Patterns of relativization in Austronesian and Tibetan
Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWINE (mitcho), mitcho@nus.edu.sg
National University of Singapore
Goethe University Frankfurt, July 2020∗

1 Introduction
Today I discuss the grammars of “Philippine-type” Austronesian languages1 — illustrated herewith Tagalog — and Tibetan and highlight one striking similarity (at least on the surface): Both languages/groups use verbal aﬀixes to mark the choice of relative clause pivot.
(1)

(2)

Agent and theme relatives in Tagalog:
ng tela]a. bata=ng [b<um>ilichild=LK <PRF.AV>buy GEN cloth

Agent and theme relatives in Tibetan:a. [deb ’bri-mkhan] mibook write-MKHAN person‘child who bought cloth’‘person(s) who wrote/writes book(s)’b. tela=ng [b<in>ili-∅∅ ng bata]cloth=LK <PRF>buy-PV GEN childdep
b. [pad.ma-s ’bri-pa]-’i
Pema-ERG write-PA-GEN book‘cloth that the child bought’‘book(s) that Pema wrote’

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/goals
iinstruments/beneficiaries-∅
themesb. Tibetan: (perfective)-mkhan མཁན་ agents-sa ས་
locatives/goals-yag ཡག་
instruments-pa པ་
themesHowever, the parallels between these systems have not been investigated before, as these patterns have been described under very different banners:• for Philippine-type languages, as part of these languages’ voice systems (see e.g. Keenan
and Comrie, 1977; Kroeger, 1991/1993; Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis, 1992; Richards, 2000;
Aldridge, 2002, 2004; Rackowski and Richards, 2005; Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk, 2017);• for Tibetan and other Tibeto-Burman languages, as nominalizations (see e.g. Matisoff, 1972;
Herring, 1991; Noonan, 1997; Bickel, 1999; DeLancey, 2002; Noonan, 2008; Genetti et al.,2008; Genetti, 2011; DeLancey, 2011).
∗
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 Ministryof Education under the grant “Subjecthood in Southeast Asia: Description and theory.” Errors are mine.
1“Philippine-type” refers to a particular class of Austronesian languages with shared grammatical characteristics; see e.g. Wolff 1996; Himmelmann 2002, 2005; Blust 2010, 2013; Erlewine and Levin to appear. They comprise
the Austronesian languages of the Philippines, most of Taiwan, northern Borneo and Sulawesi, and Madagascar.

1

Today: These 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 inPhilippine-type languages and Tibetan — as well as their differences — in a familiar way.
Roadmap§2 Philippine-type languages§3 Tibetan§4 Synthesis and discussion

2 Philippine-type languages
2.1 Austronesian voice systems and the “subject-only” restriction
The morphological alternation observed in Tagalog relative clauses above reflects a more general alternation between different clause types:2(4)(Rackowski and Richards, 2005: 566)

Tagalog voice alternation:a.

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.

Actor Voice (AV)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.’c.

Patient Voice (PV)

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.

Locative Voice (LV)

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.’Ben./Instr. Voice (BV/IV) Every verb has one of these “voice” markers, not just in relative clauses.
– The choice of voice marker correlates with the choice of ang-marked argument (4),which I call the “subject” today. We can think of ang as nominative (or, for someauthors, absolutive3 ) case, which appears to override an underlying case marker.
But there is significant debate on these points...4– Keenan and Comrie 1977: These languages have a “subject-only” A-extraction restriction. This explains the correlation between verbal morphology and the choiceof pivot in relative clauses, as in (1) above.
2

Abbreviations: GEN = genitive, DAT = dative; PRF = perfective, ASP = other aspect.
See Aldridge 2004 and references there for the analysis of these languages as ergative, and see also Erlewine,
Levin, and Van Urk 2017 and Chen 2017 for recent critical discussion of this approach.
4
There is even debate over basic terminology: some call the subject “pivot,” “focus,” “topic,” or “trigger.”32

2.2 Long-distance relativization
Clause-embedding verbs such as ‘say’ also participate in voice alternations.
(5)

Voice alternation of clause-embedding verb: (based on Rackowski and Richards, 2005: 586)
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].’[na masarap ang bulaklak].
b. S<in>-abi-∅∅ ng kalabaw<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, wehypothesize that it is the grammatical “subject” in (5b).
Now consider relativization over an embedded clause argument — “long-distance” relativization:(6)Long-distance (LD) relativization of an embedded goal:(based on ibid.: 586)

bi-bigy-an ng lalaki ng bulaklak✓∅s<in>abi-∅ ng guro  that ASP-give-LV GEN man GEN flower
that 

<PRF>say-PV GEN teacher

kalabaw [na
w.b.



* nag-sabi
ang guro 





 <PRF.AV>say ANG teacher [na‘water buffalo [that the teacher said [that the man would give a flower to

]]

]]’

 The relative clause pivot must be the “subject” of the embedded clause. In addition, theembedded clause itself must be the “subject” of the higher, embedding verb, as determined by the choice of voice morphology.5This same basic description for LD relativization holds of other Philippine-type languages
 such as Bikol (Erlewine and Lim, 2019) as well as other, non-Philippine-type Austronesian  languages such as Madurese (Davies, 2003), as well as the Nilotic language Dinka (Van  Urk and Richards, 2015), which has been shown to also exhibit an Austronesian-type voice 
system (Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk, 2015, 2017).

2.3 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 a complex chain of relativization.

5‘Say’ must be in PV in (6) to support long-distance relativization. Other verbs use different voices to make theembedded clause the “subject,” e.g. LV for ‘believe.’33 Tibetan
3.1 Relativization as nominalization
Verbs in Tibetan end with a series of auxiliaries (AUX) encoding tense/aspect/evidential values(Tournadre and Jiatso, 2001; Vokurková, 2008). Relativization involves a distinct verb form
where the auxiliaries are replaced by a “nominalizer” ending.6
བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་དེབ་འབྲི་གི་དུག།

(7)(8) དེབ་འབྲི་མཁན་མི ་

bkra.shis-kyis deb ’bri-gi.dug. →Tashi-ERG
book write-AUX[RC‘Tashi is writing a book.’‘person who wrote/writes/is writing a book/books’

deb ’bri-mkhan] mibook write-MKHAN person

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

-pa event nominalization: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.’
From this perspective, relative clauses simply represent another use of nominalizations, as verbal argument nominalizations.
(10) -pa theme nominalization:པད་མས་བཟས་པ་དེ
ོ་

pad.ma-s bzos-pa dePema-ERG make-PA DEM‘what Pema made’(11) -pa object relative:པད་མས་བཟས་པའི
ོ་མ ོག་མ ོག་དེ་

[pad.ma-s bzos-pa]-’i mog.mog de
DEM
Pema-ERG make-PA-GEN momo‘the momo that Pema made’-pa.’i > -pe

Noonan 2008: “in adnominal modification... at least in Bodic, they are probably best viewed as
NPs juxtaposed to the NPs they are modifying, the two NPs constituting, therefore, a sort ofappositional 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).7
Semantically, we could cash out this intuition with intersective modificational semantics:(13) J(12)K = Jargument nominalizationK ∩ JNPK
6

I employ the common Wylie transliteration for Tibetan orthography here, with periods indicating syllable
boundaries where there is no morpheme boundary. ERG = ergative, DEM = demonstrative, PL = plural.
7
Despite DeLancey’s claim, some of my speakers volunteered pre-nominal subject relatives with -mkhan followed by a genitive. Similar data with -mkhan-GEN is found in Seth Cable’s field notes (via p.c.) from anotherspeaker.

43.2 The “nominalizers”(14) “Nominalizers” by choice of pivot:-mkhan མཁན་-sa ས་
-yag ཡག་
-pa པ་

expanding on (3b)agents/subjects8
locatives/goals
instruments and imperfective themes
perfective themes(Mazaudon, 1978; Kim, 1996; DeLancey, 1999; Denwood, 1999; Tournadre and Sangda Dorje, 2003)• There is an interaction with aspect for theme relativization, which will be relevant later.
(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. (See Hill 2012.)(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
DEM‘the steamer that Pema made/makes dumplings with’-yag.’i > -ye-yag reflects an instrumental (-gis/kyis/gyis/s, homophonous with ergative) gap, or imperfective theme gap.
There are various reasons to suspect that -pa somehow differs from the other suﬀixes:
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 derivational suﬀix 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... theother three show compound phonology; this is consistent with their derivational origin.”
3. For verbs with distinct perfective and imperfective stems, -pa takes the perfective stem
while all others take the imperfective stem: e.g. ‘make’ = PRF bsos- /sø/; IMPF bso- /so/.

8

As DeLancey 1999: 239–242 notes, the use of -mkhan roughly correlates with the gap being an ergative(-gis/kyis/gyis/s) case position, but -mkhan is also used for relativization over possessor subjects of verbs of possession, which are dative (-la).

53.3 Long-distance relativization
 We now consider “long-distance” (LD) relativization in Tibetan. No previous work has
described LD relatives in Tibetan — nor, to my knowledge, in any other Bodic language.
• All data comes from my fieldwork conducted in Dharamsala, India in summers 2018 and2019, and reflect the judgments of nine speakers.9(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].’
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/song] lap-pa/*song]-’i mog.mog de-tso
make-*PA/AUX say-PA/*AUX-GEN momo
DEM-PL‘those momo [that Tashi said [that Pema made]]’

 -pa only goes on the higher verb of the relative clause. The embedded clause with a gap
is a regular, finite clause.
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/*song] lap-pa/*mkhan]-’i midemomo
make-MKHAN/*AUX say-PA/*MKHAN-GEN person DEM‘the person [that Tashi said [made/makes momo]]’ For LD subject relatives, there is subject relativization marking -mkhan on the embedded verb, then -pa on the higher clause!
LD locative relatives(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]-’i sa.cha demomo
make-SA/*AUX say-PA/*SA-GEN place DEM‘the place [that Tashi said [Pema made/makes momo
9]]’

Most were born in Tibet and moved to India earlier in life; others were born in India. All grew up speaking
Tibetan as their first language and attended Tibetan language medium schools. I especially thank Kunga Choedon,Pema Yonden, and Yepo.

6

LD instrumental relatives(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]-’i mog.zangs de
momo

make-YAG/*AUX say-PA/*YAG-GEN steamer‘the steamer [that Tashi said [Pema made/makes momo with

DEM

]]’

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.

3.4 Another word order and the nature of -pa
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).
 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/makes momosK
̸= THE(Jwhat Tashi saidK ∩ Jwho made/makes momosK ∩ JpersonK)Now 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་

[RC bkra.shis-kyis
Tashi-ERG

lap-pa]-’i [ pad.ma-s

bzos-pa]-’isay-PA-GEN

make-PA-GEN momoPema-ERG‘those momo [that Tashi said [that Pema made
 Now both clauses get -pa marking! Cf (18)7]]’ =(18)

mog.mog de-tso
DEM-PL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 -pa corresponds 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.10
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

Tashi-ERG

lap-song, [pad.ma-s mog.mog bzos-song].
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.
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:་དེ་བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཀྱི ས་བསམ་ཡགའི ་མ ོག་མ ོག་བཟ་མཁན་མི
ོ[bkra.shis-kyis
Tashi-ERG

bsam-yag]-’i [think-YAG-GEN‘the person [that Tashi thinks [mog.mog bzo-mkhan] midedumpling make-MKHAN person DEM

made/makes dumplings]]’• -yag appears in (25) because the higher verb ‘think’ is imperfective; cf (22).
• 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 themeof the higher verb, ‘say/think’! Relativizing morphology responds locally for each stepof movement along the way.

10
See e.g. Georgi 2017 for discussion of extraction marking morphology which distinguishes final vs intermediate
steps of movement.

8

4 Synthesis and discussion
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, and due 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.
 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 theembedded clause containing the pivot gap.
This description applies to both Philippine-type languages and Tibetan, if we limit ourattention to Tibetan LD relatives with displaced embedded clauses, as in §3.4 rather thanin §3.3.
An alternative approach to Austronesian voice systems allows for an even clearer unification:• Voice systems in Philippine-type languages are often described as argument 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).
• 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.):
A 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 participate in extraction or aAsimilar process, feeding ⃝.

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.’9.

B = A single argument in each clause — by default, a topic — is chosen and...
- ⃝(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, Levin, and Van Urk 2015, 2017, in prep.):
moves to clause-initial position and receives a particular case.
B- But A-extraction such as relativization or wh-movement proceeds through the ⃝-position/
process, blocking movement of a topic to initial position:(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 girlthat her hair has combed](Franco, 2012: 326)

In Philippine-type languages, assuming that the assignment of ang and A-extraction underlyingly involve (effectively11 ) the same process (Chen 2017; Erlewine, Levin, and VanA
we derive the apparent “subject-only” extraction
Urk 2017, in prep.), and both feed ⃝,restriction.
 Tibetan relativization suﬀixes are responses to extraction of a particular type of arguA — but Tibetan has no requirement forment — just like in Philippine-type languages ⃝Bsome argument to participate in such a process — unlike Philippine-type languages ⃝.
– These verb forms in Tibetan thus appear only in relativization, not in regular clauses.
— and for -pa, only when it is marks the position of a final movement.
A applies per clause, unifying the behavior of LD rela– This “response” mechanism ⃝tives in Tibetan and Philippine-type languages.

References
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.
Aldridge, Edith Catherine. 2002. Nominalization and wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog.
Language and Linguistics 3.
Bickel, Balthazar. 1999. Nominalization and focus in some Kiranti languages. In Yadava andGlover (1999), 271–296.
Blust, Robert. 2010. Review: The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar by Alexander
Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. Oceanic Linguistics 49:302–312.
Blust, Robert. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Asia-Pacific Linguistics, revised edition.
11
For example, for Erlewine and Lim 2019, nominative is assigned by T and A-extraction involves C, but bothnecessarily target the same argument.

10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.
Davies, William D. 2003. Extreme locality in Madurese wh-questions. Syntax 237–259.
DeLancey, Scott. 1999. Relativization in Tibetan. In Yadava and Glover (1999), 231–249.
DeLancey, Scott. 2002. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Proceedings of BLS 28,
55–72.
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Yap
et al. (2011).
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. John Benjamins.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Theodore Levin. to appear. Philippine clitic pronouns andthe lower phase edge. Linguistic Inquiry URL https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004847/
current.pdf.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. 2015. What makes a voicesystem? On the relationship between voice marking and case. In AFLA 21: The Proceedingsof 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 andAustronesian-type voice systems. In Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, ed. Jessica Coon, Diane
Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis, 373–396. Oxford University Press.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Cheryl Lim. 2019. Bikol clefts and topics and the Austronesian extraction restriction. URL https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004181/current.pdf,
manuscript, National University of Singapore.
Franco, Irene. 2012. Minimality and embedded V2 in Scandinavian. In Main clause phenomena: New horizons, ed. Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye, 319–344. John
Benjamins.
Genetti, Carol. 2011. Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: A
typological perspective. In Yap et al. (2011), 163–193.
Genetti, Carol, Alec Coupe, Ellen Bartee, and Lin You-Jing Hildebrandt, Kristine. 2008. Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31:97–143.
Georgi, Doreen. 2017. Patterns of movement reflexes as the result of the order of merge andagree. Linguistic Inquiry 48:585–626.
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.
Herring, Susan C. 1991. Nominalization, relativization, and attribution in Lotha, Angami, andBurmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14.
Hill, Nathan W. 2012. Tibetan -las, -nas, and -bas. Cahiers de Linguistique - Asie Orientale 41:3–38.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: an update. In The history andtypology of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 7–16. Canberra:
Pacific Linguistics.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. Alexander
11Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–181. Routledge.
Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63–99.
Kim, Myung-Hee. 1996. A case grammar explanation of Tibetan relativization. In Proceedings ofthe Fourth International Symposium of Languages and Linguistics, 1696–1713. Bangkok: Department of Linguistics, Chulalongkorn University.
Kroeger, Paul R. 1991/1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Doctoral
Dissertation, Stanford University.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88:495–
525.
Matisoff, James. 1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In Syntax andsemantics, ed. J. Kimball, volume 1. New York: Seminar Press.
Mazaudon, Martine. 1978. La formation des propositions relatives en tibétain. Bulletin de laSociété de Linguistique de Paris 73:401–414.
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalization. In Essays on language function and language
type in honor of Talmy Givón, ed. Joan Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra 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.
Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog casestudy. Linguistic Inquiry 36:565–599.
Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal issues in Austronesian 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.
van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Richards. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46:113–155.
Vokurková, Zuzana. 2008. Epistemic modalities in Spoken Standard Tibetan. Doctoral Dissertation, Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, University of Paris 8.
Wolff, John U. 1996. The development of the passive verb with pronominal prefix in western Austronesian languages. In Reconstruction, classification, description: Festschrift in honor of
Isidore Dyen, ed. Bernd Nothofer, 15–40. Abera.
Yadava, Yogendra P., and Warren W. Glover, ed. 1999. Topics in Nepalese linguistics. Kathmandu:
Royal Nepal Academy.
Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta, and Janick Wrona, ed. 2011. Nominalization in Asian
languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. John Benjamins.

12