Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 45:1 (2022) ► pp.22–71

Syntactic change in Palaungic

Exploring the origins of an atypical Austroasiatic relative construction

 | University of Zurich
 | University of Zurich
The relative constructions in several Palaungic languages (Htanaw, Wa, Lawa, Rumai Palaung, Samlong Palaung, and Rucing Palaung), here shown to be participant nominalizations, display striking mutual similarities, while conspicuously diverging from the dominant relativization strategy within the Austroasiatic family. Instead of the common n [rel (s) v (o)] pattern, the Palaungic constructions examined exhibit the following structural features: (a) rel invariably precedes the verb complex directly; (b) internal constituent order is vs(o), with the exception of Htanaw. An unusual functional trait is additionally found in the three Palaung varieties: the construction only performs object relativization. By placing the findings in a diachronic perspective, we propose two new pathways of branch-internal syntactic change that may explain this unusual synchronic status. Among these, the lexical-to-clausal-nominalization pathway in particular offers a plausible alternative scenario to the earlier hypothesis that such verb-initial structures are inherited from Proto-Austroasiatic (Jenny 2020). Furthermore, a tentatively suggested etymological origin of the relativizer, pAA *pa ‘place’, provides an account of the narrow semantics in Palaung.
Keywords: Austroasiatic, Palaungic, relative clause, nominalization, word order, syntactic change, syntactic reconstruction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language background
    • 2.1Classification and data sources
    • 2.2Language contact
    • 2.3Relevant grammatical features of Palaungic
      • 2.3.1Noun phrase
      • 2.3.2Simple sentences
      • 2.3.3Complex sentences
  • 3.Relativization in Palaungic
    • 3.1Palaungic pV(N) relativization as nominalization
    • 3.2Additional functions of pV(N) construction
  • 4.Relativization in Austroasiatic
    • 4.1Major construction: n [(rel) v (o)] / n [(rel) (s) v]
    • 4.2Minor constructions: v s order, rel adjacent to v
    • 4.3Summary of constructions and functions
  • 5.Towards a diachronic account
    • 5.1Syntactic cognacy
      • 5.1.1Lexical cognacy of pV(N)
      • 5.1.2A Proto-Palaungic construction?
    • 5.2Syntactic change in pV(N) constructions
      • 5.2.1Inheritance hypothesis
      • 5.2.2Nominalization hypothesis
        • i.Nominalization by pV(N)
        • ii.Zero-nominalization
      • 5.2.3Antitopic hypothesis
    • 5.3An etymological proposal: pV/pV(N) < ‘place’
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 2 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.21004.lee
References (130)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M. W. Dixon. 2002. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alves, Mark J. 2015. Morphological functions among Mon-Khmer languages. In Nick J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art, 531–557. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Morphology in Austroasiatic languages. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aung, Wai Lin. 2013. A descriptive grammar of Kayah Monu. Chiang Mai: Payap University MA thesis.
Bartee, Ellen. 2007. A grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. Santa Barbara: University of California PhD dissertation.
Benjamin, Geoffrey. 2020. A new outline of Temiar grammar: Part 1 (Draft version 12 April 2020).Google Scholar
Blok, Greg. 2013. A descriptive grammar of Eastern Lawa. Chiang Mai: Payap University MA thesis.
Boote Cooper, Alys. 2019. Multiverb constructions in Pa-O. Zurich: University of Zurich MA thesis.
Burenhult, Niclas. 2005. A Grammar of Jahai. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2017. Grammatical and lexical factors in sound change: A usage-based approach. Language Variation and Change 29(3). 273–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative. In Joan L. Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 22–25. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Costello, Nancy A. 1966. Affixes in Katu. Mon-Khmer Studies 21. 63–86.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2012. Cognitive explanations, distributional evidence, and diachrony. Studies in Language 36(3). 645–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deepadung, Sujaritlak, Ampika Rattanapitak & Supakit Buakaw. 2015. Dara’ang Palaung. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 21, 1065–1103. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1999. Relativization in Tibetan. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 343–359. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2009. Nominalization and the origin of subordination. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 199–214. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diffloth, Gérard. 1982. Subclassification of Palaungic and notes on ‘P’uman.’ Paper presented at the 15th Sino-Tibetan Conference, 17–19 August 1982, Beijing.
. 1991. Palaungic vowels in Mon-Khmer perspective. In Jeremy H. C. S. Davidson (ed.), Austroasiatic languages: Essays in honor of H. L. Shorto, 13–27. London: SOAS, University of London. [URL] (14 November, 2018).
Diffloth, Gérard & Norman H. Zide. 1992. Austro-Asiatic languages. In William Bright (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 11, 137–142. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar. (Ed.) Kees Hengeveld. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diller, Anthony. 2001. Grammaticalization and Tai syntactic change. In M. R. Kalaya Tingsabadh & A. S. Abramson (eds.), Essays in Tai linguistics, 139–176. Chulalongkorn University Press.Google Scholar
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 22nd ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: [URL]
Enfield, Nick J. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
2005. Areal linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology (34). 181–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. A grammar of Lao. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Mainland Southeast Asian languages: A concise typological introduction. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. Diachronica 21(1). 5–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferlus, Michel. 1974. Les langues du groupe austroasiatiques-nord. Asie du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien 5(1). 39–68.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg. 2008. A typology of relative clauses in German dialects. Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective (1979). 211–244.Google Scholar
Gashnga, Mankular. Forthcoming. Lamin (War) – English dictionary. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
Genetti, Carol. 2011. Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: A typological perspective. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 163–193. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol, Alexander R. Coupe, Ellen Bartee, Kristine Hildebrandt & You-Jing Lin. 2008. Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2). 97–144.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1998. On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Linguistic studies in the Cariban family. In Lyle Campbell and Verónica Grondona (eds.), The Indigenous languages of South America, 441–494. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike, Eugenio R. Luján & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2020. The curious case of reconstruction in syntax. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio R. Luján & Spike Gildea (eds.), Reconstructing syntax, 1–44. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 21, 257–310. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Nominalization and re-finitization. In Claudine Chamoreau & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.), Finiteness and nominalization, 271–296. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. 2nd ed. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hackett, Marion. 1954. Sketch of Pa-o grammar.Google Scholar
Hall, Elizabeth. 2016. A preliminary sketch of Muak Sa-aak grammar. Draft, unpublished.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2009. From nominal to clausal morphosyntax: complexity via expansion. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 23–51. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendery, Rachel. 2012. Relative clauses in time and space. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howard, Michael C. & Wattana Wattanapun. 2001. The Palaung in Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Hsa Eh Ywar, Naw. 2013. A grammar of Kayan Lahta. Chiang Mai: Payap University MA thesis.
Hsar Shee, Naw. 2008. A descriptive grammar of Geba Karen. Chiang Mai: Payap University MA thesis.
Huber, Brigitte. 2005. The Tibetan dialect of Lende (Kyirong): a grammatical description with historical annotations. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Janzen, Hermann. 1976a. Structure and function of clauses and phrases in Pale. In Philip N. Jenner, Laurence Thompson & Stanley Starosta (eds.), Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 131, 669–691. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
. 1976b. The system of verb-aspect words in Pale. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications (13). 659–667.Google Scholar
. 1978. A phonological description of Pale in comparison with Gold Palaung and Rumai Palaung. Paper presented at Second International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics , December 19–21, 1978. Mysore, India.
. 1987. Form and function of topicalization in discourse in Thai and Pale. Pasadena: William Carey International University PhD dissertation.
Janzen, Hermann & Magarete Janzen. 1972. Grammar analysis of Pale clauses and phrases. Journal of the Burma Research Society 55(1–2). 47–99.Google Scholar
Jenny, Mathias. 2011. Burmese in Mon syntax – External influence and internal development. In Sophana Srichampa, Paul Sidwell & Kenneth Gregerson (eds.), Austroasiatic Studies: papers from ICAAL 4, 48–64. Dallas, Salaya, Canberra: SIL International. Mahidol University, Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2020. Verb-initial structures in Austroasiatic languages. In Mathias Jenny, Paul Sidwell & Mark Alves (eds.), Austroasiatic syntax in areal and diachronic perspective, 21–45. Leiden, Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenny, Mathias, Tobias Weber & Rachel Weymuth. 2015. The Austroasiatic languages: A typological overview. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 11, 13–143. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Jing, Yingqi, Paul Widmer & Balthasar Bickel. Forthcoming. Word order evolves at similar rates in main and subordinate clauses: corpus-based evidence from Indo-European. Diachronica.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2021. Typological profile of Karenic languages. In Paul Sidwell & Mathias Jenny (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Mainland Southeast Asia, 337–368. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komonkitiskun, Jiranan. 1985. Some general characteristics of Lawa grammar (La-Up dialect). Salaya: Mahidol University MA thesis.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1994. Finiteness. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 31, 1245–1248. Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Action nominal constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Kruspe, Nicole. 2004. A grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kullavanijaya, Pranee. 2008. A historical study of /thîi/ in Thai. In Anthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongxian Luo (eds.), The Tai-Kadai languages, 445–467. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2008. Relative clause structures in the Rawang language. Language and Linguistics 9(4). 797–812.Google Scholar
Lee, Wei-Wei. Forthcoming. Nominalization through verb-subject order in Rucing Palaung. Studies in Language.
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Luce, Gordon H. 1985. Phases of Pre-Pagan Burma: Languages and history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mak, Pandora. 2012. Golden Palaung: A grammatical description. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics (SEAMLES).Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2019. Verbalization of nominalizations: A typological commentary on the article by Nikki van de Pol. Language Sciences 731. Elsevier Ltd. 105–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manson, Ken. 2017. Characteristics of Karen languages. In Picus Sizhi Ding & Jamin Pelkey (eds.), Sociohistorical linguistics in Southeast Asia, 149–168. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1991. Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticalization in Lahu. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 21, 383–453. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 31–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milne, Leslie. 1921. An elementary Palaung grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 1931. A dictionary of English-Palaung and Palaung-English. Rangoon: Supdt., Govt. Printing and Stationery.Google Scholar
Mitani, Yasuyuki. 1978. Problems in the classification of Palaungic. Paper presented at 2nd International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics, 19–21 December 1978, Mysore, India.
Mithun, Marianne. 2016. Shifting finiteness in nominalization. In Claudine Chamoreau & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.), Finiteness and nominalization, 297–322. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ostapirat, Weera. 2009. Some phonological criteria for Palaung subgrouping. Journal of Language and Culture 28(1). 63–76.Google Scholar
Phillips, Audra Ellen. 2017. Entities and the expression of grounding and referential coherence in Northern Pwo Karen narrative discourse. Edmonton: University of Alberta PhD thesis.
Phillips, Timothy Carl. 2012. Proto-Aslian: Towards an understanding of its historical linguistic systems, principles and processes. Bangi: National University of Malaysia PhD thesis.
Post, Mark W. 2011. Nominalization-based constructions in Tibeto-Burman languages: Typology and evolution. Paper presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology 9th Biennial Conference, University of Hong Kong, July 22, 2011.
Premsrirat, Suwilai. 1987. Khmu, a minority language of Thailand. Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics no. 10. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, Suwilai & Nattamon Rojanakul. 2015. Chong. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 11, 603–640. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Ring, Hiram. 2014. Nominalization in Pnar. Mon-Khmer Studies 43(1). 16–23.Google Scholar
. 2020. Word order and the grammaticalization of gender in Khasian. Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective, 107–134.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine. 2017. The development of finiteness in the Transeurasian languages. Linguistics 55(3). 489–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. On finitization. In Claudine Chamoreau & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.), Finiteness and nominalization, 345–370. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salaberri, Iker. 2018. On the relationship between clause type and syntactic change: a corpus-based cross-linguistic study. Abstract presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, 29 August – 1 September 2018, Tallinn.
Seng Mai, Ma. 2012. A descriptive grammar of Wa. Chiang Mai: Payap University MA thesis.
Shorto, Harry L. 2013. Riang-Lang vocabulary: Compiled from the materials collected by G. H. Luce. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics (SEAMLES).Google Scholar
Si, Aung. 2015. Danau. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 21, 1104–1143. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Sidwell, Paul. 2011. Proto-Khasian and Khasi-Palaungic. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 4(2). 144–168.Google Scholar
. 2015a. The Palaungic languages: Classification, reconstruction and comparative lexicon. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Austroasiatic classification. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 11, 144–220. Leiden, Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The Khasian languages: Classification, reconstruction and comparative lexicon. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Sidwell, Paul & Felix Rau. 2015. Austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 11, 221–363. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Sam Hellmuth, Anne Schwarz, Ruben Stoel, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka. 2006. Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS): Reference Manual. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 41. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Solnit, David B. 1997. Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, texts, glossary. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soundara, Lamphoune. 2019. Contribution à la grammaire de la langue kmhmou. Paris: INALCO doctoral dissertation.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1983. Kammu phonology and morphology. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
. 1986. Relative clauses in Kammu and the Keenan-Comrie hierarchy. Studia Linguistica 40(1). 48–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. U. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11(1). 54–133.Google Scholar
. 1991. Hu – a language with unorthodox tonogenesis. In Jeremy Davidson (ed.), Austroasiatic languages: Essays in honour of H. L. Shorto, 67–79. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof & Arthur Holmer. 2015. Kammu. The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 21, 957–1002. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Kàm Ràw, Kristina Lindell & Håkan Lundström. 2014. Dictionary of Kammu Yùan language and culture. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
Unknown. 2012. Pap-om-ngae Bran – Ta-ang: Samlong, Rumai, Rucing [Dictionary Burmese – Palaung: Samlong, Rumai, Rucing]. Namhsan, Myanmar: Ta-ang Language and Literature Committee.Google Scholar
van de Pol, Nikki. 2019. A game of give and take: category change on the border between adverbial verbal gerunds and augmented absolutes in English. Language Sciences 731. 91–104. Elsevier Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vittrant, Alice & Justin Watkins (eds.). 2019. The Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Justin. 2002. The phonetics of Wa: Experimental phonetics, phonology, orthography and sociolinguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2013. Dictionary of Wa. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2019. Wa (Paraok). In Alice Vittrant & Justin Watkins (eds.), The Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area, 432–474. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weymuth, Rachel. 2014. Negation in Palaung. Zurich: University of Zurich MA thesis.
. 2018. Verbal affixes in Rumai, Palaung. In Hiram Ring & Felix Rau (eds.), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics, 87–100. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Yamada, Atsushi. 2020. Word order in the Wa languages. In Mathias Jenny, Paul Sidwell & Mark Alves (eds.), Austroasiatic syntax in areal and diachronic perspective, 135–154. Leiden, Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Jiao Wang. 2011. From light noun to nominalizer and more. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 61–107. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zemp, Marius. 2018. A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden, Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
List of cited corpus texts
DSJ = Differences_Seat_Journal (based on task from Skopeteas et al. 2006)
LT = Little_Tiger (children’s story, free narrative)
Sxx = elicitation session no. xx
Trad1 = Traditional_Story1 (folktale, free narrative)
Trad2 = Traditional_Story2 (folktale, free narrative)
Vid = Video_Commentary (conversation between four speakers while watching same video)
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jing, Yingqi, Paul Widmer & Balthasar Bickel
2023. Word order evolves at similar rates in main and subordinate clauses. Diachronica 40:4 ► pp. 532 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.