Patterns of relativizationin Austronesian and Tibetan
Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWiNE (mitcho)

mitcho@nus.edu.sg

Goethe University Frankfurt
July 2020

Introduction

Today I discuss the grammars of “Philippine‑type” Austronesian languages —illustrated here with Tagalog — and Tibetan and highlight one striking
similarity (at least on the surface): Both languages/groups use verbal affixes to mark the choice ofrelative clause pivot.

2

Introduction

Today I discuss the grammars of “Philippine‑type” Austronesian languages —illustrated here with Tagalog — and Tibetan and highlight one striking
similarity (at least on the surface): Both languages/groups use verbal affixes to mark the choice ofrelative clause pivot.

2

Introduction(1)

Agent and theme relatives in Tagalog:
a. bata=ng [b<um>ili

ng tela]child=LK <PRF.AV>buy GEN cloth‘child who bought cloth’b. tela=ng [b<in>ili‑∅ng bata]cloth=LK <PRF>buy‑PV GEN child‘cloth that the child bought’3

Introduction(2)

Agent and theme relatives in Tibetan:a. [deb ’bri‑mkhan] mibook write‑MKHAN person‘person(s) who wrote/writes book(s)’b. [pad.ma‑s ’bri‑pa]‑’idepPema‑ERG write‑PA‑GEN book
‘book(s) that Pema wrote’3Introduction

Each language/group is known for having a rich inventory of such affixes:(3)

Verbal morphology on relativized verbs, by choice of pivot:
a. Tagalog: (perfective)<um> agents‑anlocatives/goalsi‑instruments/ben.

‑∅themesa. Tibetan: (perfective)‑mkhan མཁན་ agents‑sa ས་

locatives/goals‑pa པ་

themes‑yag ཡག་

instruments

4

Introduction

Each language/group is known for having a rich inventory of such affixes:(3)

Verbal morphology on relativized verbs, by choice of pivot:
a. Tagalog: (perfective)<um> agents‑anlocatives/goalsi‑instruments/ben.

‑∅themesa. Tibetan: (perfective)‑mkhan མཁན་ agents‑sa ས་

locatives/goals‑pa པ་

themes‑yag ཡག་

instruments

4

Introduction

Each language/group is known for having a rich inventory of such affixes:(3)

Verbal morphology on relativized verbs, by choice of pivot:
a. Tagalog: (perfective)<um> agents‑anlocatives/goalsi‑instruments/ben.

‑∅themesa. Tibetan: (perfective)‑mkhan མཁན་ agents‑sa ས་

locatives/goals‑pa པ་

themes‑yag ཡག་

instruments

4

Introduction

However, the parallels between these systems have not been investigatedbefore, as these patterns have been described under very different banners:• for Philippine‑type languages, as part of these languages’ voice systems;• for Tibetan and other Tibeto‑Burman languages, as nominalizations.

5Introduction

However, the parallels between these systems have not been investigatedbefore, as these patterns have been described under very different banners:• for Philippine‑type languages, as part of these languages’ voice systems;• for Tibetan and other Tibeto‑Burman languages, as nominalizations.

5Introduction

However, the parallels between these systems have not been investigatedbefore, as these patterns have been described under very different banners:• for Philippine‑type languages, as part of these languages’ voice systems;• for Tibetan and other Tibeto‑Burman languages, as nominalizations.

5

TodayThese patterns continue to exhibit striking parallels when we consider the
behavior of long‑distance relativization, previously undescribed in Tibetan.
• Such data challenge the analysis of Tibetan relativization as built
exclusively on nominalizations (DeLancey 1999, 2002, Noonan 2008).

 We can productively understand the similarities between such verbal
morphology in Philippine‑type languages and Tibetan — as well as
their differences — in a familiar way.

6

TodayThese patterns continue to exhibit striking parallels when we consider the
behavior of long‑distance relativization, previously undescribed in Tibetan.
• Such data challenge the analysis of Tibetan relativization as built
exclusively on nominalizations (DeLancey 1999, 2002, Noonan 2008).

 We can productively understand the similarities between such verbal
morphology in Philippine‑type languages and Tibetan — as well as
their differences — in a familiar way.

6

TodayThese patterns continue to exhibit striking parallels when we consider the
behavior of long‑distance relativization, previously undescribed in Tibetan.
• Such data challenge the analysis of Tibetan relativization as built
exclusively on nominalizations (DeLancey 1999, 2002, Noonan 2008).

 We can productively understand the similarities between such verbal
morphology in Philippine‑type languages and Tibetan — as well as
their differences — in a familiar way.

6

Roadmap§2 Relativization in Philippine‑type languages§3 Relativization in Tibetan§4 Synthesis and discussion

7

§2 Philippine‑type languages

8

Austronesian voice systems
The morphological alternation observed in Tagalog relative clauses abovereflects a more general alternation between different clause types:(4)

Tagalog voice alternation:a. Actor Voice (AV):B<um>iliang bata ng tela sa palengke para sa nanay.

<PRF.AV>buy ANG child GEN cloth DAT market

for

DAT mother‘The child bought cloth at the market for mother.’b. Patient Voice (PV):
B<in>ili‑∅ng bata ang tela sa palengke para sa nanay.

<PRF>buy‑PV GEN child ANG cloth DAT market

for

DAT mother‘The child bought the cloth at the market for mother.’
9Austronesian voice systems
The morphological alternation observed in Tagalog relative clauses abovereflects a more general alternation between different clause types:(4)

Tagalog voice alternation:a. Actor Voice (AV):B<um>iliang bata ng tela sa palengke para sa nanay.

<PRF.AV>buy ANG child GEN cloth DAT market

for

DAT mother‘The child bought cloth at the market for mother.’b. Patient Voice (PV):
B<in>ili‑∅ng bata ang tela sa palengke para sa nanay.

<PRF>buy‑PV GEN child ANG cloth DAT market

for

DAT mother‘The child bought the cloth at the market for mother.’
9Austronesian voice systems
The morphological alternation observed in Tagalog relative clauses abovereflects a more general alternation between different clause types:(4)

Tagalog voice alternation:c.

Locative Voice (LV):
B<in>ilh‑an ng bata ng tela ang palengke para sa nanay.
<PRF>buy‑LV GEN child GEN cloth ANG market

for

DAT mother‘The child bought (the) cloth at the market for mother.’d. Benefactive/Instrumental Voice (BV/IV):I‑b<in>ili

ng bata ng tela sa palengke ang nanay.

BV‑<PRF>buy GEN child GEN cloth DAT market

ANG mother‘The child bought (the) cloth at the market for mother.’
9Austronesian voice systems
The morphological alternation observed in Tagalog relative clauses abovereflects a more general alternation between different clause types:(4)

Tagalog voice alternation:c.

Locative Voice (LV):
B<in>ilh‑an ng bata ng tela ang palengke para sa nanay.
<PRF>buy‑LV GEN child GEN cloth ANG market

for

DAT mother‘The child bought (the) cloth at the market for mother.’d. Benefactive/Instrumental Voice (BV/IV):I‑b<in>ili

ng bata ng tela sa palengke ang nanay.

BV‑<PRF>buy GEN child GEN cloth DAT market

ANG mother‘The child bought (the) cloth at the market for mother.’
9Austronesian voice systems

 Every verb has one of these “voice” markers, not just in relative clauses.
• The choice of voice marker correlates with the choice ofang‑marked argument (4), which I call the “subject” today.
We can think of ang as nominative (or, for some authors,absolutive) case, which appears to override an underlying casemarker. But there is significant debate on these points...
• Keenan and Comrie 1977: These languages have a“subject‑only” A‑extraction restriction. This explains thecorrelation between verbal morphology and the choice of pivot in
relative clauses, as in (1) above.

10

Austronesian voice systems

 Every verb has one of these “voice” markers, not just in relative clauses.
• The choice of voice marker correlates with the choice ofang‑marked argument (4), which I call the “subject” today.
We can think of ang as nominative (or, for some authors,absolutive) case, which appears to override an underlying casemarker. But there is significant debate on these points...
• Keenan and Comrie 1977: These languages have a“subject‑only” A‑extraction restriction. This explains thecorrelation between verbal morphology and the choice of pivot in
relative clauses, as in (1) above.

10

Austronesian voice systems

 Every verb has one of these “voice” markers, not just in relative clauses.
• The choice of voice marker correlates with the choice ofang‑marked argument (4), which I call the “subject” today.
We can think of ang as nominative (or, for some authors,absolutive) case, which appears to override an underlying casemarker. But there is significant debate on these points...
• Keenan and Comrie 1977: These languages have a“subject‑only” A‑extraction restriction. This explains thecorrelation between verbal morphology and the choice of pivot in
relative clauses, as in (1) above.

10Clause‑embedding verbs
Clause‑embedding verbs such as ‘say’ also participate in voice alternations.
(5)

Voice alternation of clause‑embedding verb:
a. Nag‑sabi ang kalabaw[na masarap ang bulaklak].

PRF.AV‑say ANG water.buffalo that delicious ANG flower‘The water buffalo said [that the flower is delicious].’b. S<in>‑abi‑∅ ng kalabaw[na masarap ang bulaklak].

<PRF>say‑PV GEN water.buffalo that delicious ANG flower‘The water buffalo said [that the flower is delicious].’
Although the embedded clauses in (5) are uniformly introduced with na‘that,’ never ang, we hypothesize that it is the grammatical “subject” in (5b).
11Clause‑embedding verbs
Clause‑embedding verbs such as ‘say’ also participate in voice alternations.
(5)

Voice alternation of clause‑embedding verb:
a. Nag‑sabi ang kalabaw[na masarap ang bulaklak].

PRF.AV‑say ANG water.buffalo that delicious ANG flower‘The water buffalo said [that the flower is delicious].’b. S<in>‑abi‑∅ ng kalabaw[na masarap ang bulaklak].

<PRF>say‑PV GEN water.buffalo that delicious ANG flower‘The water buffalo said [that the flower is delicious].’
Although the embedded clauses in (5) are uniformly introduced with na‘that,’ never ang, we hypothesize that it is the grammatical “subject” in (5b).
11Clause‑embedding verbs
Clause‑embedding verbs such as ‘say’ also participate in voice alternations.
(5)

Voice alternation of clause‑embedding verb:
a. Nag‑sabi ang kalabaw[na masarap ang bulaklak].

PRF.AV‑say ANG water.buffalo that delicious ANG flower‘The water buffalo said [that the flower is delicious].’b. S<in>‑abi‑∅ ng kalabaw[na masarap ang bulaklak].

<PRF>say‑PV GEN water.buffalo that delicious ANG flower‘The water buffalo said [that the flower is delicious].’
Although the embedded clauses in (5) are uniformly introduced with na‘that,’ never ang, we hypothesize that it is the grammatical “subject” in (5b).
11Clause‑embedding verbs
Clause‑embedding verbs such as ‘say’ also participate in voice alternations.
(5)

Voice alternation of clause‑embedding verb:
a. Nag‑sabi ang kalabaw[na masarap ang bulaklak].

PRF.AV‑say ANG water.buffalo that delicious ANG flower‘The water buffalo said [that the flower is delicious].’b. S<in>‑abi‑∅ ng kalabaw[na masarap ang bulaklak].

<PRF>say‑PV GEN water.buffalo that delicious ANG flower‘The water buffalo said [that the flower is delicious].’
Although the embedded clauses in (5) are uniformly introduced with na‘that,’ never ang, we hypothesize that it is the grammatical “subject” in (5b).
11Long‑distance relativization

Now consider relativization over an embedded clause argument —“long‑distance” relativization:(6)

Long‑distance (LD) relativization of an embedded goal:
kalabaw[na ...said the teacher

water.buffalo that[na bi‑bigy‑an ng lalaki ng bulaklak]]

that ASP‑give‑LV GEN man GEN flower‘water buffalo [that the teacher said
[that the man would give a flower to

]]’

12

Long‑distance relativization

Now consider relativization over an embedded clause argument —“long‑distance” relativization:(6)

Long‑distance (LD) relativization of an embedded goal:
kalabaw[na ...said the teacher

water.buffalo that[na bi‑bigy‑an ng lalaki ng bulaklak]]

that ASP‑give‑LV GEN man GEN flower‘water buffalo [that the teacher said
[that the man would give a flower to

]]’

12

Long‑distance relativization

Now consider relativization over an embedded clause argument —“long‑distance” relativization:(6)

Long‑distance (LD) relativization of an embedded goal:
kalabaw[na s<in>abi‑∅ ng guro

water.buffalo that <PRF>say‑PV GEN teacher[na bi‑bigy‑an ng lalaki ng bulaklak]]

that ASP‑give‑LV GEN man GEN flower‘water buffalo [that the teacher said
[that the man would give a flower to

]]’

12

Long‑distance relativization

Now consider relativization over an embedded clause argument —“long‑distance” relativization:(6)

Long‑distance (LD) relativization of an embedded goal:* kalabaw[na nag‑sabi ang guro

water.buffalo that PRF.AV‑say ANG teacher[na bi‑bigy‑an ng lalaki ng bulaklak]]

that ASP‑give‑LV GEN man GEN flower‘water buffalo [that the teacher said
[that the man would give a flower to

]]’

12

Long‑distance relativization

 The relative clause pivot must be the “subject” of the embedded
clause. In addition, the embedded clause itself must be the“subject” of the higher, embedding verb, as determined by the
choice of voice morphology.

13

Long‑distance relativization

 The relative clause pivot must be the “subject” of the embedded
clause. In addition, the embedded clause itself must be the“subject” of the higher, embedding verb, as determined by the
choice of voice morphology.

13

Summary

1. Relative clauses in Philippine‑type Austronesian languages reflect the
choice of pivot because of (a) their rich inventory of “voices,” including
options for some oblique arguments to be “subject,” together with (b) a“subject‑only” restriction on relativization.
2. In LD relativization, the embedded clause is required to be the higher
verb’s “subject”; i.e. the subject‑only restriction holds for each verb in acomplex chain of relativization.

14

Summary

1. Relative clauses in Philippine‑type Austronesian languages reflect the
choice of pivot because of (a) their rich inventory of “voices,” including
options for some oblique arguments to be “subject,” together with (b) a“subject‑only” restriction on relativization.
2. In LD relativization, the embedded clause is required to be the higher
verb’s “subject”; i.e. the subject‑only restriction holds for each verb in acomplex chain of relativization.

14§3 Tibetan

15

The Tibetan verb complex

Verbs in Tibetan end with a series of auxiliaries — glossed AUX together here
— encoding tense/aspect/evidential values (Tournadre and Jiatso 2001,
Vokurková 2008). Relativization involves a distinct verb form where theauxiliaries are replaced by a “nominalizer” ending.

(7)བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་དེབ་འབྲི་གི་དུག།

(8)དེབ་འབྲི་མཁན་མི ་

bkra.shis‑kyis deb ’bri‑gi.dug. → [RC

deb ’bri‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

book write‑MKHAN personbook write‑AUX‘Tashi is writing a book.’‘person who wrote/writes/is writinga book/books’

16The Tibetan verb complex

Verbs in Tibetan end with a series of auxiliaries — glossed AUX together here
— encoding tense/aspect/evidential values (Tournadre and Jiatso 2001,
Vokurková 2008). Relativization involves a distinct verb form where theauxiliaries are replaced by a “nominalizer” ending.

(7)བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་དེབ་འབྲི་གི་དུག།

(8)དེབ་འབྲི་མཁན་མི ་

bkra.shis‑kyis deb ’bri‑gi.dug. → [RC

deb ’bri‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

book write‑MKHAN personbook write‑AUX‘Tashi is writing a book.’‘person who wrote/writes/is writinga book/books’

16The Tibetan verb complex

Verbs in Tibetan end with a series of auxiliaries — glossed AUX together here
— encoding tense/aspect/evidential values (Tournadre and Jiatso 2001,
Vokurková 2008). Relativization involves a distinct verb form where theauxiliaries are replaced by a “nominalizer” ending.

(7)བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་དེབ་འབྲི་གི་དུག།

(8)དེབ་འབྲི་མཁན་མི ་

bkra.shis‑kyis deb ’bri‑gi.dug. → [RC

deb ’bri‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

book write‑MKHAN personbook write‑AUX‘Tashi is writing a book.’‘person who wrote/writes/is writinga book/books’

16

Relativization as nominalization

Relativization in Tibeto‑Burman languages has been studied almost
exclusively under the umbrella of nominalization, a major topic of study inTibeto‑Burman linguistics.
(9)‑pa event nominalization:(Tournadre and Sangda Dorje 2003:282)

བ ོད་སྐད་ཤེ ས་པ་དེ་གལ་ཆེ ན་པ ོ་རེ ད།[[bod.skad

shes‑pa] de] gal

chen.po red.

Tibetan language know‑PA DEM importance great

COP.AUX‘Knowing Tibetan is very important.’17

Relativization as nominalization
From this perspective, relative clauses simply represent another use of
nominalizations, as verbal argument nominalizations.

(10)‑pa theme nominalization:(11) ‑pa object relative:པད་མས་བཟས་པ་དེ
ོ་པད་མས་བཟས་པའི
ོ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་

Pema‑ERG make‑PA DEM

Pema‑ERG make‑PA‑GEN‘what Pema made’

mog.mog depad.ma‑s bzos‑pa de[pad.ma‑s bzos‑pa]‑’i

momo

DEM

‘the momo that Pema made’‑pa.’i > ‑pe
18

Relativization as nominalization
From this perspective, relative clauses simply represent another use of
nominalizations, as verbal argument nominalizations.

(10)‑pa theme nominalization:(11) ‑pa object relative:པད་མས་བཟས་པ་དེ
ོ་པད་མས་བཟས་པའི
ོ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་

Pema‑ERG make‑PA DEM

Pema‑ERG make‑PA‑GEN‘what Pema made’

mog.mog depad.ma‑s bzos‑pa de[pad.ma‑s bzos‑pa]‑’i

momo

DEM

‘the momo that Pema made’‑pa.’i > ‑pe
18

Relativization as nominalization
Noonan 2008: “in adnominal modification... at least in Bodic, they areprobably best viewed as NPs juxtaposed to the NPs they are modifying, thetwo NPs constituting, therefore, a sort of appositional structure”(12)

Relativization = argument nominalization modifier + NP:
argument nominalizationi (=GEN) + NPi(based on Noonan 1997:383)

The genitive marker is strongly preferred for all pre‑nominal relatives, except
for subject relatives with ‑mkhan (DeLancey 1999).
Semantically, we could cash out this intuition with intersective
modificational semantics:(13)

J(12)K = Jargument nominalizationK ∩ JNPK
19

Relativization as nominalization
Noonan 2008: “in adnominal modification... at least in Bodic, they areprobably best viewed as NPs juxtaposed to the NPs they are modifying, thetwo NPs constituting, therefore, a sort of appositional structure”(12)

Relativization = argument nominalization modifier + NP:
argument nominalizationi (=GEN) + NPi(based on Noonan 1997:383)

The genitive marker is strongly preferred for all pre‑nominal relatives, except
for subject relatives with ‑mkhan (DeLancey 1999).
Semantically, we could cash out this intuition with intersective
modificational semantics:(13)

J(12)K = Jargument nominalizationK ∩ JNPK
19

Relativization as nominalization
Noonan 2008: “in adnominal modification... at least in Bodic, they areprobably best viewed as NPs juxtaposed to the NPs they are modifying, thetwo NPs constituting, therefore, a sort of appositional structure”(12)

Relativization = argument nominalization modifier + NP:
argument nominalizationi (=GEN) + NPi(based on Noonan 1997:383)

The genitive marker is strongly preferred for all pre‑nominal relatives, except
for subject relatives with ‑mkhan (DeLancey 1999).
Semantically, we could cash out this intuition with intersective
modificational semantics:(13)

J(12)K = Jargument nominalizationK ∩ JNPK
19The “nominalizers”(14)“Nominalizers” by choice of pivot:‑mkhan མཁན་agents/subjects‑sa ས་

locatives/goals‑pa པ་

perfective themes‑yag ཡག་

expanding on (3a)instruments and imperfective themes• There is an interaction with aspect for theme relativization, which will
be relevant later.

20

The “nominalizers”(14)“Nominalizers” by choice of pivot:‑mkhan མཁན་agents/subjects‑sa ས་

locatives/goals‑pa པ་

perfective themes‑yag ཡག་

expanding on (3a)instruments and imperfective themes• There is an interaction with aspect for theme relativization, which will
be relevant later.

20

Locative relatives(15)‑sa locative relative:པད་མས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་སའིོ ་ས་ཆ་དེ་

[RC pad.ma‑s

Pema‑ERG

mog.mog bzo‑sa]‑’isa.cha dedumpling make‑SA‑GEN place DEM‘the place that Pema made/makes dumplings’‑sa.’i > ‑se‑sa reflects a gap with e.g. dative/locative (‑la) or elative (‑nas) case.

21

Instrumental relatives(16)‑yag instrumental relative:པད་མས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་ཡགའི
ོ་མ ོག་ཟངས་དེ་

[RC pad.ma‑s

Pema‑ERG

mog.mog bzo‑yag]‑’imog.zangs dedumpling make‑YAG‑GEN steamer‘the steamer that Pema made/makes dumplings with’DEM‑yag.’i > ‑ye‑yag reflects an instrumental (‑gis/kyis/gyis/s, homophonous with ergative)
gap, or imperfective theme gap.

22

‑pa vs the other nominalizer endings
1. Classical Tibetan used only ‑pa. Cognates of ‑pa are found across the
Tibeto‑Burman family (DeLancey 2002, Noonan 2008). Non‑pa endings
originated as various nominal endings, with their function later
extended to productive relative clauses (DeLancey 2002):• In Classical Tibetan, ‑mkhan had only one use, as a derivationalsuffix for trades: shing‑mkhan = wood‑MKHAN ‘carpenter’• The locative nominalizer ‑sa derives from the root sa ‘place.’
2. DeLancey 1999:234: ‑pa is “unstressed and subject to drastic
phonological reduction... the other three show compound phonology;
this is consistent with their derivational origin.”
3. For verbs with distinct perfective and imperfective stems, ‑pa takes theperfective stem while all others take the imperfective stem: e.g. ‘make’= PRF bsos‑ /sø/; iMPF bso‑ /so/.
23

‑pa vs the other nominalizer endings
1. Classical Tibetan used only ‑pa. Cognates of ‑pa are found across the
Tibeto‑Burman family (DeLancey 2002, Noonan 2008). Non‑pa endings
originated as various nominal endings, with their function later
extended to productive relative clauses (DeLancey 2002):• In Classical Tibetan, ‑mkhan had only one use, as a derivationalsuffix for trades: shing‑mkhan = wood‑MKHAN ‘carpenter’• The locative nominalizer ‑sa derives from the root sa ‘place.’
2. DeLancey 1999:234: ‑pa is “unstressed and subject to drastic
phonological reduction... the other three show compound phonology;
this is consistent with their derivational origin.”
3. For verbs with distinct perfective and imperfective stems, ‑pa takes theperfective stem while all others take the imperfective stem: e.g. ‘make’= PRF bsos‑ /sø/; iMPF bso‑ /so/.
23

‑pa vs the other nominalizer endings
1. Classical Tibetan used only ‑pa. Cognates of ‑pa are found across the
Tibeto‑Burman family (DeLancey 2002, Noonan 2008). Non‑pa endings
originated as various nominal endings, with their function later
extended to productive relative clauses (DeLancey 2002):• In Classical Tibetan, ‑mkhan had only one use, as a derivationalsuffix for trades: shing‑mkhan = wood‑MKHAN ‘carpenter’• The locative nominalizer ‑sa derives from the root sa ‘place.’
2. DeLancey 1999:234: ‑pa is “unstressed and subject to drastic
phonological reduction... the other three show compound phonology;
this is consistent with their derivational origin.”
3. For verbs with distinct perfective and imperfective stems, ‑pa takes theperfective stem while all others take the imperfective stem: e.g. ‘make’= PRF bsos‑ /sø/; iMPF bso‑ /so/.
23

Long‑distance relativization

 We now consider “long‑distance” (LD) relativization in Tibetan. No
previous work has described LD relatives in Tibetan — nor, to myknowledge, in any other Bodic language.
• All data comes from my fieldwork conducted in Dharamsala, India insummers 2018 and 2019, and reflect the judgments of nine speakers.

24

Long‑distance relativization

 We now consider “long‑distance” (LD) relativization in Tibetan. No
previous work has described LD relatives in Tibetan — nor, to myknowledge, in any other Bodic language.
• All data comes from my fieldwork conducted in Dharamsala, India insummers 2018 and 2019, and reflect the judgments of nine speakers.

24

Embedding under ‘say’(17)

Embedded clause under ‘say’:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་པད་མས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟས་ས
ོོང་ལཔ་ས ོང།

bkra.shis‑kyis [pad.ma‑s mog.mog bzos‑song] lap‑song.
Tashi‑ERG

Pema‑ERG dumpling make‑AUX say‑AUX‘Tashi said [that Pema made dumplings].’

25

Embedding under ‘say’(17)

Embedded clause under ‘say’:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་པད་མས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟས་ས
ོོང་ལཔ་ས ོང།

bkra.shis‑kyis [pad.ma‑s mog.mog bzos‑song] lap‑song.
Tashi‑ERG

Pema‑ERG dumpling make‑AUX say‑AUX‘Tashi said [that Pema made dumplings].’25

LD theme relatives(18)

བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་པད་མས་བཟས་ས
ོོང་ལཔ་པའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་ཙོ་

[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [pad.ma‑s
Tashi‑ERG

Pema‑ERG

bzos‑song] lap‑pa]‑’imog.mog de‑tso

make‑AUX say‑PA‑GEN momo‘those momo [that Tashi said [that Pema made

DEM‑PL]]’ ‑pa only goes on the higher verb of the relative clause. The
embedded clause with a gap is a regular, finite clause.

26

LD theme relatives(18)

བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་པད་མས་བཟས་ས
ོོང་ལཔ་པའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་ཙོ་

[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [pad.ma‑s
Tashi‑ERG

Pema‑ERG

bzos‑song] lap‑pa]‑’imog.mog de‑tso

make‑AUX say‑PA‑GEN momo‘those momo [that Tashi said [that Pema made

DEM‑PL]]’ ‑pa only goes on the higher verb of the relative clause. The
embedded clause with a gap is a regular, finite clause.

26

LD theme relatives(18)

བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་པད་མས་བཟས་ས
ོོང་ལཔ་པའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་ཙོ་

*[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [pad.ma‑s
Tashi‑ERG

Pema‑ERG

bzos‑pa] lap‑pa]‑’imog.mog de‑tso

make‑PA say‑PA‑GEN momo‘those momo [that Tashi said [that Pema made

DEM‑PL]]’ ‑pa only goes on the higher verb of the relative clause. The
embedded clause with a gap is a regular, finite clause.

26

LD theme relatives(18)

བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་པད་མས་བཟས་ས
ོོང་ལཔ་པའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་ཙོ་

*[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [pad.ma‑s
Tashi‑ERG

Pema‑ERG

bzos‑pa] lap‑song]‑’i mog.mog de‑tso
make‑PA say‑AUX‑GEN momo‘those momo [that Tashi said [that Pema made

DEM‑PL]]’ ‑pa only goes on the higher verb of the relative clause. The
embedded clause with a gap is a regular, finite clause.

26

LD subject relatives(19)བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་ལཔ་པའི
ོ་མི ་དེ་
[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [Tashi‑ERG

mog.mog bzo‑mkhan] lap‑pa]‑’imomo‘the person [that Tashi said [midemake‑MKHAN say‑PA‑GEN person DEM

made/makes momo]]’ For LD subject relatives, there is subject relativization marking‑mkhan on the embedded verb, then ‑pa on the higher clause!

27

LD subject relatives(19)བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་ལཔ་པའི
ོ་མི ་དེ་
[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [Tashi‑ERG

mog.mog bzo‑mkhan] lap‑pa]‑’imomo‘the person [that Tashi said [midemake‑MKHAN say‑PA‑GEN person DEM

made/makes momo]]’ For LD subject relatives, there is subject relativization marking‑mkhan on the embedded verb, then ‑pa on the higher clause!

27

LD subject relatives(19)བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་ལཔ་པའི
ོ་མི ་དེ་

*[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [Tashi‑ERG

mog.mog bzo‑song] lap‑pa]‑’imomo‘the person [that Tashi said [midemake‑AUX say‑PA‑GEN person DEM

made/makes momo]]’ For LD subject relatives, there is subject relativization marking‑mkhan on the embedded verb, then ‑pa on the higher clause!

27

LD subject relatives(19)བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་ལཔ་པའི
ོ་མི ་དེ་

*[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [Tashi‑ERG

mog.mog bzo‑song] lap‑mkhan]‑’i mimomo‘the person [that Tashi said [demake‑AUX say‑MKHAN‑GEN person DEM

made/makes momo]]’ For LD subject relatives, there is subject relativization marking‑mkhan on the embedded verb, then ‑pa on the higher clause!

27

LD locative relative(20)བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་པད་མས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་ས་ལཔ་པའི
ོ་ས་ཆ་དེ་
[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [pad.ma‑s
Tashi‑ERG

Pema‑ERG

mog.mog bzo‑sa/*song] lap‑pa/*sa]‑’imomomake‑SA/*AUX say‑PA/*SA‑GEN

sa.cha deplace DEM

‘the place [that Tashi said [Pema made/makes momo

]]’

28

LD instrumental relative(21)

བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་པད་མས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་ཡག་ལཔ་པའི
ོ་མ ོག་ཟངས་དེ་
[RC bkra.shis‑kyis [pad.ma‑s
Tashi‑ERG

Pema‑ERG

mog.mog bzo‑yag/*song] lap‑pa/*yag]‑’imomomake‑YAG/*AUX say‑PA/*YAG‑GEN

mog.zangs desteamerDEM‘the steamer [that Tashi said [Pema made/makes momo with

]]’

29

Interim summary and analysis‑pa fundamentally differs in syntactic function from the other “nominalizers.”

 ‑pa marks the edge of entire relative clauses (to be revised), whereas
the other markers reflect a particular kind of local gap.
• ‑pa and the other “nominalizers” cannot cooccur on the same verb,
e.g. *bso‑sa‑pa. In local (non‑LD) relatives with a marked(subject/locative/instrument) gap, the marked, non‑pa “nominalizer”(‑mkhan/so/yag) wins out.

30

Interim summary and analysis‑pa fundamentally differs in syntactic function from the other “nominalizers.”

 ‑pa marks the edge of entire relative clauses (to be revised), whereas
the other markers reflect a particular kind of local gap.
• ‑pa and the other “nominalizers” cannot cooccur on the same verb,
e.g. *bso‑sa‑pa. In local (non‑LD) relatives with a marked(subject/locative/instrument) gap, the marked, non‑pa “nominalizer”(‑mkhan/so/yag) wins out.

30

Interim summary and analysis‑pa fundamentally differs in syntactic function from the other “nominalizers.”

 ‑pa marks the edge of entire relative clauses (to be revised), whereas
the other markers reflect a particular kind of local gap.
• ‑pa and the other “nominalizers” cannot cooccur on the same verb,
e.g. *bso‑sa‑pa. In local (non‑LD) relatives with a marked(subject/locative/instrument) gap, the marked, non‑pa “nominalizer”(‑mkhan/so/yag) wins out.

30

Another word order

Long‑distance relativization can also take another form:(22)

Another LD subject relative:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་ལཔ་པའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་མི
ོ་དེ་

[RC bkra.shis‑kyis

lap‑pa]‑’i [mog.mog bzo‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

say‑PA‑GEN

momo‘the person [that Tashi said [demake‑MKHAN person DEM

made/makes momo]]’ =(19)This word order appears to involve optional movement of the embedded
clause; cf (19).

31Another word order

Long‑distance relativization can also take another form:(22)

Another LD subject relative:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་ལཔ་པའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་མི
ོ་དེ་

[RC bkra.shis‑kyis

lap‑pa]‑’i [mog.mog bzo‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

say‑PA‑GEN

momo‘the person [that Tashi said [demake‑MKHAN person DEM

made/makes momo]]’ =(19)This word order appears to involve optional movement of the embedded
clause; cf (19).

31Another word order

Long‑distance relativization can also take another form:(22)

Another LD subject relative:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་ལཔ་པའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་མི
ོ་དེ་

[RC bkra.shis‑kyis

lap‑pa]‑’i [mog.mog bzo‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

say‑PA‑GEN

momo‘the person [that Tashi said [demake‑MKHAN person DEM

made/makes momo]]’ =(19)This word order appears to involve optional movement of the embedded
clause; cf (19).

31

An argument against the nominalization hypothesis

 The semantics of (22) forms an argument against each V‑“nominalizer”
being a pre‑built argument nominalization which intersectively
modifies the NP:

J(22)K = Jthe person that Tashi said made momosK
̸= THE(Jwhat Tashi saidK ∩ Jwho made momosK ∩ JpersonK)32

Another word orderNow consider this word order variant for LD object relativization:(23)

Another LD object relative:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་ལཔ་པའི ་པད་མས་བཟས་པའི
ོ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་ཙོ་

mog.mog de‑tso[RC bkra.shis‑kyis

lap‑pa]‑’i [ pad.ma‑sbzos‑pa]‑’iTashi‑ERG

say‑PA‑GEN Pema‑ERG

make‑PA‑GEN momo‘those momo [that Tashi said [that Pema made

DEM‑PL]]’ =(18) Now both clauses get ‑pa marking! Cf (18)33

Another word orderNow consider this word order variant for LD object relativization:(23)

Another LD object relative:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་ལཔ་པའི ་པད་མས་བཟས་པའི
ོ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་ཙོ་

mog.mog de‑tso[RC bkra.shis‑kyis

lap‑pa]‑’i [ pad.ma‑sbzos‑pa]‑’iTashi‑ERG

say‑PA‑GEN Pema‑ERG

make‑PA‑GEN momo‘those momo [that Tashi said [that Pema made

DEM‑PL]]’ =(18) Now both clauses get ‑pa marking! Cf (18)33

Another word order

It then cannot be that ‑pa marks the highest verb / edge of the entire relative
clause.

 The contrast between (23) and (18) above teaches us that each ‑pacorresponds to its own step of movement, with the optional
movement of an embedded clause counting as a separate step from the
movement of the head itself.

34

On the position of embedded clauses(24)

Embedded clauses generally cannot be postposed:*བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་ལཔ་ས ོང་པད་མས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟས་ས
ོོང།bkra.shis‑kyis

lap‑song, [pad.ma‑s mog.mog bzos‑song].

Tashi‑ERG

say‑AUX

Pema‑ERG dumpling make‑AUX

Intended: ‘Tashi said [that Pema made dumplings].’ =(17)• The placement of the embedded clause after the higher verb (‘say’ in(22–23)) is specifically made possible in LD relativization.

35

On the position of embedded clauses(24)

Embedded clauses generally cannot be postposed:*བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་ལཔ་ས ོང་པད་མས་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟས་ས
ོོང།bkra.shis‑kyis

lap‑song, [pad.ma‑s mog.mog bzos‑song].

Tashi‑ERG

say‑AUX

Pema‑ERG dumpling make‑AUX

Intended: ‘Tashi said [that Pema made dumplings].’ =(17)• The placement of the embedded clause after the higher verb (‘say’ in(22–23)) is specifically made possible in LD relativization.

35

On the choice of “nominalizer” suffixes We’ve concluded that (a) ‑mkhan/sa/yag indicate a marked local gap,and (b) ‑pa marks the final position of an unmarked movement,
including all relative clause edges.
(25)

LD agent relative, with higher ‑yag:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་བསམ་ཡགའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་མི
ོ་དེ་[bkra.shis‑kyisbsam‑yag]‑’i [mog.mog bzo‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

think‑YAG‑GEN

dumpling make‑MKHAN person DEM‘the person [that Tashi thinks [demade/makes dumplings]]’• ‑yag appears in (25) because the higher verb ‘think’ is imperfective.

36

On the choice of “nominalizer” suffixes We’ve concluded that (a) ‑mkhan/sa/yag indicate a marked local gap,and (b) ‑pa marks the final position of an unmarked movement,
including all relative clause edges.
(25)

LD agent relative, with higher ‑yag:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་བསམ་ཡགའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་མི
ོ་དེ་[bkra.shis‑kyisbsam‑yag]‑’i [mog.mog bzo‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

think‑YAG‑GEN

dumpling make‑MKHAN person DEM‘the person [that Tashi thinks [demade/makes dumplings]]’• ‑yag appears in (25) because the higher verb ‘think’ is imperfective.

36

On the choice of “nominalizer” suffixes We’ve concluded that (a) ‑mkhan/sa/yag indicate a marked local gap,and (b) ‑pa marks the final position of an unmarked movement,
including all relative clause edges.
(25)

LD agent relative, with higher ‑yag:བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་བསམ་ཡགའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་མི
ོ་དེ་[bkra.shis‑kyisbsam‑yag]‑’i [mog.mog bzo‑mkhan] mi

Tashi‑ERG

think‑YAG‑GEN

dumpling make‑MKHAN person DEM‘the person [that Tashi thinks [demade/makes dumplings]]’• ‑yag appears in (25) because the higher verb ‘think’ is imperfective.

36

LD relatives with higher ‑yag

• Recall that theme relatives with perfective descriptions involve ‑pa;with imperfective descriptions involve ‑yag.

 The choice of ‑pa/yag on ‘say/think’ behaves as if we are
relativizing over the theme of the higher verb, ‘say/think’!
Relativizing morphology responds locally for each step of movement
along the way.

37

LD relatives with higher ‑yag

• Recall that theme relatives with perfective descriptions involve ‑pa;with imperfective descriptions involve ‑yag.

 The choice of ‑pa/yag on ‘say/think’ behaves as if we are
relativizing over the theme of the higher verb, ‘say/think’!
Relativizing morphology responds locally for each step of movement
along the way.

37

§4 Synthesis and discussion

38Summary

Both Philippine‑type Austronesian languages and Tibetan utilize verbal
morphology to distinguish relative clauses with different pivots.
• At first glance, it appears that this parallel may be only superficial, anddue to two very different mechanisms:• Philippine‑type languages have a “subject‑only” restriction on
A‑extraction, together with multiple “voices” to make different
arguments the “subject.”• Tibetan relative clause forms are distinct from regular finite verbs.

39

Summary

Both Philippine‑type Austronesian languages and Tibetan utilize verbal
morphology to distinguish relative clauses with different pivots.
• At first glance, it appears that this parallel may be only superficial, anddue to two very different mechanisms:• Philippine‑type languages have a “subject‑only” restriction on
A‑extraction, together with multiple “voices” to make different
arguments the “subject.”• Tibetan relative clause forms are distinct from regular finite verbs.

39

Summary

Both Philippine‑type Austronesian languages and Tibetan utilize verbal
morphology to distinguish relative clauses with different pivots.
• At first glance, it appears that this parallel may be only superficial, anddue to two very different mechanisms:• Philippine‑type languages have a “subject‑only” restriction on
A‑extraction, together with multiple “voices” to make different
arguments the “subject.”• Tibetan relative clause forms are distinct from regular finite verbs.

39

Summary

Both Philippine‑type Austronesian languages and Tibetan utilize verbal
morphology to distinguish relative clauses with different pivots.
• At first glance, it appears that this parallel may be only superficial, anddue to two very different mechanisms:• Philippine‑type languages have a “subject‑only” restriction on
A‑extraction, together with multiple “voices” to make different
arguments the “subject.”• Tibetan relative clause forms are distinct from regular finite verbs.

39

Summary However, the behavior of LD relativization in Philippine‑type languages
and Tibetan make these systems look even more similar:
In LD relativization, each verb reflects the thematic role of its local
pivot gap or the embedded clause containing the pivot gap.
This description applies to both Philippine‑type languages and Tibetan,
if we limit our attention to Tibetan LD relatives with displaced
embedded clauses.

40Summary However, the behavior of LD relativization in Philippine‑type languages
and Tibetan make these systems look even more similar:
In LD relativization, each verb reflects the thematic role of its local
pivot gap or the embedded clause containing the pivot gap.
This description applies to both Philippine‑type languages and Tibetan,
if we limit our attention to Tibetan LD relatives with displaced
embedded clauses.

40Summary However, the behavior of LD relativization in Philippine‑type languages
and Tibetan make these systems look even more similar:
In LD relativization, each verb reflects the thematic role of its local
pivot gap or the embedded clause containing the pivot gap.
This description applies to both Philippine‑type languages and Tibetan,
if we limit our attention to Tibetan LD relatives with displaced
embedded clauses.

40

Towards a unification...

An alternative approach to Austronesian voice systems allows for an evenclearer unification:• Voice systems in Philippine‑type languages are often described asargument structure alternations (e.g. Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis 1992,
Aldridge 2004, 2008, Legate 2012):• The choice of voice determines the choice of “subject.”• Only the subject can be relativized (Keenan and Comrie 1977).

41

Towards a unification...

• But there’s another approach to voice systems on the market(see e.g. Chung 1994, Richards 2000, Pearson 2001, 2005, Chen 2017,
Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, in prep.):
A⃝
Philippine‑type voice morphemes are responses to extraction(e.g. relativization) of a particular type of argument;
B⃝
Every clause is required to choose one nominal to participateA .
in extraction or a similar process, feeding ⃝42

Towards a unification...

• But there’s another approach to voice systems on the market(see e.g. Chung 1994, Richards 2000, Pearson 2001, 2005, Chen 2017,
Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, in prep.):
A⃝
Philippine‑type voice morphemes are responses to extraction(e.g. relativization) of a particular type of argument;
B⃝
Every clause is required to choose one nominal to participateA .
in extraction or a similar process, feeding ⃝42

Towards a unification...

• But there’s another approach to voice systems on the market(see e.g. Chung 1994, Richards 2000, Pearson 2001, 2005, Chen 2017,
Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, in prep.):
A⃝
Philippine‑type voice morphemes are responses to extraction(e.g. relativization) of a particular type of argument;
B⃝
Every clause is required to choose one nominal to participateA .
in extraction or a similar process, feeding ⃝42

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2

B to the “prefield” requirement in Germanic V2:
We can relate ⃝(26) Swedish V2 alternation:
a. Han känner

faktiskt Ingrid.

he knows

actually Ingrid‘He actually knows Ingrid.’b. Ingrid känner han faktiskt.

Ingrid knows he actually‘He actually knows Ingrid.’

43

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2

B to the “prefield” requirement in Germanic V2:
We can relate ⃝(26) Swedish V2 alternation:
a. Han känner

faktiskt Ingrid.

he knows

actually Ingrid‘He actually knows Ingrid.’b. Ingrid känner han faktiskt.

Ingrid knows he actually‘He actually knows Ingrid.’

43

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2

B to the “prefield” requirement in Germanic V2:
We can relate ⃝(26) Swedish V2 alternation:
a. Han känner
he

knows

faktiskt Ingrid.
actually Ingrid‘He actually knows Ingrid.’b. Ingrid känner han faktiskt.

Ingrid knows he actually‘He actually knows Ingrid.’

43

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2

B to the “prefield” requirement in Germanic V2:
We can relate ⃝(26) Swedish V2 alternation:
a. Han känner

faktiskt Ingrid.

he knows

actually Ingrid‘He actually knows Ingrid.’b. Ingrid känner han faktiskt.

Ingrid knows he actually‘He actually knows Ingrid.’

43

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2

B = A single argument in each clause — by default, a topic —‑ ⃝(a) in Germanic V2: moves to clause‑initial position;(b) in Philippine‑type languages: receives a particular marker/case(Tagalog ang);(c) in Dinka (Nilotic; Erlewine et al. 2015, 2017, in prep.):
moves to clause‑initial position and receives a particular case.

44

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2

B = A single argument in each clause — by default, a topic —‑ ⃝(a) in Germanic V2: moves to clause‑initial position;(b) in Philippine‑type languages: receives a particular marker/case(Tagalog ang);(c) in Dinka (Nilotic; Erlewine et al. 2015, 2017, in prep.):
moves to clause‑initial position and receives a particular case.

44

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2

B = A single argument in each clause — by default, a topic —‑ ⃝(a) in Germanic V2: moves to clause‑initial position;(b) in Philippine‑type languages: receives a particular marker/case(Tagalog ang);(c) in Dinka (Nilotic; Erlewine et al. 2015, 2017, in prep.):
moves to clause‑initial position and receives a particular case.

44

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2‑ But A‑extraction such as relativization or wh‑movement proceeds
B ‑position/process, blocking movement of a topic:
through the ⃝(27) Topicalization disallowed within Swedish relative clauses:
a. den flicka [RC som har kammat sitt hår]the girlthat has combed her hairb. * den flicka [RC som sitt hår har kammat
the girl]that her hair has combed

In Philippine‑type languages, assuming that the assignment of ang andA‑extraction underlyingly involve the same process (Chen 2017,
A , weErlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, in prep.), and both feed ⃝derive the apparent “subject‑only” extraction restriction.
45

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2‑ But A‑extraction such as relativization or wh‑movement proceeds
B ‑position/process, blocking movement of a topic:
through the ⃝(27) Topicalization disallowed within Swedish relative clauses:
a. den flicka [RC som har kammat sitt hår]the girlthat has combed her hairb. * den flicka [RC som sitt hår har kammat
the girl]that her hair has combed

In Philippine‑type languages, assuming that the assignment of ang andA‑extraction underlyingly involve the same process (Chen 2017,
A , weErlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, in prep.), and both feed ⃝derive the apparent “subject‑only” extraction restriction.
45

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2‑ But A‑extraction such as relativization or wh‑movement proceeds
B ‑position/process, blocking movement of a topic:
through the ⃝(27) Topicalization disallowed within Swedish relative clauses:
a. den flicka [RC som har kammat sitt hår]the girlthat has combed her hairb. * den flicka [RC som sitt hår har kammat
the girl]that her hair has combed

In Philippine‑type languages, assuming that the assignment of ang andA‑extraction underlyingly involve the same process (Chen 2017,
A , weErlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, in prep.), and both feed ⃝derive the apparent “subject‑only” extraction restriction.
45

Austronesian voice systems and Germanic V2‑ But A‑extraction such as relativization or wh‑movement proceeds
B ‑position/process, blocking movement of a topic:
through the ⃝(27) Topicalization disallowed within Swedish relative clauses:
a. den flicka [RC som har kammat sitt hår]the girlthat has combed her hairb. * den flicka [RC som sitt hår har kammat
the girl]that her hair has combed

In Philippine‑type languages, assuming that the assignment of ang andA‑extraction underlyingly involve the same process (Chen 2017,
A , weErlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, in prep.), and both feed ⃝derive the apparent “subject‑only” extraction restriction.
45

Proposal

 Tibetan relativization suffixes are responses to extraction of aA
particular type of argument — just like in Philippine‑type languages ⃝— but Tibetan has no requirement for some argument to
B .
participate in such a process — unlike Philippine‑type languages ⃝• These verb forms in Tibetan thus appear only in relativization, notin regular clauses. — and for ‑pa, only when it is marks the
position of a final movement.
A applies per clause, unifying the• This “response” mechanism ⃝behavior of LD relatives in Tibetan and Philippine‑type languages.

46

Proposal

 Tibetan relativization suffixes are responses to extraction of aA
particular type of argument — just like in Philippine‑type languages ⃝— but Tibetan has no requirement for some argument to
B .
participate in such a process — unlike Philippine‑type languages ⃝• These verb forms in Tibetan thus appear only in relativization, notin regular clauses. — and for ‑pa, only when it is marks the
position of a final movement.
A applies per clause, unifying the• This “response” mechanism ⃝behavior of LD relatives in Tibetan and Philippine‑type languages.

46

Proposal

 Tibetan relativization suffixes are responses to extraction of aA
particular type of argument — just like in Philippine‑type languages ⃝— but Tibetan has no requirement for some argument to
B .
participate in such a process — unlike Philippine‑type languages ⃝• These verb forms in Tibetan thus appear only in relativization, notin regular clauses. — and for ‑pa, only when it is marks the
position of a final movement.
A applies per clause, unifying the• This “response” mechanism ⃝behavior of LD relatives in Tibetan and Philippine‑type languages.

46

Proposal

 Tibetan relativization suffixes are responses to extraction of aA
particular type of argument — just like in Philippine‑type languages ⃝— but Tibetan has no requirement for some argument to
B .
participate in such a process — unlike Philippine‑type languages ⃝• These verb forms in Tibetan thus appear only in relativization, notin regular clauses. — and for ‑pa, only when it is marks the
position of a final movement.
A applies per clause, unifying the• This “response” mechanism ⃝behavior of LD relatives in Tibetan and Philippine‑type languages.

46

Thank you!

ཐུགས་རྗེ་ཆེ །
For earlier comments and discussion that helped shaped this work, I
especially thank Kenyon Branan, Hadas Kotek, Theodore Levin, David
Pesetsky, Zheng Shen, and Coppe van Urk, and audiences at the University of
Helsinki, Sogang University, and the University of Edinburgh. This work is
supported by the Singapore Ministry of Education under the grant“Subjecthood in Southeast Asia: Description and theory.” Errors are mine.

47

References I
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral
Dissertation, Cornell University.
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Phase‑based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua
118:1440–1469.
Chen, Victoria. 2017. A reexamination of the Philippine‑type voice system and its
implications for Austronesian primary‑level subgrouping. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Hawai‘i.
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh‑agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic
Inquiry 25:1–44.
DeLancey, Scott. 1999. Relativization in Tibetan. In Topics in Nepalese linguistics, ed.
Yogendra P. Yadava and Warren W. Glover, 231–249. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal
Academy.

48

References II
DeLancey, Scott. 2002. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Proceedings of
BLS 28, 55–72.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. 2015. What makes
a voice system? On the relationship between voice marking and case. In AFLA 21:
The Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics
Association, ed. Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile, and Nozomi Tanaka,
51–68. Asia‑Pacific Linguistics.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. 2017. Ergativity
and Austronesian‑type voice systems. In Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, ed.
Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis, 373–396. Oxford University
Press.
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP:
Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
10:375–414.

49

References III
Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility andUniversal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63–99.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive.
Language 88:495–525.
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalization. In Essays on language function
and language type in honor of Talmy Givón, ed. Joan Bybee, John Haiman, andSandra A. Thompson, 374–394. John Benjamins.
Noonan, Michael. 2008. Nominalizations in Bodic languages. In Rethinking
grammaticalization: New perspectives, ed. Maria José López‑Couso and Elena
Seoane, 219–237. John Benjamins.
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A Minimalist approach.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A′ ‑element. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 23:381–457.

50

References IV

Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal issues inAustronesian linguistics, ed. Ileana Paul, Vivianne Phillips, and Lisa Travis,
105–116. Springer.
Tournadre, Nicholas, and Konchok Jiatso. 2001. Final auxiliary verbs in literary
Tibetan and in the dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto‑Burman Area 24.
Tournadre, Nicholas, and Sangda Dorje. 2003. Manual of Standard Tibetan:
Language and civilization. Snow Lion Publications.
Vokurková, Zuzana. 2008. Epistemic modalities in Spoken Standard Tibetan.
Doctoral Dissertation, Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, University of Paris 8.

51