1887
Volume 48, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates the constructional categorization of multi-predicate sentences in Saisiyat. This type of complex sentences simultaneously involves features of serial verb construction and complementation in Saisiyat, which give rise to indeterminacy in constructional categorization. In order to solve this problem, the current study probes into the categorization between serial verb construction and complementation regarding Aarts’ (2007) constructional gradience and semantic relations (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997). The investigation demonstrates a discrete boundary between the two constructions with convergence on each other, while subtypes of multi-predicate sentences are aligned on the convergence based on intra- and inter-categorical relations. Two structural dependencies are proposed to carry out a taxonomy of Saisiyat complex sentences. A theoretical implication derives from this study that Saisiyat multi-predicate sentences are manifestations of formalized morphosyntactic configurations with a pairing of particularized semantic relations instead of coinage based on analogic conventionalization (Fillmore 1997; Goldberg 2019).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21034.wan
2023-03-08
2024-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarts, Bas
    2007Syntactic gradience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M. W. Dixon
    1998 Dependencies between grammatical systems. Language74(1). 56–80. 10.1353/lan.1998.0165
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0165 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2006 Serial verb construction in typological perspective. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2018Serial verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198791263.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791263.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, John M.
    1997A notional theory of syntactic categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519734
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519734 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bril, Isabelle
    2007 Nexus and juncture types of complex predicates in Oceanic languages: Functions and semantics. Language and Linguistics8(1). 267–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Essegbey, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke & Felix K. Ameka
    2007 Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language83(3). 495–532. 10.1353/lan.2007.0116
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0116 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang, Henry. Yung-li
    2006 The guest playing host: Adverbial modifiers as matrix verbs in Kavalan. InHans-Martin Gaertner, Paul Law & Joachim Sabel (ed.), Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, 43–82. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110922974.43
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922974.43 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chang, Henry Yung-li
    2007 On the syntax of Formosan adverbial verb constructions. InRaphael Mercado, Eric Potsdam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds.), Austronesian and theoretical linguistics, 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chao, Yuan Ren
    1968A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chou, Marc Yi-ming
    2016 Two types of object control in Saisiyat: A movement-based approach. Linguistics and Literature Studies4(3). 188–202. 10.13189/lls.2016.040303
    https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2016.040303 [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, William
    2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007 Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language31(2). 409–430. 10.1075/sl.31.2.05cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.05cro [Google Scholar]
  14. 2022Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316145289
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316145289 [Google Scholar]
  15. Crowley, Terry
    2002Serial verbs in Oceanic: A descriptive typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198241355.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198241355.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff
    1999 The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry30(4). 543–57. 10.1162/002438999554200
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554200 [Google Scholar]
  17. Defina, Rebecca
    2016a Serial verb constructions and their subtypes in Avatime. Studies in Language40(3). 648–680. 10.1075/sl.40.3.07def
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.3.07def [Google Scholar]
  18. 2016b Do serial verb constructions describe single events?: A study of co-speech gestures in Avatime. Language92(4). 890–910. 10.1353/lan.2016.0076
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0076 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    2006 Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Durie, Mark
    1997 Grammatical categories in verb serialization. InAlex Alsina, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds.), Complex predicates, 289–354. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1997Construction grammar lecture notes. Ms. Available atwww.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/lec02.html (last access25 November 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Givón, Talmy
    1984 The speech-act continuum. InWilliam S. Chiholm, Jr. (ed.), Interrogativity: A colloquium on grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages, 245–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, Adele Eva & Ray Jackendoff
    2004 The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language80(3). 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, Adele Eva
    1995A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2019Explain me this. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Heine, Bernd
    1997Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  27. Holmer, Arthur
    2006 Seediq-adverbial heads in a Formosan language. InHans-Martin Gartner, Paul Law & Joachim Sabel (eds.), Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, 43–82. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110922974.83
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922974.83 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hsieh, Fuhui
    2007 Language of emotion and thinking in Kavalan and Saisiyat. Taipei: National Taiwan University PhD dissertation.
  29. Huang, Lillian Mei-jin
    1993A study of Atayal syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Huddleston, Rodeny
    1984Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165785
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165785 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jarkey, Nerida
    2010 Cotemporal serial verb constructions in White Hmong. InMengistu Amberber, Brett Baker & Mark Harvey (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, 110–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712234.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712234.006 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kay, Paul
    1995 ‘Construction grammar?’ InJef Verschueren, Jan-ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual, 171–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.m.con2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m.con2 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2013 The limits of construction grammar. InGraeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kroeger, Paul
    2004Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801693
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801693 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  36. Leech, Geoffery & Lu Li
    1995 ‘Indeterminacy’ between noun phrases and adjective phrases as complements of the English verb’. InBas Aarts & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English, 183–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Li, Paul Jen-Kuei
    1978 A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology49(2). 133–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu, Dorinda Tsai-hsiu
    2011 Complementation in three Formosan languages – Amis, Mayrinax Atayal and Tsou. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa PhD dissertation.
  39. Maling, John
    1983 Transitive adjectives: a case of categorical reanalysis. InFrank. Heny & Barry Richards (eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles (Vol.I1), 253–289. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑6989‑6_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6989-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  40. Neustupný, Jiří V.
    2004 On the analysis of linguistic vagueness. InBas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Popova Gergana (eds.), Fuzzy grammar: A reader, 341–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Newmeyer, Frederick J.
    2005Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274338.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274338.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Payne, Thomas
    1997Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805066
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805066 [Google Scholar]
  43. Quirk, Randolph
    1965 Descriptive statement and serial relationship. Language41(2). 205–217. 10.2307/411874
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411874 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn B. Mervis
    1975 Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology71. 573–605. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  45. Russell, Bertrand
    1996 Vagueness. InRosanna Keefe & Peter Smith (eds.), Vagueness: A reader, 61–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Schiller, Eric
    1990 On the definition and distribution of serial verb constructions. InBrian D. Joseph and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), When verbs collide: Papers from the 1990 Ohio State Mini-conference on serial verbs, 34–64. Ohio, US: The Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schultze-Berndt, Eva
    2002 Constructions in language description. Functions of Language9(2). 269–310. 10.1075/fol.9.2.07sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.9.2.07sch [Google Scholar]
  48. Senft, Gunter
    2004 What do we really know about serial verb construction Austronesia and Papuan languages. InIsabelle Bril and Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre (eds.), Complex predicates in Oceanic languages: Studies in the dynamics of binding and boundness, 49–63. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110913286.49
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913286.49 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sprouse, Jon
    2007 Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics11. 118–129. 10.5964/bioling.8597
    https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.8597 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stassen, Leon
    2009Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Taylor, John. R.
    1998aPossessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 1998b Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 177–201. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2003Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr.
    1993 A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. InRobert D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Randy John LaPolla
    1997Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  56. Wang, Chien-pang
    2018 Interclausal relations in Tungho Saisiyat: A Role and Reference Grammar approach. Taipei, ROC: National Taiwan Normal University PhD dissertation.
  57. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1990 Prototypes save: On the uses and abuses of the notion of ‘‘prototype’’ in linguistics and related fields. InSavas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 347–367London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Winters, Margaret E.
    1990 Toward a theory of syntactic prototypes. InSavas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 285–306London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Wu, Jing-lan
    1994 Complex sentences in Amis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Yeh, Maya Yuting & Shuanfan Huang
    2009 A study of triple verb serialization in four Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics48(1). 79–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Yeh, Mei-li
    2000A reference grammar of Saisiyat (Formosan language series no. 2). Taipei: Yuan-liu Publishing. [In Chinese]
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2003 A syntactic and semantics study of Saisiyat verbs. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University PhD dissertation.
  63. 2018A sketch grammar of Saisiyat (Series on Formosan Languages 3). Taipei: Council of Indigenous Peoples. [In Chinese].
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Zeitoun, Elizabeth
    2000 Notes on a possessive construction in the Formosan languages. InVidea DeGuzman, DeGuzman Videa, & Byron Bender (eds.), Grammatical analysis: Morphology, syntax and semantics, 241–257. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Tai-hwa Chu & Lalo a tahesh kaybaybaw
    2015 A study of Saisiyat morphology. Oceanic linguistics special publication401. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21034.wan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21034.wan
Loading

Data & Media 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