Building and Interpreting Clausal Possession in Isbukun Bunun
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v12i1.4227Keywords:
Bunun, possessives, Formosan languages, Austronesian languagesAbstract
This paper shows that clausal possession in Isbukun Bunun, a Formosan language, involves two distinct structures with one single thematic interpretation. Although thematically identical, the two distinct structures are not derived via agreement/movement from a single underlying structure. To best capture the (morpho)syntactic patterns within and beyond the phenomenon, the too-many-structures problem is best analyzed as involving distinct underlying structures with syntactic heads that are semantically null, and delayed saturation of thematic relations at the (morpho)syntax-semantics interface.
Downloads
References or Bibliography
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. PhD thesis, Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.23
––––––. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122.3: 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.10.012
––––––. 2016. -feature competition: A unified approach to the Austronesian extraction restriction. In Jessica Kantarovich, Tran Truong & Orest Xherija (eds.), Proceedings of the 52nd meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bell, Sarah. 1976. Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
––––––. 1983. Advancements and ascensions in Cebuano. In David M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1, 143–218. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Chang, Yung-li. 1997. An outline of Seediq grammar (in Chinese). Manuscript.
Chen, Victoria. 2017. Philippine-type “voice” affixes as A’-agreement markers: Evidence from causatives and ditransitives. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 23). Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
––––––. 2021. Tagalog voice revisited: Insights from binding. In Proceedings of WCCFL 38
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin and Coppe van Urk. 2017. Ergativity and Austronesian-type voice system. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa Travis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 373–396. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.16
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/415794
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kastner, Itamar. 2016. Form and meaning in the Hebrew verb. PhD diss., New York University.
––––––. 2020. Voice at the interfaces: The syntax, semantics and morphology of the Hebrew verb. Open Generative Syntax 8. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Reprinted in Kayne, Richard (2000), Parameters and Universals, 107–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1993.tb00837.x
––––––. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keenan, Edward and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5
Kroeger, Paul. 1991. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA:Stanford University dissertation.
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Class lectures: Handouts from the Seminar on Argument Structure, Fall 2013. New York University.
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In Barbara Fox and Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function, 247–277. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.27.11mit
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguis¬tic Variation Yearbook 1: 105–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.1.06mcg
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001
Nie, Yining. 2019. Raising applicatives and possessors in Tagalog. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 139. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.941
––––––. 2020. Licensing arguments. PhD diss., New York University.
Partee, Barbara. 1999. Weak NPs in HAVE sentences. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema (eds.), JFAK, a Liber Amicorum for Johan van Benthen on the Occasion of His 50th Birthday, 39–57. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Paul, Ileana. 2000. Malagasy clause structure. Montreal: McGill University dissertation.
––––––. 2002. An explanation of extraction asymmetries in Malagasy. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.06pau
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.126
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The possessive construction in Hungarian: a configurational category in a non-configurational language. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 31: 261–289.
––––––. 1994. The noun phrase. In Kiefer, Ferenc and Katalin E. Kiss (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, 179–274. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Travis, Lisa. 2001. Derived objects in Malagasy. In William D. Davies & Stanley Dubinsky (eds.), Objects and other Subjects: Grammatical Functions, Functional Categories and Configurationality, 123–155. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0991-1_6
Tyler, Matthew. 2020. Argument structure and argument-marking in Choctaw. Yale University PhD Thesis.
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9
Wood, Jim, and Alec Marantz. 2017. The interpretation of external arguments. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, and Ángel J. Gallego (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 255–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767886.003.0011
Wu, Hsiao-hung Iris. 2009. Existential constructions in Isbukun Bunun. Oceanic Linguistics 48.2: 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.0.0052
––––––. 2013. Restructuring and clause structure in Isbukun Bunun. Oceanic Linguistics 52.1: 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2013.0000
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000. Notes on a possessive construction in the Formosan languages. In Videa DeGuzman and Byron Bender (eds.), Grammatical Analysis: Morphology, Syntax and Semantics 241–257. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian Huang, Marie Yeh and Anna Chang. 1999. Existential, possessive and locative constructions in the Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38.1: 1–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3623391
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 Hung-Chi Chen; Kuo-Chiao Lin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright holder(s) granted JSR a perpetual, non-exclusive license to distriute & display this article.
