請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/44737完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 宋麗梅 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kuo-Chiao Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林國喬 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T03:53:51Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2010-07-12 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2010-07-12 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2010-06-30 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Alsina, A. 1999. On the representation of event etructure. In T. Mohanan & L. Wee (eds.), Grammatical Semantics: Evidence for Structure in Meaning: 77-122. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Baker, M. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373-415. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blust, R. 1998. Ca-reduplication and Proto-Austronesian grammar. Oceanic Linguistics 37.2: 29-64. Blust, R. 2003. Three notes on early Austronesian morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 42.2: 438-478. Borer, H. 1994. The projections of arguments. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (eds.), Functional Projections: 19-47. Amherst: GLSA. Borer, H. 1998. Passive without theta grids. In S. Lapointe, P. Farrell & D. Brentari (eds.), Morphology and its Relations to Phonology: 60-99. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Chang, Y.-L. 2008. Focus marking and phrase structure in Tsou. Paper presented at the 15th Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA-15), University of Sydney. Chen, C.-F. 2008. Aspect and Tense in Rukai: Interpretation and Interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Chen, S.-T. 2009. Word Formation in Takibakha Bunun. M.A. thesis, National Hsinchu University of Education. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger: 53-109. Cambridge /London: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: CUP. Demirdache, H. and M. Uribe-Etxebarria. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik: 157-186. Cambridge: MIT Press. Demirdache, H. and M. Uribe-Etxebarria. 2004. The syntax of time adverbs. In J. Gueron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time: 143-180. Cambridge: MIT Press. Di Sciullo, A.-M. 1999. Verbal structure and variation. In E. Trevino & J. Lena (eds.), Semantic Issues in Romance Syntax: 39-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dowty, D. R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht/Holland/Boston: D. Reidel Publishing. Duffield, N. 1998. Auxiliary placement and interpretation in Vietnamese. In M. C. Gruber, D. Higgins, K. S. Olson & T. Wysocki (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 34): The Main Session: 95-110. Chicago: Chiacago Linguistic Society. Erteschik-Shir, N. and T. Rapoport. 2004. Bare aspect: A theory of syntactic projection. In J. Gueron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time: 217-234. Cambridge: MIT Press. Erteschik-Shir, N. and T. Rapoport. (eds.). 2005. The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Filip, H. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types, and Nominal Reference. New York: Garland Publishing. Filip, H. 2000. The quantization puzzle. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax: 39-96. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Fukuda, S. 2006. The syntax of telicity in Vietnamese. In E. Bainbridge & B. Agbayani (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 2006): 109-120. Fresno: California State University at Fresno. Gueron, J. 2008. On the difference between telicity and perfectivity. Lingua 118.11: 1816-1840. 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: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger): 53-109. Cambridge/London: MIT Press. Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge/London: MIT Press. Harley, H. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.), The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation: 42-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hay, J., C. Kennedy, and B. Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In T. Mathews & D. Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings of SALT IX: 127-144. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications. Jackendoff, R. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14.2: 305-354. Jeng, H.-S. 1977. Topic and Focus in Bunun. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Jeng, H.-S. 1999. Bunun tense and aspect. In E. Zeitoun & P. J.-K. Li (eds.), Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office) No.1: 455-487. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Jeng, H.-S. 2000. Interactions between focus, tense and aspect in the three major dialects of Bunun. Paper presented at the Second Symposium on Formal Austronesian Languages. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Kratzer, A. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In J. Gueron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time: 389-423. Cambridge: MIT Press. Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression: 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Li, P. J.-K. 1988. A comparative study of Bunun dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philosophy 59.2: 479-508. Liao, W.-W. 2004. The Architecture of Aspect and Duration. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University. Lin, J.-W. 2000. On the Temporal meaning of the verbal -le in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 1.2: 109-133. Lin, J.-W. 2003. Event decomposition and the syntax and semantics of durative phrases in Chinese. Paper presented at the 2nd Conference on Formal Syntax and Semantics. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Lin, K.-C. J. 2009a. Internal orderings of the Takituduh Bunun DP. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS XIX). Ho Chi Minh City: Vietnam National University. Lin, K.-C. J. 2009b. On the allomorphs of the oblique marker is and the nominative/genitive pronouns in Takituduh Bunun. Paper presented at the 10th Annual National Conference on Linguistics (NCL 2009). Chung-Li, Taiwan: Yuan Ze University. Lin, K.-C. J. 2009c. Phrasal movement within the Takituduh Bunun DP. Paper presented at the 11th Annual International Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences (JSLS 2009). Saitama: Tokyo Denki University at Hatoyama. Liu, F.-S. 1998. Structure preservation and transitivity: The case of Chinese ba sentences. In M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan & K. Wheatly (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics Volume II: Case Studies: 175-202. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. MacDonald, J. E. 2006. The Syntax of Inner Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University. MacDonald, J. E. 2008a. Domain of aspectual interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 38.1: 128-147. MacDonald, J. E. 2008b. The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect: A Minimalist Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. MacDonald, J. E. 2009. Inner aspect and phases. In K. Grohmann (ed.), Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments: 207-230. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Mateu, J. 2002. Argument Structure: Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Megerdoomian, K. 2001. Event structure and complex predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46(1/2): 97-125. Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41: 47-81. Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rackowski, A. 2002. The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rackowski, A. and N. Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36.4: 565-599. Raffaella, F. and H. Harley. 2008. Introduction: The in(ter)dependence of event structure, aspect and tense. Lingua 118.11: 1657-1663. Ramchand, G. 1993. Aspect phrase in modern Scottish Gaelic. In A. Schafer (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 23: 415-429. Amherst: GLSA. Ramchand, G. 2003. First phase syntax. Ms., University of Oxford. Rachmand, G. 2008a. Perfectivity as aspectual definiteness: Time and the event in Russian. Lingua 118.11: 1690-1715. Rachmand, G. 2008b. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Rappaport H. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect: 13-42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ritter, E. and S. Rosen, 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors: 135-164. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Ritter, E. and S. Rosen. 2000. Event structure and ergativity. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax: 187-238. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Roeper, T. 1993. Explicit syntax in the lexicon: The representation of nominalizations. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon: 185-220. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring Events. Oxford: Blackwell. Rothstein, S. (ed.). 2008. Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rothstein, S. 2008. Telicity, atomicity, and the Vendler classification of verbs. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect: 43-78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schmitt, C. 1996. Aspect and the Syntax of Noun Phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park. Schmitt, C. 2000. Some consequences of the complement analysis for relative clauses, demonstratives and the wrong adjectives. In A. Alexiadou, P. Law & C. Wilder (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses: 309-348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Smith, C. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Soh, H. L. 2008. The syntax and semantics of change/transition: evidence from Mandarin Chinese. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect: 387-420. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Su, Y.-F. 2008. Adverbials in Takituduh Bunun. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University. Sybesma, R. 1997. Why Chinese verb-le is a resultative predicate. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6.3: 215-261. Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tenny, C. and J. Pustejovsky (eds). 2000. Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Timberlake, A. 2007. Aspect, tense, mood. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Second Edition) vol. 1: 280-333. Cambridge: CUP. Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Travis, L. 1991. Inner aspect and the structure of VP. Ms., McGill University. Travis, L. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax: 145-185. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Travis, L. 2000. The l-syntax/s-syntax boundary : evidence from Austronesian. In I. Paul, V. Phillips & L. Travis (eds.), Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics: 167-194. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Travis, Lisa. in prep. Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Vanden Wyngaerd, G. 2001. Measuring events. Language 77.1: 61-90. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Verkuyl, H. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. Verkuyl, H. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge: CUP. Wu, J.-S. 2010. Interactions between aspects and temporal relations: A case study of the perfective le. Language and Linguistics 11.1: 65-98. Wu, P. A. 1969. A Descriptive Analysis of Bunun Language. M.A. thesis, Georgetown University. Yeh, M. M. 2000. Reduplication in Bunun and Saisiyat. Taiwan Humanities 5: 359-384. Taipei: Research Center for Humanistic Education, National Taiwan Normal University. [In Chinese] 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. and L. M. Huang. 1997. Toward a typology of tense, aspect and modality in Formosan languages: A preliminary study. In C.-Y. Tseng (ed.), Chinese Languages and Linguistics 4: 595-616. Zeitoun, E. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Bunun [Bunongyu Cankaoyufa]. Taipei: Yuanliu. [In Chinese] Zeitoun, E. and C.-H. Wu. 2006. An overview of reduplication in Formosan languages. In Y.-L. Chang, L. M. Huang & D.-A. Ho (eds.), Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Prof. Paul Jen-kuei Li on His 70th Birthday: 97-142. [Language and Linguistics Monograph Series W-5] Taipei: Academia Sinica. Zagona, K. 1996. Compositionality of aspect: evidence from Spanish aspectual se. In C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Aspects of Romance Linguistics: 475-488. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Zagona, K. 2004. Tense construal in complement clauses: Verbs of communication and the double access reading. In J. Gueron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time: 637-654. Cambridge: MIT Press. Zogna, K. 2008. Perfective aspect and Contained Perfectivity. Lingua 118.11: 1766-1789. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/44737 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本論文旨在探討卓群布農語內在動貌的句法表現。主要發現可分為四個層面:第一,受詞-事件照應(object-to-event mapping)在卓群布農語中屬於數詞的特性。此特性透過內在動貌(Asp)與帶有數詞之指示詞組(DP)間的呼應(Agree)來呈現。當此呼應關係存在,該事件解讀為終點事件(telic event);當此呼應關係不存在,該事件則解讀為無終點事件(atelic event)。而動貌最大投射(AspP)的位置則介於輕動 詞最大投射(vP)與動詞最大投射(VP)之間。第二,在卓群布農語中,受詞-事件照 應與事件結構兩者雖有互動,但保有相互獨立的關係。第三,本文認為中綴-i(n)- 應為內在動貌標記,而非Zeitoun 等(1996)所認為的完成貌(perfective aspect)標記 或Jeng(1977, 1999, 2000)所提的過去式(past tense)標記。最後,內在動貌與事件 結構在卓群布農語裡和語意以及詞彙存有依賴(dependent)關係,並非如MacDonald(2006, 2008b)所認為的是一個自主(autonomous)的系統。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This thesis investigates Takituduh inner aspect under MacDonald’s (2006, 2008b) event feature approach from three perspectives. The first research question concerns the syntactic nature of inner aspect in Taikituduh. The second research question is whether event structure and the object-to-event (OTE) mapping are two independent properties of Takituduh inner aspect. The last attempt of this thesis is to determine the syntactic status of the inflectional infix -i(n)- in Takituduh.
With regard to the first question, this thesis claims that the OTE mapping is a property of numerals instantiated via the (non)existence of an Agree relation between Asp and an DP that involves a numeral. Takituduh events are telic only when such Agree relation is approachable. Besides, the maximal projection AspP, is structurally between vP and VP but absent in Taktituduh statives. As for the second question, the answer appears positive in that, although the OTE mapping is observable in both Takituduh accomplishments and achievements with respect to tense entailments and the modification of event structure properties, only accomplishments are subject to the modification of both the beginning and the end. Moreover, for achievements, the end is invisible to the munga’-modification. Based on MacDonald’s (2008b) proposal that the beginning and the end of events are grammaticalized as the interpretable event features <ie> and <fe> on different heads, this thesis argues that, in Takituduh, these two distinct properties are distinguished in the way that <fe> can be modified and aspectually calculated only when it is within the extended aspectual domain of interpretation defined by AspP. The aspectual domain of interpretation is extended only if Asp is in an Agree relation with a DP that contains a numeral. Concerning the last question, it is observed that the OTE mapping disappears when Takituduh events are expressed by predicates in the -i(n)- form. To account for this fact, this thesis proposes that -i(n)- is the overt form of inner Asp. It differs from the defective zero aspect in that its aspectual domain of interpretation is extended by default. There are two follow-up claims to this major proposal. First, Takituduh intransitive activities, which are supposed to be without an inherent endpoint, hence involving no <fe>, become accomplishments in the -i(n)- form. This phenomenon is explained by the argument that all Takituduh eventives involve <fe> on V, thus inherently telic. The prima facie activities are due to the lack of an Agree relation between Asp and a DP that involves a numeral. In addition, when a stative verb/adjective root is combined with -i(n)-, it alternates between an achievement and an inchoative stative verb. Regarding this issue, this thesis proposes that this alternation is derived from Asp-V(-A) incorporation in L-syntax in the sense of Hale & Keyser (1993) and MacDonald (2008b). With the overt Asp -i(n)- bearing <ie> being added in L-syntax, if there is no <fe> present on empty V, the result of Asp-V incorporation is the inchoative stative alternate; otherwise, <fe> is present on empty V, which ultimately adjoins to Asp, giving rise to the event feature configuration of achievements. The argument that -i(n)- is inner Asp is compared with others in the literature. All in all, for four reasons, the infix -i(n)- is better considered as inner Asp instead of the perfective aspect marker (Zeitoun et al. 1996) or the past tense marker (Jeng 1977, 1999, 2000). Firstly, -i(n)- has the L-syntactic nature of encoding telicity (Travis in prep). Secondly, the perfect aspect marker -i(n), assumed to be outer Asp, has scope of interpretation over -i(n)-. In addition, -i(n)- can occur with the future tense prefix na-. Lastly, the Head Movement Constraint (Travis 1984) and the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985) reveals that the structural position of -i(n)- is lower than the causative morpheme p-, as v, because -i(n)- is closer to the V root. The structural lower position of -i(n)- strongly suggests that -i(n)- is not the perfective aspect marker, outer AsP, or the past tense marker, T, both of which are structurally higher than v. The analyses in this thesis have two theoretical implications. First, aspectual predicate types may be cross-linguistically universal in terms of MacDonald’s (2006, 2008b) event feature configurations, but they are parametric with respect to how they derived, in L-syntax or S(yntactic)-syntax. Moreover, MacDonald (2008b)’s claim that inner aspect is an autonomous system within natural language is questionable. In Takituduh at least, inner aspect is lexically dependent (e.g., <fe> only appears on V) and semantically contingent (e.g., <fe> is obligatorily on dynamic V roots, but optionally on stative roots). | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T03:53:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R96142004-1.pdf: 613099 bytes, checksum: b95c963f8fd8b172f02f00568bd4ce61 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………i
Chinese Abstract…..………………………………………………………………iii English Abstract…..…………………………………………………………………iv List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………...…vi Chapter 1: Prelude………………………………………………………………...…1 1. The nature of inner aspect………………………………………………...…....1 2. Syntactic approaches to inner aspect……………………………………….......5 2.1 Ritter & Rosen (1998, 2000)………………………………………….......5 2.2 Megerdoomian (2001)…………………………………………......……...7 2.3 Ramchand (2003, 2008b)…………….……………...……………......…..8 2.4 Borer (2005)………………………………………………………......…..9 2.5 Harley (2005)………………………………………………………….....11 2.6 Travis (in prep)………………………………………………………......13 2.7 MacDonald (2006, 2008b)…………………………………………........14 3. Primary tasks and claims………………………………………………...........15 4. Thesis organization…………………………………………………………....17 Chapter 2: Takituduh Essentials...............................................................................18 1. Voice and subjecthood…………..................................................………....….18 2. Nominal case……………………….................................………………........23 3. Word order………………………………………………...…..........................25 4. Tense and aspect………………………………………………………........…28 Chapter 3: The Syntactic Nature of Takituduh Inner Aspect................................35 1. An aspectual projection in Takituduh……………………………................…35 1.1 Temporal phrases as duratives in Takituduh…………......……...............36 1.1.1 Adjoining to vP: Single event and multiple events interpretations..36 1.2 Between vP and VP: An aspectual projection in Takituduh.....................42 1.2.1 The object-to-event (OTE) mapping..........................……………..42 1.2.1.1 The OTE mapping is a property of numerals in Takituduh....43 1.2.1.2 Aspectual distribution of [-q]DPs...........................................46 1.2.1.3 Agree between Asp and [+q]DPs............................................48 1.3 Demarcating the aspectual domain............................................................49 1.4 Intra-linguistic variation: Takituduh statives............................................50 2. Event structure in Takituduh…………….........................................…………53 2.1 Event structure and tense entailments in Takituduh..................................53 2.1.1 Accomplishments and achievements................................................54 2.1.2 Activities..........................................................................................57 2.1.3 Statives.............................................................................................59 2.2 Munga’ as an event structure modifying predicate in Takituduh..............62 2.2.1 The munga’-modified accomplishment............................................62 2.2.2 The munga’-modified achievement..................................................63 2.2.3 The munga’-modified activity..........................................................64 2.2.4 Incompatibility between munga’ and statives..................................65 2.2.5 The munga’ construction and the OTE mapping.............................65 2.2.6 Event structure is independent of the OTE mapping in Takituduh..66 2.3 Takituduh eventives: An event feature account.........................................67 3. Chapter recap.....................................................................................................71 Chapter 4: The Infix -i(n)- Revisited........................................................................73 1. -i(n)- and event structure……………………………...................................…73 1.1 -i(n)- as a telicity marker for Takituduh eventives…………....................74 1.1.1 The interpretations of temporal phrases...........................................74 1.1.2 Tense entailments.............................................................................76 1.1.3 The munga’ construction..................................................................79 2. -i(n)- as overt inner Asp in Takituduh: A proposal…...........……….............…82 2.1 Takituduh eventives are intrinsically telic.................................................83 3. Alternations between achievements and inchoative statives.............................89 3.1 Inchoative statives………….....................................................................90 3.2 -i(n)- formed achievements………...........................................................94 4. L(exical)-syntax of Takituduh achievements and inchoative statives...............99 5. Takituduh has no intrinsic activities, achievements and inchoative statives...102 6. The present analysis, Jeng (1977, 1999, 2000) and Zeitoun et al. (1996).......103 6.1 Against Zeitoun et al. (1996): The L-syntactic nature of -i(n)-...............103 6.2 Against Jeng (1977, 1999, 2000) I: -in has scope over -i(n)-..................104 6.3 Against Jeng (1977, 1999, 2000) II: Co-occurence of -i(n)- and the futuretense marker na-.........................................................................108 6.4 Against Jeng (1977, 1999, 2000) and Zeitoun et al. (1996): The Head Movement Constraint (Travis 1984) and the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985).........................................................................................109 7. Chapter recap...................................................................................................110 Chapter 5: Finale……………………………………………………………..….112 1. Summarizing the thesis.............................................................................…...112 2. Aspectual predicate types are configurationally universal but derivationally parametric.....................................................................................................115 3. The entire autonomy of inner aspect is not universal......................................119 4. Limitations and beyond...................................................................................120 References……………………………………………………...……………...….121 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 事件特徵 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 內在動貌 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 事件結構 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 布農語 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 臺灣南島語 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | inner aspect | en |
| dc.subject | event feature | en |
| dc.subject | Formosan language | en |
| dc.subject | Bunun | en |
| dc.subject | event structure | en |
| dc.title | 卓群布農語內在動貌之句法研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Infix -i(n)- in Takituduh Bunun and the Syntax of Inner Aspect | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蔡維天,劉辰生 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 內在動貌,事件結構,布農語,臺灣南島語,事件特徵, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | inner aspect,event structure,Bunun,Formosan language,event feature, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 125 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2010-07-01 | |
| 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-99-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 598.73 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。
