請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/17227
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 宋麗梅(Li-May Sung) | |
dc.contributor.author | Zong-Rong Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃宗榮 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T00:01:57Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2013-08-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-08-15 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University. Aldridge, E. 2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2.5:966-995. Aldridge, E. 2012. Two types of ergativity and where they might come from. Talk given at MIT, 2012. Aldridge, E. to appear. Wh-clefts and Verb-initial Word Order in Austronesian Languages. In T. Veenstra (ed.), Structure of Clefts, John Benjamins. Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: CUP. Bok-Bennema, R. 2005. Clitic climbing. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Ch. 13. Blackwell Publishing, MA, USA. Boneh, N. and I. Sichel. 2010. Deconstructing Possession. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 1-40. Botwinik-Rotem, I. 2008. Why are they different? An exploration of Hebrew locative PPs. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlacil, B. Gehrke & R. Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P: 331-364. John Benjamins Publishing. Buring, D. 2005. Binding Theory. NY: CUP. Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Chang, Y.-L. 1997. Voice, Case and Agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Ph.D. dissertation, Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University. Chen, T.-C. 2010. Restructuring in Mayrinax Atayal. BA Honor Thesis: McGill University. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding—The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York and Oxford, OUP. Cinque, G. 2001. “Restructuring” and functional structure. In L. Bruge (ed.), University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 45-127. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: CUP. Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd ed. Oxford: The University of Chicago Press. Coon, J. 2010. Complementationin Chol (Mayan): A theory of split ergativity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Coopmans, P. 1989. Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative inversion in English. Language 65.4:728-751. Corver, N. and H. van Riemsdijk. 2001. Semi-lexical categories. In N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Semi-lexical Categories—The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words: 1-19. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Demirdache, H. and M. Uribe-Etxebarria. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In R. Martin, D. Michael & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik: 157-186. Cambridge: MIT Press. Den Dikken, M. 2010. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In G. Cinque & L. Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 6: 74-126. Oxford University Press. Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other Locatives. Language 68.3: 553-595. Gavruseva, E. 2000. On the syntax of possessor extraction. Lingua 110:743-772. Guilfoyle, E., H. Hung and L. Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjects in Austronesian Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375-414. Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: 53-109. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Higginbotham, J. 2004. The English Progressive. In J. Gueron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time: 329-358. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Huang, M. 1994. Ergativity in Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 33.1: 129-143. Huang, M. 1995. A study of Mayrinax Syntax. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing. Huang, M. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Atayal. Taipei, Taiwan: Yuanliu. Huang, M. 2002. Nominalization in Mayrinax Atayal. Language and Linguistics 3.2: 197-225. Academia Sinica: Taiwan. Huang, Z.-R. and K.-C. Lin. 2012. Placing Atayal on the ergativity continuum. Extended Abstract of Linguistic Society of America 2012 Annual Meeting (LSA 2012) Kayne, R. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47:3-31. Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure, the Lexicon: 109-137. Springer, Dordrecht. Laka, I. 1993. Unergatives that assign Ergative, unaccusatives that assign Accusative. In J. D. Bobaljik & C. Phillips (eds.), MIT Working Paper in Linguistics 18: 149-172. Laka, I. 2006. Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: the case of Basque. In A. Johns, D. Massam, & J. Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging Issues: 173-195. Netherland: Springer. Lestrade, S. 2008. The correspondence between directionality and transitivity. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlacil, B. Gehrke & R. Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P: 149-174. John Benjamins Publishing. Levinson, L. 2011. Possessive WITH in Germanic: HAVE and the role of P. Syntax 14.4: 355-393. Liao, H-C. 2004. Transitivity and Ergativity in Formosan and Phillippine Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii. Marantz, A. 2001. Words. Ms. MIT. Paul, I. and L. Travis. 2006. Ergativity in Austronesian languages. In A. Johns et al. (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging Issues: 315-335. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: 281–337. Kluwer, Berkeley. Rizzi, L. 2005. Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 3:223-251. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425-449. Starosta, S. 1999. Transitivity, Ergativity, and the Best Analysis of Atayal Case Marking. In E. Zeitoun & P. J. Li (eds.), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: 371-392. Taipei,Taiwan : Academia Sinica. Svenonius, P. 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya, & G. Spathas (eds.), Argument Structure: 63-103. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Svenonius, P. 2008. Projections of P. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlacil, B. Gehrke & R. Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P: 63-84. John Benjamins Publishing. Szabolcsi, A. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89-102. Terzi, A. 2006. The misleading lexical status of locative prepositions. Ms. Technological Educational Institute of Patras. van Riemsdijk, H. 1990. Functional prepositions. In H. Pinkster & I. Genee (eds.), Unity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th Birthday: 229-241. Dordrecht: Foris. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Wang, S.-S. 2004. An Ergative View of Thao Syntax. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Hawaii. Wu, C.-M. 2012. Linking constructions in Mayrinax Atayal and Sinvaudjan Paiwan. Paper presented in The 19th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, Academia Sinica, Taiwan R.O.C. Wurmbrand, S. 2003. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Wurmbrand, S. 2004. Two types of restructuring—Lexical vs. functional. Lingua 114: 991-1041. Wurmbrand, S. 2005. Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring. In M. Everaert, & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Vol. 5: 227-341. Oxford: Blackwell. Wurmbrand, S. 2007. How complex are complex predicates? Syntax 10.3:243–288. Zeitoun, E., L. M. Huang, M. M. Yeh, A. H. Chang, and J. J. Wu. 1996. The temporal, aspectual, and modal systems of some Formosan languages: A typological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 35.1: 21-56. Zeitoun, E., L. M. Huang, M. M. Yeh, & A. H. Chang. 1999. Existential, possessive, and locative constructions in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38.1: 1-42. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/17227 | - |
dc.description.abstract | This thesis focuses on kiya and haniyan in Mayrinax Atayal, an ergative Formosan language (Huang 1994; Starosta 1999; Aldridge 2004), and their dual identity as lexical adpositions and progressive auxiliaries. I propose that grammaticalization links their adposition and auxiliary
identities. To know more about their dual usages, I also provide syntactic analyses to related constructions—existential, predicative locative, predicative possessive, and progressive construction. In discussing their adposition use, I first argue that kiya and haniyan are not one-place existential verbs by providing counterexamples to the verbal criteria and account proposed by Huang (1995, 2000, 2002) and Zeitoun et al. (1999). As they should not be treated as verbs, I give further morphosyntactic and semantic evidence justifying kiya and haniyan as two-place lexical adpositions, following Dermirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000), Svenonius (2007, 2008), and den Dikken (2010). As adpositions, kiya and haniyan are involved in three constructions: existentials (EXTs), predicative locatives (LOCs), and predicative possessives (POSSs). According to Freeze (1992), cross-linguistically the three derive from an adpositional locative structure, with derivation conditioned by nominal semantics. In this thesis I also unify the three in Mayrinax Atayal but in a way unlike Freeze’s: the proposed derivation is conditioned by morphosyntactic factors—categorical EPP, NP-DP distinction (Laka 1993), nuclear scope (Diesing 1992), case-marking (Lestrade 2008), and TP movement (Aldridge 2004). Semantic differences, in this way, fall out as an epiphenomenon. This thesis also studies kiya and haniyan as progressive auxiliaries in Mayrinax Atayal. Evidence shows that they are lexicalized Aspect heads that take infinitive vP complement. Progressive clauses (PROGs) in Mayrinax Atayal also manifest functional restructuring (Cinque 2001; Wurmbrand 2003), showing monoclausality and monoeventuality. In a bird’s eye view, the adposition-progressive usages of kiya and haniyan in Mayrinax Atayal receive cross-linguistic echoes (cf. Bybee et al. 1994; Dermirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria 2000; Higginbotham 2002; Laka 2006). I propose that in Mayrinax Atayal adpositional kiya and haniyan grammaticalize into their progressive counterparts, evinced by category change and semantic erosion, supporting Laka’s (2006) grammaticalization account. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T00:01:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R99142002-1.pdf: 800308 bytes, checksum: aade884ff869f4a850eda43273cc4e5a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………......i
Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….....ii English Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....iii List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………….iv Chapter 1: Literature Review: the issues...……………………….………………………….……1 1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………..……………..…1 1.1 Freeze (1992)…………………………………………………..……………………..…..…1 1.2 Adpositions…………………………………………………………………………..……...2 1.3 An overview of this thesis……………………………………………………………..……3 Chapter 2: A Linguistic Introduction to Mayrinax Atayal…………………….……………........5 2.0 Geographical distribution and dialects of Atayal……………………………………….......5 2.1 Ergativity…………………………...………………………..…………………………...…5 2.1.1 Ergativity in Mayrinax Atayal……………………………………..……………...…6 2.2 Case-marking and pronominal systems………………………..………………………........6 2.3 A grammatical sketch of Mayrinax Atayal…………………………………..…………...…8 2.3.1 VOS as the canonical word order……………………………....……………………8 2.3.2 Voice and aspect systems……………………………………..…………………...…9 2.3.3 A’-extractibility of absolutive DPs…………………………...…………………..…11 2.3.4 Mayrinax Atayal as a T-type ergative language………………………...………......13 Chapter 3: Existential, Locative, and Possessive Constructions………………….………….…15 3.0 Introduction……………………………………………………..…………………………15 3.1 Kiya and haniyan as lexical adpositional predicates…………………………..…………..16 3.1.1 Counter-evidence to the verbal status of kiya and haniyan………………..……….16 3.1.2 Evidence for their adpositional status…………………………...………………….21 3.1.3 Kiya and haniyan as lexical adpositions…………………..………………………..27 3.2 Structural scrutiny of EXTs and LOCs...………………………………………..…………30 3.2.1 Clausal composition of EXTs and LOCs………………………...…...…………….30 3.2.2 Optimal word order, case marking, and constituent size…………………..……….32 3.2.3 Interim summary……………………………………………..…………………….35 3.3 Unifying EXTs and LOCs in Mayrinax Atayal………………………………….………...37 vi 3.3.1 Theoretical background…………………………..………………………………...37 3.3.2 Derivation for EXTs in Mayrinax Atayal…..…………………..…………………..38 3.3.3 Derivation for LOCs in Mayrinax Atayal……………………..….………………...40 3.4 POSSs in Mayrinax Atayal………..……………………………..………………………...42 3.4.1 POSSs in Mayrinax Atayal are not “X’s Y exists.”………………..……………….44 3.4.2 Derivation for POSSs in Mayrinax Atayal………….........................……………...48 3.5 Chapter summary………………………………………………………...………………...50 Chapter 4: Kiya/haniyan and the Atayal Progressive Construction……………………………51 4.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..……………51 4.1 Semantic characterization of kiya and haniyan………………………..…………………..51 4.1.1 Lack of spatial distinction in kiya/haniyan selection………………..……………..52 4.1.2 Compatibility with different aspectual classes…………………..…………………53 4.1.3 Interim summary……………………………………………………..…………….57 4.2 Pinpointing the clausal structure of PROGs……………………………..………………...58 4.2.1 Complement selected by progressive kiya/haniyan………………..………………58 4.2.2 Structural positions of kiya and haniyan………………………………..……….…63 4.3 Syntactic relation between kiya/haniyan and lexical verbs……………………..…………66 4.3.1 Neither AUX-V compounding nor V-to-AUX raising………………..……………67 4.3.2 PROGs as a restructuring construction ………………………………….…………71 4.4 Derivation for Atayal PROGs…...………...……………………………………………….76 4.5 Chapter summary………………………………..………………………………….……...79 Chapter 5: Conclusion…………………….....……………………...…………………….……….80 5.0 A mind map…………………………………………...……………………………...…….80 5.1 Summary and implications of Chapter 3……….………………………………….………80 5.2 Summary and implications of Chapter 4………….…………………………………….…82 5.3 Dual identities of kiya and haniyan……………………..…………………………………83 5.4 Issues in further pursuit………………………………………………………..…………..84 References…………………………...…………………………………………………………...…85 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 汶水泰雅語中的kiya 與haniyan:其介詞用法及助動詞用法 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Kiya and Haniyan in Mayrinax Atayal:Their Adposition and Auxiliary Usages | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蔡維天(Wei-Tien Tsai),吳曉虹(Hsiao-hung Wu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 介係詞,進行態助動詞,汶水泰雅語,結構重整,語法化, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | adposition,progressive auxiliary,Mayrinax Atayal,restructuring,grammaticalization, | en |
dc.relation.page | 87 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-08-15 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 781.55 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。