1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-2116
  • E-ISSN: 2210-2124
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper develops the proposal put forth by Aldridge (2015, 2016) for the emergence of ergative alignment in a first-order subgroup of the Austronesian family. I first provide new evidence for reconstructing Proto-Austronesian (PAn) as accusative rather than ergative. I then propose a significantly revised approach to Aldridge’s proposed reanalysis. On the basis of evidence from Tsou, I propose that the reanalysis took place in biclausal constructions embedded under motion or locative verbs. Since such biclausal constructions are contexts for restructuring, no accusative case is available for an object. This forced objects which needed structural licensing to value nominative case with T. I additionally show that subjects were assigned inherent non-nominative case in PAn when objects needed to enter into Agree with T, as when valuing nominative case. These conditions yielded a new ergative clause type in a daughter of PAn, which Aldridge (20152016) calls “Proto-Ergative Austronesian”. No change took place in clauses lacking an object needing structural licensing. Consequently, subjects in intransitive clauses and transitive clauses with indefinite objects continued to surface with nominative case, yielding the type of ergative alignment prevalent in Formosan and Philippine languages today.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.20016.ald
2021-07-23
2021-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adelaar, K. Alexander
    2004 The Coming and Going of ‘Lexical Prefixes’ in Siraya. Language and Linguistics5:2.333–361.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ademola-Adeoye, Feyisayo Fehintola
    2011 A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Finite Raising Constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kwazulu-Natal.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldridge, Edith
    2004 Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015 A Minimalist Approach to the Emergence of Ergativity in Austronesian Languages. Linguistics Vanguard1:1.313–326. 10.1515/lingvan‑2014‑1011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1011 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2016 Ergativity from Subjunctive in Austronesian Languages. Language and Linguistics17:1.27–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2017 Intransitivity and the Development of Ergative Alignment. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativityed. byJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis, 501–529. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2021 The Nature and Origin of Syntactic Ergativity in Austronesian Languages. Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Changeed. byJóhannes Gísli Jónsson & Thorhallur Eythorsson, 265–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blust, Robert
    1999 Subgrouping, Circularity and Extinction: Some Issues in Austronesian Comparative Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics)ed. byElizabeth Zeitoun & Paul Jen-kuei Li, 31–94. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2003 Three Notes on Early Austronesian Morphology. Oceanic Linguistics42:2.438–478. 10.1353/ol.2003.0018
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2003.0018 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009/2013The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies (2nd ed. College of Asia and the Pacific), Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Blust, Robert & Victoria Chen
    2017 The Pitfalls of Negative Evidence: ‘Nuclear Austronesian’, ‘Ergative Austronesian’, and Their Progeny. Language and Linguistics18:4.577–621.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Borer, Hagit
    1994 The Projection of Arguments. Functional Projectionsed. byE. Benedicto & J. Runner, 19–47. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chang, Henry Y.
    2011 Transitivity, Ergativity, and the Status of O in Tsou. Language and Cognition: Festschrift in Honor of James H-Y. Tai on His 70th Birthdayed. byJung-hsing Chang, 277–308. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2017 The Av-Only Restriction and Locality in Formosan Languages. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series47:2.231–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chang, Henry Y. & Chia-jung Pan
    2018Zouyu Yufa Gailun [Introduction to Tsou Grammar]. New Taipei City: Council of Indigenous Peoples.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chang, Melody Ya-Yin
    2000 On Tsou Wh-Questions: Movement or in Situ?Language and Linguistics1:2.1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang, Yung-li
    1997 Voice, Case and Agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Doctoral dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cooreman, Ann
    1982 Topicality, Ergativity, and Transitivity in Narrative Discourse: Evidence from Chamorro. Studies in Language3.343–374. 10.1075/sl.6.3.03coo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.3.03coo [Google Scholar]
  20. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  21. Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung & Lisa Travis
    1992 Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjects in Austronesian Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory10.375–414. 10.1007/BF00133368
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133368 [Google Scholar]
  22. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  23. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2005 The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological Characteristics. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascared. byAlexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–181. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Holmer, Arthur
    1996A Parametric Grammar of Seediq. Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hook, Peter Edwin
    1991 The Emergence of Perfective Aspect in Indo-Aryan Languages. Approaches to Grammaticalization (ed. byElizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine) 19:2.59–89. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.05hoo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.05hoo [Google Scholar]
  26. Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language56.251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kayne, Richard
    1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kiparsky, Paul
    1998 Partitive Case and Aspect. The Projection of Argumentsed. byMiriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    2007 Verbal and Nominalized Finite Clauses in Turkish. Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundationsed. byIrina Nikolaeva, 305–332. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuo, Jonathan Cheng-Chuen
    2015 Argument Alternation and Argument Structure in Symmetrical Voice Languages: A Case Study of Transfer Verbs in Amis, Puyuma, and Seediq. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Legate, Julie
    2008 Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry39.55–101. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55 [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, Chao-Lin
    2009 The Syntax of Prefix Concord in Saaroa: Restructuring and Multiple Agreement. Oceanic Linguistics48:1.172–212. 10.1353/ol.0.0037
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.0.0037 [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, Paul Jen-kuei
    1977 The Internal Relationships of Rukai. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica48:1.1–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Murasugi, Kumiko G.
    1992 Crossing and Nested Paths: Np Movement in Accusative and Ergative Languages. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ritter, Elizabeth & Sara Rosen
    2000 Event Structure and Ergativity. Events as Grammatical Objectsed. byC. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky, 187–238. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ross, Malcolm
    1992 The Sound of Proto-Austronesian: An Outsider’s View of the Formosan Evidence. Oceanic Linguistics31.23–64. 10.2307/3622965
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3622965 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2002 The History and Transitivity of Western Austronesian Voice and Voice-Marking. The History and Typology and Western Austronesian Voice Systemsed. byFay Wouk & Malcolm Ross, 17–62. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2006 Reconstructing the Case-Marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian. Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on His 70th Birthdayed. byHenry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang & Dah-an Ho, 521–563. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2009 Proto-Austronesian Verbal Morphology: A Reappraisal. Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blusted. byAlexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2012 In Defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language and Linguistics13:6.1253–1300.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Runner, Jeffrey T.
    1993 Quantificational Objects and Agr-O. Papers from the Fifth Student Conference in Linguistics (Scil-V), University of Washingtoned. byV. Lindblad & M. Gamon, 209–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Soames, S. & David Perlmutter
    1979Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Starosta, Stanley
    1995 A Grammatical Subgrouping of Formosan Languages. Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwaned. byPaul J.-K. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho & Chiu-yu Tseng, 683–726. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2001 Reduplication and the Subgrouping of Formosan Languages. Paper Presented at the International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues Relating to Taiwan, Academia Sinica. Formosan Linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s Contributionsed. byElizabeth Zeitoun, 801–834. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley & Lawrence A. Reid
    1982 The Evolution of Focus in Austronesian. Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguisticsed. byAmram Halim, Lois Carrington & S. A. Wurm, 145–170. Pacific Linguistics, C-75.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tan, Cindy Ro-lan
    1997 A Study of Puyuma Simple Sentences. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Teng, Stacy Fang-ching
    2008A Reference Grammar of Puyuma. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2014 Grammaticalization of Predicative Possession in Nanwang Puyuma and as a Basis for Reconstruction in PAn. Oceanic Linguistics53:1.141–159. 10.1353/ol.2014.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2014.0006 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2018 A Reconstruction of the Proto-Puyuma Aspectual and Modal System. Oceanic Linguistics57:2.303–334. 10.1353/ol.2018.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2018.0014 [Google Scholar]
  50. Topping, Donald
    1973Chamorro Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 10.1515/9780824841263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824841263 [Google Scholar]
  51. Tsuchida, Shigeru
    1975 Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ura, Hiroyuki
    2000Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Watanabe, Kazuha
    2008 Tense and Aspect in Old Japanese: Synchronic, Diachronic, and Typological Perspectives. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wolff, John
    1973 Verbal Inflection in Proto-Austronesian. Essays in Honor of Cecilio Lopez on His Seventy-Fifth Birthdayed. byAndrew Gonzales, 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wurmbrand, Susanne
    2001Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Göttingen: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zeitoun, Elizabeth
    1992 A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Tsou Focus System. Master’s thesis, National Tsinghua University, Taiwan.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 1996 The Tsou Temporal, Aspectual, and Modal System Revisited. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology67:3.503–532.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2000Zouyu Cankao Yufa [Tsou Reference Grammar]. Taipei: Yuanliou Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2019 A Comparative Study of Verb Classification across the Rukai Dialects. Paper presented at theWorkshop on Verbs in Formosan Languages and Beyond: Cross-Linguistic, Comparative, and Diachronic Perspectives. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, Maria M. Yeh & Anna H. Chang
    1999 Existential, Possessive, and Locative Constructions in Formosan Languages. Oceanic Linguistics38:1.1–42. 10.2307/3623391
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3623391 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.20016.ald
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error