Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 23:4 (2022) ► pp.644679
References
Alexiadou, Artemis
2001Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Vinokurova, Nadya
2009On 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
1992On 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
1984The certainty hierarchy among spoken Tibetan verbs of being. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 55(4). 603–634.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1971Deep 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
1995aBare 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
1995bThe minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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. ([URL]) (Accessed 2019-01-01.)
DeLancey, Scott
1986Relativization 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.)
1990Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 289–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999Relativization in Tibetan. In Yadava, Yogendra P. & Glover, Warren W. (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 231–249. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
2002Relativization 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
2003Lhasa Tibetan. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 270–288. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip
1999Tibetan (London Oriental and African Language Library 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francke, August Hermann & Simon, Walter
1929Addenda. 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
2011Nominalization 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
1991Essentials of modern literary Tibetan: A reading course and reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990Argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay
1993On 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
2002Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993Distributed 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
2011A 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
1998Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. & Gawne, Lauren
2017The 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
2008The 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
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
Hoshi, Michiyo
1988Genndai Chibetto go bunnpou (Rasa hougenn) [Modern Tibetan grammar (Lhasa dialect)]. Tokyo: UNESCO Research Center of East Asian Culture.Google Scholar
Hu, Tan
2002Zangyu 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.
1972Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jiang, Di
2016Zangyu Lasa hua yufa biaozhu wenben [Lhasa Tibetan texts with grammatical annotation]. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
1994The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
2002The minimalist program in syntax. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(10). 432–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Maslova, Elena
2003A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir (Mouton Grammar Library 27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazaudon, Martine
1978La 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
2017Agentivity marking in Spanish nominalizations: The use of por ‘by’ vs. de ‘of’. Folia Linguistica 51(3). 695–744. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael
1997Versatile 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
2008Nominalizations 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
1991Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3(3). 279–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Post, Mark W.
2013Person-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
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997The 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
2000Aspectual properties of Polish nominalizations. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8(1–2). 239–261.Google Scholar
2006Derived nominals. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 21, 24–55. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike
1998Complex event nominals in Russian: Properties and readings. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 6(2). 205–254.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi
2003The 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
2014Two types of deverbal nominalization in Northern Paiute. Language 90(4).786–833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas
2014The 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
2003Manual of Standard Tibetan: language and civilization. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy J.
2014Towards 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
2019Nominalization 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
1984On 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
1994Zangyu Lasa kouyu yufa [A grammar of spoken Lhasa Tibetan]. Beijing: China Minzu University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, Turrell V.
1959A standard system of Tibetan transcription. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 221. 261–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Matthews, Stephen
2008The 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
1983Zang 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
1994Dui 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
2003Zangyu Lasahua yufa [A grammar of spoken Lhasa Tibetan]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar