topics in austronesian syntax 2015 lsa linguistics...

1

Topics in Austronesian Syntax 2015 LSA Linguistics Institute

University of Chicago Instructor: Edith Aldridge

Variation in Alignment

1. Geographic Distribution of Austronesian Languages

2

2. Ergativity

Grammatical Primitives (Dixon 1994)

S=intransitive subject

A=transitive subject

O=transitive object

Alignment (Morphological Ergativity)

Accusative = S/A

Ergative = S/O

A O

ergative

accusative S

Accusative Alignment (e.g. Japanese)

S/A: Nominative

O: Accusative

S=ga

(1) a. Hanako=ga kita.

Hanako=NOM came

“Hanako came.”

A=ga O=o

b. Hanako=ga natto=o tabe-ta.

Hanako=NOM natto=ACC eat-PAST

“Hanako criticized Taro.”

Ergative Alignment (e.g. Tagalog)

S/O: Absolutive (nominative)

A: Ergative (non-nominative)

S=ang

(2) a. D<um>ating ang babae.

<INTR.PRV>arrive NOM woman

‘The woman arrived.’

A=ng O=ang

b. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda.

<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman NOM fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

Antipassive: Semantically transitive = 2 DP arguments

Syntactically intransitive = No structural case for object

3

South Baffin Eskimo (Kalmar 1979:124)

(3) a. Joosi quqiq-si-y-up tuttu-mik

Joosi.ABS shoot-AP-PTCP-MONOP caribou-MOD

‘Joosi shot a caribou.’

b. Joosi-up quqi-kkaniq-t-a-nga tuttu

Joosi-ERG shoot-again-PTCP-POLYP-3/3 caribou.ABS

‘Joosi shot the same caribou again.’

Tagalog: OBL object nonspecific; ABS object specific/definite

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

<INTR.PRV>buy NOM woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a fish.’

b. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda. (Transitive)

<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman NOM fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

This is a case of differential object marking.

=> Finnish objects in telic events have structural case.

Finnish (Ritter and Rosen 2000:205)

(5) a. Ammu-i-n karhu-n.

shoot-PAST-1SG bear-ACC

‘I shot a/the bear.’

b. Ammu-i-n karhu-a.

shoot- PAST-1SG bear-PART

‘I shot at a/the bear.’

=> Old Japanese objects when they are specific.

Old Japanese (Yanagida 2006)

(6) a. 佐欲比賣能故何比列布利斯夜麻 (MYS 868)

Sayopimye=no kwo=ga pire puri-si yama

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

‘the hill where the girl Sayohime waved her scarf’

b. 蜻野叩1 人之懸者

[CP [vP Akidu nwo=wo [v’ pito=no [VP tObj kakure-ba]]]] (MYS 1405)

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

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

Syntactic ergativity: Only absolutives can undergo A’-movement

1The character in the text is slightly different, composed of a mouth and a blade.

4

Internal argument extracts in transitive clause, but not subject

(7) a. isda-ng b<in>ili ng babae (Transitive object: OK)

fish-LK <TR.PRV>buy GEN woman

‘fish that the woman bought’

b. *babae-ng b<in>ili ang isda (Transitive subject: *)

woman-ng <TR.PRV>buy NOM fish

‘woman who bought the fish’

External argument extracts in intransitive clause, but not anitpassive object

(8) a. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda. (Antipassive clause)

<INTR.PRV>buy NOM woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a fish.’

b. babae-ng b<um>ili ng isda (Intransitive subject: OK)

woman-LK <INTR.PRV>buy GEN fish

‘woman who bought a/the fish’

c. *isda-ng b<um>ili ang babae (AP object: *)

fish-LK <INTR.PRV>buy NOM woman

‘fish that the woman bought’

Reminiscent of the “accessibility hierarchy for relativization”

(9) Accessibility Hierarchy for Relativization (Keenan & Comrie 1977)

SU > DO > IO > OBL > GEN > OCOMP

In fact, the top end of this hierarchy is based almost entirely on Austronesian languages.

=> Labeling the grammatical function at the top as “subject” hinges upon the analysis of

grammatical relations (and alignment) in these languages.

And K&C admit that ergative languages do not follow the hierarchy.

Mam Mayan (England 1983:250-1)

(10) a. alkyee-qa x-hi tzaj t-tzyu-7n Cheep

who-PL REC.REP-3PL.ABS.DIR 3SG.ERG-grab-DS Jose

‘Whom did Jose grab?’

b. *alkyee saj t-tzyu-7n kab’ xiinaq

who REC.DEP.3SG.ABS.DIR 3SG.ERG-grab-DS two man

‘Who grabbed the men?’

c. alkyee saj tzyuu-n ky-e kab’ xiinaq

who REC.DEP.3SG.ABS.DIR grab-AP 3PL-RN two man

‘Who grabbed the men?’

Now: Some linguists claim that Philippine languages manifest a “voice” system.

5

Tagalog Applicative Constructions

(11) a. B<in>ilh-an ng babae ng isda ang tindahan=ko.

<TR.PRV>buy-APPL GEN woman GEN fish NOM store=1.SG.GEN

‘The woman bought a/the fish at my store.’

b. I-b<in>ili ng babae ng isda ang lalaki.

APPL-<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman GEN fish NOM man

‘The woman bought the fish for the man.’

Alternate view Tagalog has a “voice system” which promotes (or at least identifies) a different

type of argument as the subject.

(12) Actor voice: Intransitive or antipassive (nominative subject)

Theme voice: Basic transitive (nominative direct object)

Locative voice: Goal/locative applicative

Circumstantial voice: Benefactive/instrumental applicative

Nominative (absolutive) marking and verb morphology correlation:

(13) Tagalog AV/INTR TV/TR LV/APPLL CV/APPLH

<um>V V-in V-an i-V

But this kind of “voice” cannot be understood in the normal sense, because non-AV is not

passive.

Tagalog

(14) a. P<in>igil ng lalaki ang sarili=niya.

<TR.PRV>control GEN man NOM self=3.SG.GEN

‘The man controlled himself.’

b. Bigy-an=mo=siya ng kape.

give-APPL =2SG.GEN=3SG.NOM GEN coffee

‘Give him/her the coffee!’

c. B<in>a-balak ni Maria-ng [PRO tulung-an si Pedro]

<TR.PRV-RED-plan GEN Maria-LK (ERG) help-APPL NOM Pedro

‘Maria is planning to help Pedro.’

3. Indonesian Mixed Alignment

3.1. meN- & di- Dichotomy

Standard Indonesian is basically a nominative/accusative language.

Indonesian

(15) a. Ali mem-beli buku pada Nuri.

Ali ACT-buy book for Nuri

‘Ali bought a book for Nuri.’

6

b. Buku itu di-beli (oleh Ali).

book that PASS-buy by Ali

‘The book was bought (by Ali).

c. Ali mem-beli-kan Nuri buku.

Ali ACT-buy-APPL Nuri book

‘Ali bought Nuri a book.’

d. Nuri di-beli-kan buku (oleh Ali).

Nuri PASS-buy-APPL book buy Ali

‘Nuri was bought a book (by Ali).’

A’-extraction restriction: Clause-initial “subject” only

Indonesian

(16) a. Ali mem-beli buku.

Ali ACT-buy buku

‘Ali bought a book.’

b. Siapa yang mem-beli buku-nya?

who C ACT-give book-DEF

‘Who bought the book?’

c. *Apa yang Ali mem-beli?

what C Ali ACT-buy

‘What did Ali buy?’

d. Apa yang di-beli (oleh) Ali?

what C PASS-buy by Ali

‘What was bought by Ali?’

(17) Indonesian ACTIVE PASSIVE APPLL APPLH

meN-V di-V V-i V-kan

Accusative alignment but has the extraction restriction

3.2. Pronominal Argument Type

Basic clause types and alignment:

=> Alignment looks pretty ergative

=> Agreement is mixed ergative and accusative: Subject and direct object in transitive clause

Tukang Besi (Donohue 2002:84-5)

(18) a. No-tinti na ana. (Intransitive)

3R-run NOM child

‘The child ran off.’

b. No-kiki’i=ko (na iko’o) te beka. (Transitive)

3R-bite-2SG.OBJ NOM you CORE cat

‘The cat bit you.’

7

c. No-kiki’i te iko’o na beka. (Antipassive?)

3R-bite CORE you NOM cat

‘The cat bit you.’

Fronting on ABS pivot: Transitive object and intransitive/AP subject

Tukang Besi (Donohue 2002:89)

(19) a. Te kene=no no-‘ita=’e te ana iso.

CORE friend=3.GEN 3R-see-3OBJ CORE child yon

‘That child saw its friend.’

b. Te ana iso no-‘ita te kene.

CORE child yon 3R-see CORE friend=3.GEN

‘That child saw its friend.’

Philippine-type voice for relativization:


(20) a. No-balu te pandola na wowine.

3R-buy CORE eggplant NOM woman

‘The woman bought an eggplant.’

b. Te iso te wowine [b<um>alu te pandola].

CORE yon CORE woman <AV>buy CORE eggplant

‘This is the woman who bought the eggplant.’


(21) a. No-kengku na uwe iso.

3R-cold NOM water yon

‘That water is cold.’

b. Te iso te uwe [k<um>engku]

CORE yon CORE water <AV>cold

‘That’s the cold water.’


(22) a. No-balu-‘e na pandola te wowine.

3R-buy NOM eggplant CORE woman

‘The woman bought the eggplant.’

b. Te iso te pandola [i-bal(u) u wowine].

CORE yon CORE eggplant CV-buy GEN woman

‘This is the eggplant that the woman bought.’

Ergative alignment in case marking

Extraction restriction (some relationship to nominalization)

Agreement shows accusative alignment

8

4. Connection with realis/irrealis mood

(23) Palauan subject agreement (realis) (Georgopoulos 1991:26)

SG PL

EXCL INCL

1 ak- aki- kede-

2 ke- kom-

3 ng- te-

(24) Palauan subject (irrealis) (Georgopoulos 1991:27)

SG PL

EXCL INCL

1 ku- kimo- do-

2 (‘o)m(o)-

3 l(e)-

Realis vs. irrealis mood:

Palauan

(25) a. ak-mo er a katsudo

1.SG.REAL-go P movie

‘I am going to the movies.’ (Georgopoulos 1991:26)

b. ng-diak ku-nguiu er a hong

NEG 1.SG.IRR-read P book

‘I am not reading the book.’ (Georgopoulos 1991:27)

Palauan (Georgopoulos 1991:28)

(26) a. (ak-) me- ng- ‘uiu

1.SG.REAL- VM- IMPV- read

‘I am reading.’ (realis)

b. ku- ng- ‘uiu

1.SG.IRR- IMPV- read

‘I am reading.’ (irrealis)

The verb is inflected for realis mood when the subject is extracted.

Palauan

(27) a. a sensei a omes er a rengalek

teacher REAL.IMPV.look P children

‘The teacher is looking at the children.’ (Georgopoulos 1991:84)

b. ng-te’a a kileld-ii a sub?

CL-who REAL.PRV.heat-3.SG soup

‘Who heated up the soup?’ (Georgopoulos 1991:88)

9

The verb is inflected for irrealis mood when a VP-internal XP is extracted.

Palauan

(28) a. a blaia le-silseb-ii a se’el-ik

house IRR-3.PRV.burn-3.SG friend-1.SG

‘My friend burned down the house.’ (Georgopoulos 1991:87)

b. ng-te’a a l-ulekod-ir a rubak

CL-who IRR-3.Perf.kill-3. SG old.man

‘Who did the old man kill?’ (Georgopoulos 1991:88)

Extraction tied to realis (for subject) or irrealis (for object) mood

5. Object-agreement ergativity

VSO basic word order with ergative alignment (“e” for ERG, “se” for ABS personal name):

Roviana (Corston 1996:11-12)

(29) a. Mae se Zima.

come ABS Zima

‘Zima came.’

b. Dogor-i-a e Zima se Maepeza.

see-TR-SG.DO ERG Zima ABS Maepeza

‘Zima saw Maepeza.’

Extraction asymmetry:

=> S/O from finite verbal clause

=> A from nominalization with genitive object

Roviana (Corston 1996:23)

(30) a. Sa tie tupa-i-u.

DEF man hit-TR-1SG.DO

‘The man punched me.’

b. Hierana sa tie sapu tupa-qu rau.

this DEF man REL hit-1.SG.NSUF I

‘This is the man that punched me.’

c. Hierana sa koreo sapu tupa-i-a e Zone.

this DEF boy REL hit-TR-3.SG.DO ART John

‘This is the boy that John punched.’

Ergative alignment with extraction restriction

Nominalization connection with extraction

10

6. Polynesian

6.1. Accusative with Extraction Restriction

Accusative alignment

Maori

(31) a. Ka inu te tangata i te wai.

UNS drink the man ACC the water

‘The man drinks the water.’ (Chung 1978: 170)

b. oma ki te toa te tamaiti.

PAST.run to the store the child

‘The child ran to the store.’ (Hale 1968: 84)

c. Ka inu-mia te wai e te tangata.

UNS drink the water OBL the man

‘The man drinks the water.’ (Chung 1978: 170)

Subject extraction restriction in Maori:

Maori (Herd et al. 2011:1261-2)

(32) a. *Ka mōhio ahau ki te tangata [i kōhuru a Hone].

T/A know I to the man T/A murder PERS John

‘I knew the man that John murdered.’

b. Ka mōhio ahau ki te tangata [i kōhuru-tia e Hone].

T/A know I to the man T/A murder -PASS by John


c. Ka mōhio ahau ki tā Hone tangata [i kōhuru ai].

T/A know I to the-GEN John man T/A murder RSMP


Accusative alignment

Extraction restriction

Nominalization connection with extraction

6.2. Ergative with Extraction Restriction

Ergative alignment:

Tongan (Otsuka 2000:16) (33) a. Na’e ‘alu ‘a/*’e Sione ki he ako.

PAST go ABS/*ERG John to DEF school

‘John went to school.’

b. Na’e fana’i ‘e Sione ‘a Mele.

PAST shoot ERG John ABS Mary

‘John shot Mary.’

Free absolutive extraction:

11

Tongan (Otsuka 2000:116)

(34) a. e fefine [OPi [na’e ‘alu t

i ki Tonga]]

DEF woman PAST go to Tonga

‘the woman who went to Tonga”’

b. e fefine [OPi [‘oku ‘ofa’i ‘e Sione t

i]]

DEF woman PRES loves ERG John

‘the woman whom Sione loves’

Ergative extraction requires resumptive pronoun

Tongan (Otsuka 2000:117)

(35) a. *e siana [OPi

[na’e langa ti

‘a e fale]]

DEF man PAST build ABS DEF house

‘the man who built the house’

b. e siana [OPi

[na’e nei langa

‘a e fale]]

DEF man PAST 3.SG build ABS DEF house

‘the man who built the house’

Ergative alignment with extraction restriction

7. Summary

Mixture of ergative and accusative alignment

Extraction restriction does not necessarily correlate with ergative alignment.

Voice/transitivity indicated in some languages by verb morphology:

(36) a. Tagalog AV/INTR TV/TR LV/APPLL CV/APPLH

<um>V V-in V-an i-V

b. Indonesian ACTIVE PASSIVE APPLL APPLH

meN-V di-V V-i V-kan

Voice/transitivity indicated in other languages by pronominal agreement:

(37) a. s-V-o (Tukang Besi)

b. V-o (Roviana)

Extraction restriction correlates with:

(38) a. NOM/ABS case: Tagalog, Indonesian, Tongan

b. Nominalization (at least sometimes): Tukang Besi, Roviana, Maori

c. Mood: Palauan

12

References

Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case Marking and Grammatical Relations in Polynesian. Austin:

University of Texas.

Corston, S.H. 1996. Ergativity in Roviana, Solomon Islands. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

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

Donohue, Mark. 2002. Voice in Tukang Besi and the Austronesian focus system. In The History

and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, ed. by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross,

80-99. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

England, Nora. 1983. A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan Language. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic Variables. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hale, Kenneth. 1968. ‘Review of Hohepa 1967’,Journal of the Polynesian Society 77:83-99.

Herd, Jonathan, Catherine Macdonald, Diane Massam. 2011. Genitive subject in relative

constructions in Polynesian languages. Lingua 121:1252-1264.

Kalmar, I. 1979. The Antipassive and Grammatical Relations in Eskimo. In F. Plank, ed.,

Ergativity, 117-143. New York: Academic Press.

Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar.

Linguistic Inquiry 8.1:63-99.

Otsuka, Yuko. 2000. Ergativity in Tongan. University of Oxford dissertation.

Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara Rosen. 2000. Event Structure and Ergativity. In C. Tenny and J.

Pustejovsky, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects, 187-238. Stanford: Center for the Study

of Language and Information.

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

Asian Linguistics 15:37-67.

topics in austronesian syntax 2015 lsa linguistics...

Documents