren. 2017. The contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of evidentiality. In Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 302), 1–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 2008. The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive study. In López-Couso, María José & Seoane, Elena (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoshi, Izumi. 2003. Genndai 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
Hoshi, Michiyo. 1988. Genndai Chibetto go bunnpou (Rasa hougenn) [Modern Tibetan grammar (Lhasa dialect)]. Tokyo: UNESCO Research Center of East Asian Culture.Google Scholar
Hu, Tan. 2002. Zangyu dongci de mingcihua [Nominalization of Tibetan verbs]. In Hu, Tan (ed.), Zangyu yanjiu wenlun [Treatises on Tibetan language], 428–453. Beijing: China Tibetology Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jiang, Di. 2016. Zangyu Lasa hua yufa biaozhu wenben [Lhasa Tibetan texts with grammatical annotation]. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2002. The minimalist program in syntax. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(10). 432–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magee, William A. & Napper, Elizabeth S. & Hopkins, Jeffrey. 1993. Fluent Tibetan: A proficiency oriented learning system, novice and intermediate levels. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir (Mouton Grammar Library 27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Müller, Henrik Høeg. 2017. Agentivity marking in Spanish nominalizations: The use of por ‘by’ vs. de ‘of’. Folia Linguistica 51(3). 695–744. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Bybee, Joan L. & Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Nominalizations in Bodic languages. In López-Couso, María José & Seoane, Elena (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), 219–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3(3). 279–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2013. Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. In Thornes, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, Geofrrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax (Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics 1), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 2000. Aspectual properties of Polish nominalizations. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8(1–2). 239–261.Google Scholar
. 2006. Derived nominals. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 21, 24–55. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1998. Complex event nominals in Russian: Properties and readings. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 6(2). 205–254.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. In Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 61), 321–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2014. Two types of deverbal nominalization in Northern Paiute. Language 90(4).786–833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Owen-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
Tournadre, Nicolas & Dorje, Sangda. 2003. Manual of Standard Tibetan: language and civilization. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy J. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 240–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van linden, An. 2019. Nominalization in Harakmbut. In Zariquiey, Roberto & Shibatani, Masayoshi & Fleck, David W. (eds.), Nominalization in languages of the Americas (Typological Studies in Language 124), 455–490. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walinska de Hackbeil, Hanna. 1984. On two types of derived nominals. In Testen, 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
Wang, Zhijing. 1994. Zangyu Lasa kouyu yufa [A grammar of spoken Lhasa Tibetan]. Beijing: China Minzu University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, Turrell V. 1959. A standard system of Tibetan transcription. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 221. 261–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Matthews, Stephen. 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In López-Couso, María José & Seoane, Elena (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, Daoquan. 1983. Zang Han duizhao Lasa kouyu cidian [A spoken Lhasa Tibetan-Chinese dictionary]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
Yukawa, Yasutoshi. 2017[1975]. Lhasa Tibetan predicates. In Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 187–224. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. (Translated from Yukawa’s 1975 version of Chibetto go no jyutugo [Lhasa Tibetan predicates] by Nathan W. Hill, published in Azia Afurika bunnpou kennkyuu [Asian & African Linguistics] 41. 1–14.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Zhou, Jiwen & Xie, Houfang. 2003. Zangyu Lasahua yufa [A grammar of spoken Lhasa Tibetan]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar