1

Nominalization Source of Ergativity in Tagalog1

Edith Aldridge, University of Washington

1. Introduction

This paper proposes a diachronic source for the syncretism between ergative and genitive case

observed in a large number of Austronesian languages. As illustrated by the Tagalog examples

below, the subject of a transitive clause in (1a) takes the same ng (pronounced ‘nang’) marker as

the possessor in (1b).

Tagalog

(1) a. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda.

<TR.PRV>buy ERG woman ABS fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

b. isda ng babae

fish GEN woman

‘(the) woman’s fish’

Syncretism between ergative and genitive case is also found in a large number of other

languages with ergative alignment. A connection – either synchronic or diachronic – between

ergativity and clausal nominalization has been proposed for some of these (Bricker 1981 for

Mayan; Gildea 1998 for Cariban; Starosta et al. 1982, Kaufman 2007, Ross 2009 for

Austronesian; Johns 1992 for Inuit; among others). In this paper, I take a diachronic perspective

1 This paper is write-up of a presentation made at the 14th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference at the University of Lisbon in 2012. I would like to thank the conference organizers for the opportunity to present the paper. Let me also thank Ian Roberts, Theresa Biberauer, and Tony Kroch for their questions and comments after the presentation.

2

and propose that ergative alignment in Austronesian languages resulted from the reanalysis of a

reduced clausal nominalization nP as a verbal projection vP. Crucially, this reanalysis involved

only a category change and did not alter constituency or hierarchical relations within the nP/vP.

2. Synchronic Nominalization?

One main component of the proposal I make in this paper is that the input to the reanalysis was a

reduced clausal nominalization nP. In this section, I provide indirect evidence for this claim by

showing the inadequacies of an approach to modern Tagalog clause structure involving a full

relative clause structure.

2.1. Kaufman’s (2009) Analysis of Tagalog

Kaufman (2009) proposes that Tagalog lacks a v functional category, forcing lexical roots to

merge with n and project a nominal predicate. The external argument of a transitive clause is

treated as a possessor merged in [Spec, n] and assigned genitive case. A DP layer is projected

above this which is selected by a Pred functional head. Pred also selects a null operator in its

specifier which identifies the gap position in the predicate. This missing argument corresponds to

the participant in the event identified by morphology on the verb. This will be the direct object in

a transitive clause like (1a). The operator is then coindexed with the predicate-external subject. T

is treated as a null copula; its specifier houses PredP, while the subject is selected as its

complement.

3

(2) TP (Kaufman 2009) PredP T’ OPi Pred’ T DPi Pred DP ang isda ABS fish binili ng babae bought GEN woman

This proposal accounts for some significant facts of Tagalog syntax. First, it correctly

predicts coordination on an absolutive pivot. The coordinated clauses in (3) can be analyzed as

PredPs, which exclude the absolutive.

(3) [Hu-hugas-an=ko] at [pu-punas-an=mo] ang mga pinggan.

RED-wash-APPL=1S.ERG and RED-dry-APPL=2S.ERG ABS PL dish

‘I will wash and you dry the dishes.’

(2) also predicts the non-extractability of all constituents other than the absolutive, since

these are all contained within the headless relative clause, which is an island to extraction. (4b)

shows that a relative clause can be formed on the absolutive object in a transitive clause.

However, the ergative subject cannot be extracted in this way, as shown in (4c). The absolutive

restriction on A’-extraction is one of the hallmark characteristics of syntactic ergativity (Aldridge

2004, 2008b; Campana 1992; Dixon 1994; Manning 1996; among many others).

4

(4) a. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda.

<TR.PRV>buy ERG woman ABS fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

b. isda-ng b<in>ili ng babae

fish-LK <TR.PRV>buy ERG woman

‘fish that the woman bought’

c. *babae-ng b<in>ili ang isda

woman-ng <TR.PRV>buy ABS fish

‘woman who bought the fish’

This does not mean, however, that external arguments can never undergo A’-movement. The

external argument can be extracted from an antipassive. An antipassive is a clause which is

semantically transitive, in the sense that it has two nominal arguments. But it is syntactically

intransitive: intransitive morphology appears on the verb; the external argument has absolutive

case; and the direct object has inherent case instead of absolutive. This is shown in (5a). Note

that the inherent case on the direct object is genitive. (5b) shows that the external argument

absolutive in an antipassive can be the head of a relative clause. The genitive object, on the other

hand, is no longer eligible to undergo this movement. Kaufman’s analysis accounts for this, since

the genitive object will be contained within the predicate island.

(5) a. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda.

<INTR.PRV>buy ABS woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a fish.’

5

b. babae-ng b<um>ili ng isda

woman-LK <INTR.PRV>buy GEN fish

‘woman who bought a/the fish’

c. *isda-ng b<um>ili ang babae

fish-LK <INTR.PRV>buy ABS woman

‘fish that the woman bought’

2.2. Arguments against Kaufman (2009)

The analysis in (2) also makes a number of incorrect predications for Tagalog syntax. For

example, (2) predicts that the absolutive DP always surfaces in clause-final position, but in fact

absolutives can be followed by a wide variety of material. In (6), we see the absoltuive preceding

a genitive object (6a) and a goal PP (6b). Since these constituents are arguments of the verb, I

assume they would be base generated in the PredP on Kaufman’s analysis. Consequently, their

dislocation to clause-final position should invoke an island violation along the lines of (4c) and

(5c) above, contrary to fact.

(6) a. [PredP B<um>ili tDP ] ang babae ng bahay.

<INTR.PRV>buy ABS woman GEN woman

‘The woman bought a house.’

b. [PredP I-bi-bigay=ko tPP ] ang bulaklak kay Maria.

APPL-RED-give=1S.ERG ABS flower to Maria

‘I will give the flowers to Maria.’

6

A second problem regards the licensing of the absolutive DP. In (2), it appears that the only

functional head available to license absolutive case is T, which predicts that absolutives should

not surface in nonfinite environments. (7) shows, however, that absolutive internal arguments are

in fact licensed in nonfinite transitive clauses.

(7) B<in>a-balak ng babae-ng [PRO tulung-an ang lalaki]

TR.RED-plan ERG woman-LK help-APPL ABS man

‘The woman is planning to help the man.’

To summarize this section, I have shown how the nominalist approach to modern Tagalog

accounts for some facts but makes false predictions in other cases. In the next section, I propose

an alternative analysis of modern Tagalog and shows how this analysis accounts for all of the

facts observed in section 2.

3. Analysis of Modern Tagalog

Aldridge (2004, 2008b, 2012b) develops an analysis of Tagalog as a v-type ergative language. In

this type of ergative language, the locus of the syntactic derivation is feature bundles on v. As

can be seen in (8), transitive v has a full complement of case and EPP features. This accounts for

licensing of both the subject and object, as well as the extractability of internal arguments. In

contrast to this, intransitive v lacks these features, with the consequence that T will license the

highest argument in vP, and internal arguments will not be able to escape the VP.

7

(8) v-Type Ergativity

vTr: Inherent ergative case

[uCase:Abs]

[EPP]

vIntr: No case feature vAP: No case feature

TFin: Optional [uCase:Abs]

No [EPP]

In a transitive clause, v is responsible for licensing both ergative and absolutive case.

Following Legate (2002, 2008), Mahajan (1989), and Woolford (1997, 2006), I assume that

ergative case is inherent, assigned by transitive v to its specifier. Transitive v also values

absolutive case on the direct object in VP. Since absolutive case is valued by v in a transitive

clause, the availability of absolutive case for an internal argument in a nonfinite clause is not

surprising, as seen in (7).

In addition, transitive v carries an EPP feature which draws the absolutive object into its

outer specifier. This places the absolutive in the highest specifier within the vP phase edge,

making it eligible to undergo further movement without violating the Phase Impenetrability

Condition of Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2004, 2005) and thereby deriving the absolutive restriction

on A’-extraction observed in section 2.1. (9) illustrates the derivation of a transitive clause. In

addition to the case-licensing processes described above, (9b) shows head movement of the verb

to an aspectual projection above vP, thereby deriving VSO basic Tagalog word order. Note

further that absolutive objects in transitive clauses receive a specific, typically definite

8

interpretation. This is accounted for on Diesing’s (1992) Mapping Hypothesis, which affords a

presuppositional interpretation to objects which have moved out of VP.

(9) a. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda.

<TR.PRV>buy ERG woman ABS fish

‘The woman bought the/*a fish.’

b. TP T AspP V+v+Asp vP DP[ABS] v’ DP[ERG] v’ tV+v[ABS, EPP] VP tV <DP[ABS]>

In intransitive clauses – both simple intransitives and antipassives – v has no case or EPP

features. The direct object in an antipassive receives inherent case from the lexical verb2, which

is morphologically genitive in Tagalog, as noted in section 2. The lack of an EPP feature on

intransitive v further accounts for the inability of genitive objects to move from the VP, as

observed in (5c).

In an intransitive clause, absolutive case must be valued on the subject by T. (8) shows that

the case feature on T appears only optionally. Other factors conspire, however, to ensure that T

2 Although they outwardly resemble transitive clauses in that they generally contain two or more nominal arguments, antipassives have formal characteristics of intransitive clauses (Baker 1988; Campbell 2000; Cooreman 1994; Davies and Sam-Colop 1990; Dixon 1979, 1994; Dryer 1990; England 1988; Kozinsky et al. 1988; Mithun 2000; Palmer 1994; Siegel 1998; Tsunoda 1988; and others).

9

carries an absolutive case feature when v is intransitive. This is because if T does not have a case

feature in an intransitive clause, then the subject will not be licensed and the derivation will crash.

The derivation will also crash if T does carry a case feature in a transitive clause. I assume that

valued case features on functional heads are uninterpretable and therefore must be checked for

the derivation to converge. Consequently, if T carries a case feature in a transitive clause, where

the case needs of both subject and object are satisfied by v, then the feature on T will go

unchecked and the derivation will again crash. In this way, case licensing and dislocation are

both controlled by the feature bundles on v. This is what it means to say that Tagalog is a v-type

ergative language.3

(10) sketches the derivation of an antipassive. As a type of intransitive, antipassive v does not

have a case feature, and T must value absolutive case. Since the external argument is the first DP

in T’s c-command domain, this is the DP which will receive absolutive case. The object is then

dependent on the lexical verb for inherent oblique case, which is genitive. The object also

receives an indefinite, typically nonspecific, interpretation, which I assume is the result of its

being interpreted within VP at LF, as per Diesing’s (1992) Mapping Hypothesis.

(10) a. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda.

<INTR.PRV>buy ABS woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a fish.’

3 Legate (2002, 2008) also proposes that both T and v play a role in valuing case on absolutives in certain ergative languages. However, she claims that the case valued by T in the syntax is nominative and that valued by v is accusative, as in accusative languages. Absolutive case is treated as the default lexical insertion for these cases in the Morphological Component. I do not adopt this approach for Austronesian languages. because absolutive and accusative cases are morphologically distinct in certain languages. See Aldridge (2012a) for discussion.

10

b. TP T[ABS] AspP V+v+Asp vP DP[ABS] v’ tV+v VP tV DP[GEN ]

Direct evidence for the proposal that T values absolutive case in intransitive clauses comes

from the fact that absolutives cannot surface in nonfinite clauses.

(11) Nagba-balak si Maria-ng [PRO p-um-unta sa Maynila]

INTR.PROG-plan ABS Maria-LK <INTR>go to Manila

‘Maria is planning to go to Manila.’

Before continuing, let me offer additional evidence for the EPP feature on transitive v.

Absolutive objects in transitive clauses like (12a) take wide scope over ergative DPs, while

oblique objects in antipassives like (12b) scope under the external argument. This asymmetry is

accounted for by the proposal that the internal argument moves over the external argument only

in transitive clauses and not in antipassives. Basilico (2003), Benua (1995), and Bittner (1987,

1994) discuss similar scope related phenomena in other ergative languages.

11

(12) a. B-in-asa [ng lahat ng bata] [ang marami-ng libro]

-PRV.TR-read ERG all GEN child ABS many-LK book

‘All the children read many books.’

MANY > ALL

b. Nag-basa [ang lahat ng bata] [ng marami-ng libro]

INTR.PRV-read ABS all GEN child OBL many-LK book

‘All the children read many books.’

ALL > MANY

Somewhat more indirect evidence comes from reflexive binding. A reflexive pronoun

embedded inside the absolutive object can be bound by the ergative subject, as in (13a). A bare

reflexive can surface as the direct object in an antipassive, as in (13b). But a bare reflexive

cannot function as the absolutive object in a transitive clause, as in (13c). This paradigm is

accounted for on the absolutive raising analysis, since the object in a transitive clause moves to a

position where it c-commands the ergative subject. If this object is a bare reflexive, it then c-

commands its intended antecedent and invokes a violation of Binding Principle C. Since

antipassive v does not have an EPP feature, the object does not raise. A bare reflexive is

therefore felicitous in object position in this clause type.

(13) a. P<in>igil ng lalaki ang [DP sarili=niya].

<TR.PRV>control ERG man ABS self =3S.GEN

‘The man controlled himself.’

12

b. Nag-pigil ang lalaki sa sarili.

INTR.PRV-control ABS man DAT self

‘The man controlled himself.’

c. *P<in>igil ng lalaki ang sarili.

<TR.PRV>control ERG man ABS self

‘The man controlled himself.”

Richards (2000) proposes that absolutives undergo covert raising to [Spec, CP], where they

receive a definite interpretation as topics. Evidence from negative polarity licensing, however,

suggests that the landing site is lower. The ergative subject and absolutive object can both be

NPIs, which can be accounted for if the absolutive is interpreted in the vP phase edge.

(14) a. Hindi=niya t<in>anggap ang anumang mungkahi.

NEG=3S.ERG <TR.PRV>accept ABS any proposal

‘He/she didn’t accept any proposal.’

b. Hindi t<in>anggap ng sinuman ang mungkahi=niya.

NEG <TR.PRV>accept ERG anyone ABS proposal=3S.GEN

‘Noone accepted his/her proposal.’

Although absolutives move to the edge of vP and are interpreted there at LF, I assume that

the trace is spelled out in their base positions at PF. Therefore this movement is generally

“covert”. I follow Pesetsky (2000), Bobaljik (2002), and others in assuming that the movement

takes place in the narrow syntax and that either the head or the tail of the chain can be interpreted

13

at the interfaces. Specifically, the head of the chain is interpreted at LF for Tagalog, while the tail

of the chain is generally spelled out at PF.4 This accounts for the fact that the absolutive DP does

not necessarily appear in clause-peripheral position, as shown above in (6). Although absolutives

move to the edge of vP, they are generally spelled out in their base positions and can therefore be

followed by other VP-internal material like goal arguments and genitive objects.

Naturally, the head of the chain can also be spelled out at PF. This happens when A’-

movement proceeds to the CP layer and accounts for the TP coordination example seen above in

(3). I adopt a proposal by Richards (2001) which posits that movement that would otherwise be

“covert” can become “overt” in the case that further movement takes place.

(15) a. [CP [TP Hu-hugas-an=ko] at [TP pu-punas-an=mo] ang mga pinggan]

RED-wash-APPL=1S.ERG and RED-dry-APPL=2S.ERG ABS PL dish

‘I will wash and you dry the dishes.’

b. CP TP C’ ...<DP[ABS]>... DP[ABS] C’ C[EPP] tTP

Regarding the movement of the remnant TP to a higher specifier of CP, I follow Aldridge

(2004) in the assumption that Tagalog topicalization proceeds along the same lines as derivation

of absolutive-final word order in VOS Austronesian languages like Seediq and Atayal. The

4 See Rackowski (2002) and Rackowski and Richards (2005) for other approaches to Tagalog syntax employing “covert” movement of the absolutive to the vP phase edge.

14

absolutive is attracted to a topic position in the CP layer. The remnant TP is subsequently moved

to a higher CP specifier. See Pearson (2001, 2005) for additional evidence that absolutives are

topics in VOS Austronesian languages.

To summarize sections 2 and 3, I have shown that the copula analysis put forth by Kaufman

(2009) accounts for some facts of Tagalog syntax but still suffers from significant shortcomings.

The alternative proposed in section 3 accounts for all of the facts observed in section 2.

At this point, I return to the main focus of this paper, i.e. the ergative/genitive syncretism.

Kaufman’s nominalist approach offers a straightforward account of this fact, since it assumes

that there are no verbal clauses in Tagalog; the external argument of a transitive verb is assigned

genitive case in the nominal projection embedded inside the PredP. On the other hand, my

alternative approach seems at first blush to treat the syncretism between the two types of inherent

case as an accidental homophony. In the remainder of this paper, I investigate a diachronic

explanation of the syncretism. Specifically, I propose that the type of ergativity observed in

Tagalog and other Austronesian languages has its source in a nominalization. However, I

propose that this nominalization was not a full CP relative clause. Rather, I it was a reduced

clause, specifically a nP. The external argument occupied the specifier of this projection, where

it received genitive case. Since n lacks the ability to license structural case, the direct object was

required to move to the edge of nP, where it could value nominative (absolutive) case. In this

way, the n was equipped with two of the features driving the derivation of a transitive clause in a

v-type ergative language, i.e. genitive case for the specifier and an EPP feature. The changes

which resulted in the analysis in (8) for modern Tagalog were 1) the reanalysis of n as v; and 2)

the addition of an absolutive case feature on transitive v. In section 4.2, I present evidence for

each of these changes. Note that not positing a relative clause as the source structure avoids the

15

problems of Kaufman’s (2009) nominalist approach to modern Tagalog. It also allows for

diachronic changes to be straightforwardly accounted for in terms of the featural make-up of the

functional categories of n and v and does not require any structural alterations which radically

affect constituency.

4. Diachronic Source

In this section, I propose a diachronic source for the Tagalog ergative/genitive syncretism as a

reduced clausal nominalization nP. First, I sketch an earlier proposal by Starosta et al. (1982) but

later reject this analysis because the proposed change requires a significant alteration of structure,

i.e. a “radical” reanalysis in the sense of Haspelmath (1998), Whitman (2000), Garrett (2012),

and others. In section 4.2, I spell out the nP proposal and provide support for the two changes

involved in the reanalysis of nP as the v-type ergative vP.

4.1. Previous Approach

Starosta et al. (1982) propose that the type of ergative syntax observed in most Philippine and

Formosan5 languages is the result of diachronic reanalysis of clausal nominalizations as finite

verbal clauses. Specifically, they propose that applicative and transitivity verbal affixes in the

modern languages were nominalizing affixes in Proto-Austronesian (PAN). There was a separate

set of verbal affixes, which included applicatives homophonous with the prepositions *i, *aken,

which are attested in Oceanic languages, as well as some Indonesian, Philippine, and Formosan

5 The term “Formosan languages” refers collectively to the Austronesian languages spoken in Taiwan, but does not indicate a subgroup.

16

languages. For example, an intransitive clause could be constructed containing a verb, subject,

and PP projected by *i, *aken, or another preposition.

(16) S V PP NP ‘climb’ ‘John’ P NP i ‘mountain’ ‘John climbed over the mountain.’ (Starosta et al. 1982:153)

A transitive clause could be formed through “preposition capturing” by suffixing the verb

with the preposition as an applicative.

(17) S V NP NP ‘climb’-i ‘John’ ‘mountain’ ‘John climbed the mountain.’ (Starosta et al. 1982:153)

Preposition capturing could also take place within nominalizations. (18) shows an example

with *-ana, a nominalizing applicative. *-ana attaches to the verb and projects a nominal

category which can then be predicated of a subject.

(18) S NP NP ‘mountain’ N NP (NOM) ‘climb’-ana ‘John’

17

(GEN) ‘The place where John climbed is the mountain.’ (Starosta et al. 1982:157)

The similarity in function between the two kinds of applicative enabled the reanalysis of the

copula construction in (18) as a transitive verbal clause like (19). Nominalizers like *–ana were

likewise reanalyzed as verbal affixes.

(19) S V NP NP ‘climb’-ana ‘John’ ‘mountain’ (GEN) (NOM) ‘John climbed the mountain.’ (Starosta et al. 1982:157)

The resemblance between (18) and Kaufman’s (2009) analysis of Tagalog should be obvious.

The key point is that the nominative (absolutive) subject is located outside the constituent

containing the nominalized verb and external argument possessor. The analysis also assumes that

the reanalysis of (18) as (19) involved a significant alteration of structure, i.e. a “radical”

reanalysis. In (19), the verb and its arguments are all sisters, while in (18) the subject is located

outside the constituent containing the verb and external argument. This is not a problem for the

traditional approach to reanalysis put forth by Langacker (1977) and assumed in more recent

work by Hopper and Traugott (1993), Harris and Campbell (1995), and others. For this approach,

reanalysis only requires structural ambiguity. As long as the surface string is the same, the

presence of an ambiguity allows replacing one phrase marker with a completely different one.

18

(20) Reanalysis

“…change in the structure of an expression or class of expressions that does not involve

any immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface manifestation.” (Langacker

1977:58)

However, there is an obvious shortcoming inherent in such an approach, since there are no

structural constraints imposed on the change. Consequently, it is difficult to make predictions

about the types of changes which are possible in natural languages. Furthermore, Haspelmath

(1998), Whitman (2000), Garrett (2012), Whitman and Paul (2005), Whitman (2009), and others

have shown that many diachronic changes previously analyzed as radical reconstructions can

actually be captured through other means, e.g. grammaticalization (in particular reanalysis of

category labels) or other changes which do not alter constituency. The historical scenario I

propose in section 4.2 takes this type of approach, specifically as changes in the feature bundles

on n (changing it to v) and subsequently to this v (giving it a structural case feature).

Before entering the analysis, it is first necessary to establish the historical point at which the

innovations took place. Wolff (1973) reconstructs the PAN verbal system as closely resembling

modern Philippine languages, which presupposes that the ergative syntax present in the modern

languages must have also been a feature of the proto-language. Ross (1995, 2002) also assumes

this foundation but adds a series of non-indicative verbal affixes to Wolff’s reconstructions.

Starosta et al. (1982), as summarized in the previous subsection, propose that modern

Philippine verbal affixes were nominalizers in Proto-Austronesian, but they do not identify a

subgroup which reflects the reanalysis of the nominalizers as verbal affixes. In later work,

Starosta (1995, 2001) proposed this to be a subgroup excluding Rukai and Tsou. Ross (2009)

19

further excludes Puyuma from this subgroup, which he terms Nuclear Austronesian. This

subgroup contains all Austronesian languages except Puyuma, Rukai, and Tsou. All

Austronesian languages spoken outside of Taiwan – including Philippine languages – belong to

the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup.

PAN subgrouping (Ross 2009:316)

(21) Puyuma

Rukai

Tsou

Nuclear Austronesian (ERG=GEN)

Kanakanavu, Saaroa

Northwest Formosan: Saisiyat, Kulon-Pazih

Atayalic: Atayal, Seediq

Western Plains: Thao, Taokas, Favorlang-Babuza, Papora, Hoanya

Bunun

Paiwan

East Formosan: Basay-Trobiawan, Kavalan, Amis, Siraya

Malayo-Polynesian: all extra-Formosan, including Yami

Returning the discussion to the ergative/genitive syncretism, this can be seen in widely

distributed Austronesian subgroups. Ross (2006) reconstructs PAN genitive case as *n-. (22)

shows an example from Standard Indonesian. Indonesian has undergone numerous innovations

and has largely been reanalyzed an accusative language (Aldridge 2008a, 2012a), so the

20

syncretism appears only in passive clauses, which are the historical remnant of earlier ergative

clauses. In (22a), we can see that the passive agent nya ‘3SG.GEN’ is identical to the possessor in

(22b).

Standard Indonesian

(22) a. Di-tawar-kan-nya rokok ke ujung hidung si penjaga.

PASS-offer-APPL-3SG.GEN cigarette to tip nose PN guard

‘He offered out a cigarette under the tip of the guard’s nose.’ (“Jakarta”)

b. rokok-nya

cigarette-3SG

‘his/her cigarette’

The Formosan language Seediq, which retains the ergative syntax of Proto-Nuclear

Austronesian, reflects the syncretism in the same way that Tagalog does. The third person

singular ergative pronoun na in (23a) is identical to the possessor in (23b).

Seediq (Atayalic, Taiwan)

(23) a. S<n>malu=na ka sapah=nii.

<PRV>build=3SG.ERG ABS house=DEM

‘He/she built this house.’

b. sapah=na

house=3SG

‘his/her house’

21

Though the syncretism is not generally reflected directly in the modern Oceanic languages,

Lynch et al. (2002) do reconstruct it for Proto-Oceanic. (24) shows this form to be *ña.

Proto-Oceanic (Lynch et al. 2002)

(24) a. *ña=kaRat-i=a na manuk a wai

3SG:SUBJ=bite-TR=3SG:OBJ SUBJ chicken OBJ mango

‘The chicken is biting the mango.’ (Lynch et al. 2002:62)

b. *a na-ña Rumaq

ART CL-3SG house

‘her/his house’ (Lynch et al. 2002:77)

But the syncretism is not found in Tsou or Rukai.6 For example, a single set of pronouns is

used in Rukai for transitive and intransitive subjects. There is no substantive difference between

the forms lrao in (25a) and lra in (25b); vowel deletion has taken place in lra because of the

following agreement marker for the object in (25b).

Rukai (Zeitoun 2007:156)

(25) a. maavanao-nga-lrao

DYN.FIN.bathe-already-1SG.NOM

‘I have bathed already.’

6 It can be seen in some dialects of Puyuma, which Ross admits leaves an unanswered question inherent in his proposal.

22

b. o-kelrakelrange-nga-lra-ine ana lalake-‘o

DYN.FIN.beat-already-1SG.NOM-3SG.OBL that child-2SG.GEN

‘I have beaten your child.’

Now note that genitive pronouns are different from the subject forms appearing in finite

clauses. (26a) shows a genitive possessor with a noun. (26b) shows a genitive agent in a

nominalized clause.

Rukai

(26) a. lalake-li (Zeitoun 2007:327)

child-1SG.GEN

‘my child’

b. to’a-dhaac-ae-li (Zeitoun 2007:333)

REAS.NMLZ-DYN.FIN.leave-REAS.NMLZ-1SG.GEN

‘the reason I am leaving’

Clearly, then, the reanalysis of nominalizations as ergative clauses is limited to the Nuclear

Austronesian subgroup.

4.2. Proposal

In this section, I propose two innovations which led to the development of v-type ergativity in

Tagalog. First, reduced clausal nominalizations, nPs, were reanalyzed as verbal vPs. This

23

innovation is reflected across Ross’ (2009) Nuclear Austronesian subgroup. The second

innovation is the reanalysis of the new vP as transitive, with the v acquiring an absolutive case

feature to value with the direct object. This innovation is seen in Philippine languages and also in

Malagasy, so I assume it is associated with the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup or a smaller

subgroup therein.

Turning to the first innovation, I propose that the nP structure was used in Proto-

Austronesian for focus in a reduced cleft construction when an internal argument was focused.

The focused object moved to the edge of nP. Concomitant with this movement, the object valued

nominative case with T. The change involved reanalyzing nP as vP and replacing the motivation

for DP movement from information structure to case.

(27) a. [TP T[NOM] [nP DP[NOM] [nP DP[GEN] [NP N tNOM ]]]] (Movement for focus)

b. [TP T[NOM] [vP DP[NOM] [vP DP[GEN] [VP V tNOM ]]]] (Movement for case)

There are two types of evidence for this innovation. The first comes from languages in the

Nuclear Austronesian subgroup which reflect the new motivation for DP-movement to the edge

of vP. Aldridge (2004, 2008b) proposes that there are two types of ergativity7. One is the v-type

exemplified by Tagalog. The other is T-type, which is widely found among Formosan languages

in the Nuclear Austronesian subgroup. In T-type ergative languages, neither intransitive nor

transitive v carries an absolutive case feature. The sole source of absolutive case is finite T.

Consequently, movement of DPs to the edge of vP is at least in part motivated by the need to

value case.

7 See Legate (2008) and Coon et al. (2011) for similar proposals of an ergative typology.

24

(28) T-type split-ergative language

vTr: Inherent ergative case

[EPP]

No absolutive case feature

vAP: [uCase:Acc]

vIntr: No case feature

TFin: [uCase:Abs]

No [EPP]

Evidence for T-type ergativity comes from the fact that absolutive objects do not surface in

nonfinite clauses. This is because nonfinite T, being defective, does not have the ability to case

license an argument.

Seediq

(29) a. M-n-osa [PRO m-ari patis taihoku] ka Ape.

Intr-Perf-go Intr-buy book Taipei Abs Ape

‘Ape went to buy books in Taipei.’

b. *M-n-osa [PRO burig-un taihoku (ka) patis] ka Ape.

Intr-Perf-go buy-Tr Taipei Abs book Abs Ape

‘Ape went to buy books in Taipei.’

25

Recall from sections 2 and 3 that Tagalog, which is a v-type language, allows absolutive objects

in nonfinite clauses, demonstrating that v is the source for absolutive case in transitive clauses in

Tagalog.

The second type of evidence comes from the fact that some languages in this subgroup, e.g.

the Atayalic language Seediq, still retain the focus position at the edge of vP. (30a) shows

antipassive clause with two VP-internal constituents. Since this is an antipassive, the external

argument has absolutive status. Seediq is a VOS language. Accordingly, the absolutive DP

moves to a topic position in the CP layer. Subsequent to this, the remnant TP moves to a higher

position in the C domain above the absolutive. As in Tagalog, the lexical verb undergoes head

movement to Asp. Within the VP, the direct object precedes the locative. In contrast, if the

locative is expressed as a wh-word, which is inherently focused, then the locative must precede

the object8. Aldridge (2004) accounts for the word order alternation by proposing that the wh-

word in (30b) moves to the edge of vP.

Seediq

(30) a. [AspP M-n-ari [vP ... [VP sapah Purishia]]] ka Pihu.

Intr-Perf-buy house Puli Abs Pihu

‘Pihu bought a house in Puli.’

b. [AspP M-n-ari [vP inu … [VP patis tV twh ]]] Ape?

Intr-Perf-buy where book Ape

‘Where did Ape buy books?’

8 The wh-word does not move further to clause-initial position, because it is trapped inside the fronted TP. See Aldridge (2004) for discussion.

26

The second innovation is illustrated in (31). In Malayo-Polynesian or a subgroup therein, v

was reanalyzed as fully transitive and came to carry an absolutive case feature. Since movement

to the edge of vP was no longer required to value case, the motivation for the movement was

reinterpreted as information structure related and took place only when the object was specific,

as is the case is modern Tagalog, as shown in section 3.

(31) a. [TP T[NOM] [vP DP[NOM] [vP DP[GEN] [VP V tNOM ]]]] (Movement for case)

b. [TP T [vP DP[NOM] [vP DP[GEN] v[NOM] [VP V tNOM ]]]] (Movement for IS)

As discussed in section 3, absolutive case is available in transitive nonfinite clauses in

Tagalog, which is evidence that transitive v can value structural case. If T were the only source

of absolutive case, then absolutive DPs would not be expected to surface in nonfinite clauses,

where T is defective.

Tagalog

(32) Nagba-balak ang babae-ng [PRO tulung-an ang lalaki]

INTR.PROG-plan ABS woman-LK help-APPL ABS man

‘The woman is planning to help the man.’

Malagasy also allows transitive nonfinite clauses, indicating that v values absolutive case in

transitive clauses in this language as well.

27

Malagasy

(33) Kasain-dRasoa [PRO hosasana ny zaza]

intend.TR.ERG Rasoa FUT.TR.wash Det child

‘Rasoa intends to wash the child.’ (Paul and Travis 2006)

5. Precedent: Japanese case-marking and alignment

In the preceding section, I sketched a diachronic account of the reanalysis of a reduced clausal

nominalization nP as a fully transitive verbal vP projection. This reanalysis does not involve an

alteration of c-command relations among constituents in the nP or vP, and it accounts for the

development of the type of ergativity displayed by Tagalog in a straightforward way. What has

not yet been discussed in this paper is evidence for posting nP (rather than a full relative clause

CP) as the input structure to the reanalysis. In this section, I offer indirect evidence from parallel

developments proposed for Japanese.

Modern standard Japanese is an SOV language with morphological case marking.

Nominative is indicated by the postposition ga and accusative by o.

(34) Taroo-ga ringo-o tabe-ta.

Taro-NOM apple-ACC eat-PST

‘Taro ate an/the apple.’

What is interesting for present purposes is that Japanese has undergone a reanalysis similar to

Tagalog in which the case marker for subjects in verbal clauses has been reanalyzed

28

diachronically from an earlier genitive marker. First observe that nominative and accusative

cases in verbal clauses were typically null in Old Japanese of the 8th century.

Old Japanese (Yanagida 2012)

(35) a. 我期大王國所知良之 (Manyoshu 933)

[Wa-ga opo-kimi] kuni siras-u rasi.

I-GEN great-lord country rule-CONCL seem

‘My great lord rules seems to rule the country.’

b. 烏梅能波奈伊麻佐加利奈利 (Manyoshu 933)

[Ume-no pana] ima sakari nar-i.

plum-GEN blossom now at.peak be-CONCL

‘The plum blossoms are now at their peak.’

External arguments surfaced with genitive case in nominalized clauses. Interestingly,

subjects in unaccusative clauses were not genitive but remained bare. Yanagida and Whitman

(2009) analyze Old Japanese as having active alignment in nominalized clauses. What is relevant

to the discussion at hand is the fact that genitive case was assigned only to external arguments,

suggesting that is was indeed an inherent case assigned in the specifier of nP.

29

Old Japanese (Yanagida 2012)

(36) a. 我背子之求流乳母尒 (Manyoshu 2926)

[wa-ga seko-ga motomu]-ru omo-ni

I-GEN lord-GEN ask-ADN nurse-DAT

‘as the wet nurse that my lord asks for’

b. 久木生留清河原尒 (Manyoshu 925)

[pisaki opu]-ru kiyo-ki kapara-ni

catalpa grow-ADN clear-ADN river.bank-on

‘on the banks of the clear river where catalpas grow’

Whitman (2009) proposes that the reanalysis of genitive ga as nominative ga was the result

of the merger of conclusive and adnominal verbal morphology in Late Middle Japanese (15th-16th

centuries). This merger resulted in a structural ambiguity between embedded nominalization (nP)

and verbal projection (vP), allowing the genitive subject marking to be reinterpreted as

nominative.

(37) a. Premodern Modern Tokyo

su ‘do.CONCL’ su-ru ‘do-ADN’ > su-ru ‘do-NONPST’

b. [nP DP=ga (GEN) … ] > [vP DP=ga (NOM) … ] (nP > vP)

This is very similar to the type of reanalysis which I have proposed for Proto-Nuclear

Austronesian. Genitive case marking assigned to the specifier of nP was reinterpreted as ergative

30

marking on the external argument in vP. Japanese also offers a parallel for my analysis of object

movement to the edge of nP. Yanagida (2006),Yanagida and Whitman (2009), and Yanagida

(2012) show that definite or specific objects in Old Japanese nominalized clauses raise

obligatorily to the edge of the phase. A bare object with a nonspecific interpretation appears in

immediate preverbal position. Note that the object follows the genitive subject in (38a).

Yanagida and Whitman (2009) assume that these objects are incorporated to the verb. The

definite object in (38b), however, raises to a position preceding the genitive subject. Note also

that the raised object is marked with wo.

(38) a. 佐欲比賣能故何比列布利斯夜麻 (Manyoshu 868)

[vP Sayopimye=no kwo=ga [VP pire puri]]-si yama

Sayohime=GEN child=GEN scarf wave-PST.ADN hill

‘the hill where the girl Sayohime waved her scarf’

b. 蜻野叫人之懸者 (Manyoshu 1405)

[vP Akidu nwo=wo [vP pito=no [VP tObj kakure-ba]]]

Akizu field=ACC man=GEN speak.of-when

‘When a man speaks of the moorland of Akizu…’

It is uncontroversial that the particle wo following a raised object is the historical precursor

of the modern Japanese accusative marker o. Yanagida (2012) proposes that wo is

etymologically related to the existential verb woru and that wo functioned historically as a

copula in a type of cleft construction. At an earlier stage, then, movement of the wo object in

examples like (38b) was focus movement, which was subsequently reanalyzed as object shift.

31

I proposed in section 4.2 that Austronesian languages underwent the same series of

reanalyses. Focus-driven movement was replaced with object shift in order to check case with T.

Although the case-based motivation for the movement has been lost in Tagalog, the object shift

character was retained in the effect on information structure, since absolutive objects always

have presupposed reference.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, I have argued for a diachronic source for ergative alignment in Austronesian

languages as a reanalysis of a reduced clausal nominalization as vP. This proposal avoids

positing a radical reanalysis which significantly alters constituency in the clause and is

unmotivated by synchronic evidence, as shown in section 2.2. Rather, the reanalysis of nP as vP

allows a smooth transition to an ergative clausal syntax in which feature bundles on v are the

driving force of the derivation, as I have argued in section 3. Finally, I have offered indirect

evidence for the proposal from a parallel development in Japanese which transitioned through

very similar steps in the reanalysis of its case marking system.

A question arises at this point as to how the reanalyses could have resulted in such different

alignment types in the two cases, ergative in Austronesian and accusative in Japanese. This is

accounted for if we consider the nature of the case marker on the external argument. In

Austronesian languages, the former genitive marker remained inherent after the reanalysis of nP

as vP, assigned as ergative case by transitive v to its specifier. This limited ergative case to

external arguments in transitive clauses, thereby resulting in ergative alignment in Austronesian

languages. In Japanese, on the other hand, the genitive marker was reinterpreted as structural

32

nominative case and consequently came to be valued by T in an Agree relation. This removed

the argument structure link to the case marking and resulted in the uniform marking of all

subjects as is found in accusative systems.

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation,

Cornell University.

Aldridge, Edith. 2008a. Phase-based Account of Extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118.10: 1440-

1469 (Special Issue Lingua-Malay/Indonesian Syntax from an Austronesian Perspective,

guest-edited by Peter Cole and Gabriella Hermon).

Aldridge, Edith. 2008b. Generative Approaches to Ergativity. Language and Linguistics

Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2.5: 966-995.

Aldridge, Edith. 2012a. Antipassive in Austronesian Alignment Change, in Dianne Jonas, John

Whitman, and Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes.

Oxford University Press, 332-346.

Aldridge, Edith. 2012b. Antipassive and Ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122: 192-203 (Special

Issue Accounting for Ergativity, guest-edited by Beatriz Fernández and Itziar Laka).

Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of

Chicago Press.

Basilico, David. 2003. The Antipassive: Low Transitivity Objects, Syntactic Intertness, and

Strong Phases. Paper presented at the North American Syntax Conference. Montreal:

Concordia University.

33

Benua, Laura. 1995. Yup’ik Antipassive, in A. Dainora, R. Hemphill, B. Luka, B. Need, S.

Pargman, eds., Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 28-

44.

Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bittner, Maria and Ken Hale. 1996. Ergativity: Toward a Theory of a Heterogeneous Class.

Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531-604.

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. A-chaing and the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197-267.

Bricker, Victoria. 1981. The Source of the Ergative Split in Yucatec Maya. Journal of Mayan

Linguistics 2.2: 83-127.

Campana, Mark. 1992. A Movement Theory of Ergativity. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.

Campbell, Lyle. 2000. Valency-changing derivations in K’iche’, in R. Dixon and A. Aikhenvald,

(eds.), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge University Press, 236-

281.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries, in R. Martin, D. Michaels, J. Uriagereka (eds.),

Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press, 89-155.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in

Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-52.

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy, in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and

Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3. Oxford University Press, 104-

191.

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22.

34

Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, Omer Preminger. 2011. The Role of Case in A’-extraction

Asymmetries. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001401.

Cooreman, Ann. 1994. A Functional Typology of Antipassive, in B. Fox and P. Hopper (eds.),

Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49-86.

Davies, William and Luis Enrique Sam-Colop. 1990. K’iche’ and the Structure of Antipassive.

Language 66.3: 522-549.

Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59-138.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, Matthew. 1990. What determines antipassive in Dyirbal? In Y. No and M. Libucha (eds.),

Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. The Ohio State

University, 90-101.

England, Nora. 1988. Mam voice. In M. Shibatani (ed.), Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins, 525-545.

Garrett, Andrew. 2012. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Dianne

Jonas, John Whitman, Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature,

Outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press, 52-72.

Gildea, Spike. 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Harris, Alice and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does Grammaticalization Need Reanalysis? Studies in Language 22:

49-85.

Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.

35

Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving Ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 57-88.

Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian Nominalism and its Consequences: A Tagalog case study.

Theoretical Linguistics 35.1: 1-49.

Kozinsky, Isaac, Vladimir Nedjalkov, Maria Polinskaja. 1988. Antipassive in Chukchee: Oblique

Object, Object Incorporation, Zero Object, in M. Shibatani (ed.), Passive and Voice.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 651-706.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic Reanalysis, in Charles Li (ed.), Mechanism of Syntactic

Change. Austin: University of Texas Press, 57-139.

Legate, Julie. 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Legate, Julie. 2008. Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55-101.

Lynch, John, Malcolm Ross, Terry Cowley. 2002. The Oceanic Languages. Curzon Press.

Reprinted in 2011. London: Routledge.

Mahajan, Anoop. 1989. Agreement and Agreement Projections, in I. Laka and A. Mahajan (eds.),

MIT Working papers in Linguistics, Vol. 10: Functional Heads and Clause Structure. MIT

Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, 217-252.

Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations.

Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Mithun, Marianne. 2000. Valency-changing Derivation in Central Alaskan Yup’ik, in R.M.W.

Dixon and A. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity.

Cambridge University Press, 84-114.

Palmer, F. R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge University Press.

Paul, Ileana. and Lisa Travis. 2006. Ergativity in Austronesian languages, in A. Johns, D.

Massam, J. Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging Issues. Dordrecht: Springer, 315-335.

36

Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The Clause Structure of Malagasy: A Minimalist Approach. PhD

dissertation, UCLA.

Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy Subject/topic as an A’-element. Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 23.2: 381-457.

Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of

Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase Edge and Extraction: A Tagalog Case

Study. Linguistic Inquiry 36.4: 565-599.

Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another Look at Tagalog Subjects, in Ileana Paul, V. Phillips, Lisa

Travis (eds.), Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 105-116.

Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford

University Press.

Ross, Malcolm. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Austronesian Verbal Morphology: Evidence from

Taiwan, in Paul J.-K. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, Chiu-yu Tseng,

(eds.), Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Taipei: Academia Sinica, 727-791.

Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The History and Transitivity of Western Austronesian Voice and Voice-

marking, in Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The History and Typology and Western

Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 17-62.

Ross, Malcolm. 2006. Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto

Austronesian, in Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang, Dah-an Ho (eds.), Streams Converging

37

into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on his 70th Birthday.

Taipei: Language and Linguistics, 521-563.

Ross, Malcoom. 2009. Proto Austronesian Verbal Morphology: A reappraisal, in Alexander

Adelaar and Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History:

A festschrift for Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 295-326.

Siegel, Laura. Argument Structure and Antipassive in Inuit. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics

32: Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, 159-175.

Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A Grammatical Subgrouping of Formosan Languages, in Paul J.-K. Li,

Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, Chiu-yu Tseng, (eds.), Austronesian

Studies Relating to Taiwan. Taipei: Academia Sinica, 683-726.

Starosta, Stanley. 2001. Reduplication and the Subgrouping of Formosan Languages. Paper

presented at the International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues relating to

Taiwan, Academia Sinica. Published in Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), Formosan Linguistics:

Stanley Starosta’s Contributions, vol. 2. Taipei: Language and Linguistics, 2009, 801-834.

Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The Evolution of Focus in

Austronesian, in AmramHalim, Lois Carrington, and S. A. Wurm (eds.), Third International

Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Pacific Linguistics, C-75, 145-170.

Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1988. Antipassives in Warrungu and Other Australian Languages, in M.

Shibatani, ed., Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 595-649.

Whitman, John. 2000. Relabelling. In Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner

(eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford University Press, 220-238.

38

Whitman, John. 2009. Radical Reanalysis and Syntactic Change. Paper presented at the 19th

meeting of the International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Radboud University,

Nijmegen.

Whitman, John and Waltraud Paul. 2005. Reanalysis and conservancy of structure in Chinese, in

Montse Batllori, Maria-Lluïsa Hernanz, Carme Picallo, and Francesc Roca (eds.),

Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation. Oxford University Press, 82-94.

Wolff, John. 1973. Verbal Inflection in Proto-Austronesian, in Andrew Gonzales (ed.), Essays in

Honor of Cecilio Lopez on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of

the Philippines.

Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way Case Systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 679-728.

Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry

37.1: 111-130.

Yanagida, Yuko. 2006. Word Order and Clause Structure in Early Old Japanese. Journal of East

Asian Linguistics 15: 37-67.

Yanagida, Yuko. 2012. The Syntactic Reconstruction of Alignment and Word Order: The case of

Old Japanese, in Ans van Kemenade and Nynke de Haas (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Yanagida, Yuko and John Whitman. 2009. Alignment and Word Order in Old Japanese. Journal

of East Asian Linguistics 18.2: 101-144.

Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2007. A Grammar of Mantauran (Rukai). Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute

of Linguistics.