On the Syntax of Topic in Mayrinax Atayal: A View from Cartographic Approach

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	林宗澤 Lin, Tsung-Tse
論文名稱：	On the Syntax of Topic in Mayrinax Atayal: A View from Cartographic Approach 汶水泰雅語之主題化研究：以製圖理論分析
指導教授：	蔡維天 Tsai, Wei-Tien
口試委員:	張永利 Chang, Yungli 吳曉虹 Wu, Hsiao-hung
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 語言學研究所 Institute of Linguistics
論文出版年：	2016
畢業學年度：	104
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	239
中文關鍵詞：	汶水泰雅語、主題、製圖理論
外文關鍵詞：	Mayrinax Atayal, topic, Cartographic Approach
相關次數：	點閱：3 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

透過製圖理論，本論文主要研究苗栗縣泰安鄉泰雅語汶水方言之主題化現象。本論文主要有三個目的：第一，整理並將所有主題(Topic)分類。第二，透過製圖理論，將分類後主題排序。第三，探討主題化之結構。本文前兩章為泰雅語汶水方言簡介以及文獻回顧。第三章介紹並分類汶水方言之主題，並給予排序；第四章提供汶水方言的疑問詞，目的是為了舉證主題排序的規律性；第五章提供一些汶水方言之模態詞，進一步舉證汶水方言之主題的排列與規律性。第六章再次詳細並統整經過移位(A'-movement)之主題。第七章介紹孤島限制，並介紹非移位(Non A'-movement/Base-generation)之主題。第八章探討主題化之結構。第九章總結。

本論文總共分類出三大類主題 (Topic)。第一類為Fronted Topic(FT)，此類經歷移位 (A'-movement)。此又細分為Topic(Top)和Temporal Topic(TT)。第二類為Contrastive Topic，此非經歷移位(Non A'-movement/ Base-generation);語意上，跟其他主題形成對比。第三類為Discourse Topic(DT)，此也非經歷移位(Non A'-movement/Base-generation);語意上，並沒有跟其他主題形成對比。此又細分為Left Dislocation(LD)，Aboutness Topic(AT)，以及Concerning Topic(CNT)。Left Dislocation(LD)會有resumptive pronoun 跟主題(LD)共指。Aboutness Topic (AT)又細分為the Whole-part Topic (WPT) 和the Possessive Topic (PT)。WPT跟他的resumptive pronoun 會形成整體和部分的關係; 而PT跟他的resumptive pernoun 是形成所屬關係。CNT主要是引入新的話題，成為comment 裡的主題。最後，帶有ani 型式的詞組，將它歸類為焦點(Focus)，跟以上主題不同的是此必須出現在FocP，不可以留在原位。

透過製圖理論，將分類後的主題跟焦點，做出高低/順序之分。在汶水方言中，主題(Topic)跟焦點(Focus)的等級為:CNT > AT > LD > Top > TT > Foc。主題(Topic)都必須高於焦點(Focus)。以上排序也透過了汶水方言之疑問詞和模態詞證實此排序。

The paper aims to explore the topic field in Mayrinax Atayal as compared to Mandarin Chinese, Squliq Atayal, Seediq, and Tsou. Syntactically, there are two types of topic in Mayrinax Atayal: A’-movement and Base-generation/Non A’-movement. Topic related to A’-movement is called Fronted Topic (FT) which is sub-divided into Topic (Top), Temporal Topic (TT), and VP-fronting. On the other hand, Topic involved in base-geneation is called discourse Topic (DT), which contains Left Dislocation (LD), Aboutness Topic (AT), Contrastive Topic (CT), and concerning topic (CNT). In addition, the element introduced by the ani marker is analyzed as focus (Foc).

Topic (Top) means that only absolutive argument can undergo A’-movement, leaving a trace in the matrix clause. Temporal topic (TemP) refers to an temporal adverbial that is topicalized and leaves a trace in the matrix clause. Left dislocation (LD) stands for an ergative argument which can be topicalized, with the occurrence of resumptive pronoun co-indexed with the topicalized element. Aboutness topic (AT) is not the argument of the matrix verb. Concerning topic (CNT) illustrates a new topic of the following conversation. Following Badan and Gobbo (2010), aboutness topic (AT) can be sub-divided into two types: the whole-part topic (WPT) and the possessive topic (PT). The whole-part topic (WPT) means the topic is the whole kind of things and its resumptive pronoun is one part of it. Therefore, it forms the relation between the whole concept in the topic position and part one in the matrix clause. Unlike left dislocation (LD) , it is not the argument of the matrix verb but LD is. As for the possessive topic (PT) , it is the modifier of the resumptive pronoun, but it is topicalized rather than contained within the noun phrase in the matrix clause. Besides, the contrastive topic (CT) should occur in the pseudo-cleft structure,whose interpretation is applied to make a contrast to another. At last, ani marker can be used in two ways: even and indefinite reading. Both of which fall under Focus (Foc)

In my thesis, I propose that syntactically, topic involved in A’-movement should be lower than Topic involved in base-generation: Discourse Topic (DT) > Fronted Topic (FT). With the cartographic approach, the hierarchy between topic and focus is CNT > AT > LD > Top > TemT > Foc. In addition, the topic field in Mayrinax Atayal should be higher than Focus.

Evidence will be offered to support my thesis like modals and verbal interrogatives why. All of which reveal the fact that discourse topic (DT) should be higher than fronted topic (FT).

Chapter 1.    Introduction    1
1.    Research Questions    1
2.    Background on Mayrinax Atayal    2
2.1.    The Phonemic inventory    2
2.2.    The Voice/Focus Marking System    3
2.3.    Word Order    5
2.4.    The tense/aspect/modality (TAM) system    6
2.5.    The Case System    8
2.6.    The Pronominal System    9
3.    Sources of Data    10
Chapter 2.    Literature Review    10
1.    Italian    10
2.    Mandarin Chinese    14
3.    Swedish    20
4.    Austronesian Languages    23
4.1.    Malagasy    23
4.2.    Squliq Atayal    24
4.3.    Tsou and Seediq    25
4.4.    Mayrinax Atayal    27
5.    Summary    29
Chapter 3.    Topic in Mayrinax Atayal    32
1.    The definition of topic    32
2.    Topic with Absolutive Case: FT (Fronted Topic)    34
3.    Topic with Ergative Case: LD (Left Dislocation)    38
4.    Topic with the Oblique Case    42
4.1.    No Topic with the Oblique Case    42
4.2.    Contrastive Topic (CT)    44
5.    Aboutness Topic (AT)    46
5.1.    The Whole-part Topic (WPT)    46
5.2.    The Possessive Topic (PT)    48
6.    Temporal Adverbial    50
7.    Concerning Topic (CNT)    52
8.    ani Marker (Foc)    54
8.1.    Even-ani    54
8.2.    Indefinite Wh-word    55
9.    Interim Summary    57
10.    The Hierarchy between FT and DT    57
10.1.    FT v.s. LD    58
10.2.    Multiple FTs    59
10.3.    AT v.s. LD    60
10.4.    CNT v.s. AT    61
10.5.    AT v.s. FT    63
11.    Interim Summary    63
Chapter 4.    Interrogatives in Mayrinax Atayal    66
1.    Introduction    66
2.    Nominal Focus    68
2.1.    Absolutive Case    68
2.2.    Ergative Case    72
2.2.1.    Ergative Case is Not Allowed    72
2.2.2.    Ergative Case is Allowed    73
2.3.    Oblique Case    74
2.4.    Locative Case    75
2.5.    Temporal Adverbial    77
3.    Nominal Interrogatives    78
3.1.    ima ’who/ whose’    79
3.1.1.    ima ’who’    79
3.1.2.    ima ’whose’    80
3.2.    nanuwan ’what’    81
3.3.    ainu’ ’which’    82
3.4.    mhananu ’what type’    83
4.    Adverbial Interrogatives    84
5.    Verbal Interrogatives    86
5.1.    piya’/pa-piay ’ ’how many/ much’    87
5.2.    micuwa and mhananu ’manner how’    89
5.3.    mhananu ’resultative how’    90
5.4.    mhananu ’how come’    91
5.5.    micuwa’ ’why’    92
6.    The Hierarchy between Topic, Nominal Predicate, and Verbal Interrogatives    94
6.1.    The Order between Topic and Nominal Predicate    94
6.2.    The Order between Focus and Verbal Interrogative why    96
6.3.    The Order between Topic and Verbal Interrogative why    97
6.3.1.    Fronted Topic (FT) and micuwa ’why’    97
6.3.2.    Left Dislocation (LD) and why    99
6.3.3.    Aboutness Topic (AT) and why    100
6.3.4.    FT, LD, and why    101
6.3.5.    AT, LD, and why    102
7.    Interim Summary    103
Chapter 5.    Modality in Mayrinax Atayal    104
1.    Introduction    104
2.    Propositional Modality in Mayrinax Atayal    105
2.1.    Evidential Modal    105
2.2.    Epistemic Modal    107
3.    Categorization of Propositional Modals    108
3.1.    Non-verbal Properties    108
3.1.1.    The Lack of TAM    108
3.1.2.    The Lack of Voice Marker    109
3.2.    Non-adjunct Properties    111
3.2.1.    Limit Distribution    111
3.2.2.    No AV-Only    112
3.3.    Modal Adverbial    114
3.3.1.    VP-ellipsis    114
3.3.2.    VP-Preposing    117
4.    Deontic Modal    118
4.1.    TAM    119
4.2.    Voice Marker    120
4.3.    Bound Pronoun    122
4.4.    Predicate without AV Only    122
5.    Dynamic Modal    124
5.1.    TAM    124
5.2.    Voice Marker    124
5.3.    Bound Pronoun    126
5.4.    Predicate with AV-only    126
5.5.    VP Ellipsis (VPE)    128
6.    VP Topicalization    129
7.    Syntactic Restrictions and Distributions of Modals    131
7.1.    Modals and Predicate    131
7.2.    Modals and Negation ini’ and iqaat    133
7.2.1.    Propositional Modal and Negation    137
7.2.2.    Deontic Modals and Negation    138
7.2.3.    Dynamic Modal and Negation    139
7.3.    Propositional, Deontic, and Dynamic Modal    140
7.3.1.    Evidential and Epistemic Modals    140
7.3.2.    Propositional and Deontic Modals    141
7.3.3.    Propositional and Dynamic Modals    142
7.4.    Modality and verbal interrogative why    143
7.4.1.    Propositional Modals and why    143
7.4.2.    Deontic Modals and why    143
7.4.3.    Dynamic Modals and why    144
7.5.    Event Modality and Topic    145
7.5.1.    Dynamic Modal and Topic    145
7.5.2.    Deontic Modals and Topic    146
7.6.    Propositional Modality and Topic    147
7.6.1.    Propositional Modals and Fronted Topic (FT)    147
7.6.2.    Propositional Modals and Left Dislocation (LD)    148
7.6.3.    Propositional Modals and Aboutness Topic (AT)    150
7.6.4.    Propositional Modals, FT, and LD    151
7.6.5.    Propositional Modals, FT, and AT    152
7.6.6.    Propositional Modals, AT, and LD    154
8.    Interim Summary    154
Chapter 6.    A’-Movement    156
1.    Absolutive Case    156
1.1.    Personal Case Marker 'i'    156
1.2.    Case Marker a’    157
1.3.    Case Marker ku'    159
1.3.1.    Simple DP    159
1.3.2.    Wh-question    160
1.3.3.    Nominalization    161
1.3.4.    Number    162
2.    Temporal Adverbial    163
3.    Other Adverbials    164
4.    Psych Verb    165
4.1.    balayq ’like’    165
4.2.    ’aqih ’hate’    166
5.    Factive Verb    167
5.1.    baq-un ’know’    167
5.2.    ’ungi’-an ’forget’    169
6.    Relative Clause    170
7.    Quantifier    171
8.    Tough Construction    172
9.    VP Topicalization    174
10.    ani Marker (Focus)    174
10.1.    Even ani    174
10.2.    Idefinite wh-word ani    175
10.2.1.    Existential Indefinite    177
10.2.2.    Universal Indefinite    180
11.    The Hierarchy between Indefinite wh-word Focus and Other Topic    184
12.    The Hierarchy between ani DP and Deontic Modals    186
13.    Inerim Summary    187
Chapter 7.    Base-generation    189
1.    Introduction    189
2.    nia’ in Mayrinax Atayal    189
2.1.    Ergative Case vs. Third-Person Pronominal    189
2.2.    Resumptive pronoun vs. Genitive Case    190
2.3.    Additional Linkers ku' and ka'    193
3.    Resumptive Pronoun in Mayrinax Atayal    195
3.1.    Ergative Case    195
3.1.1.    Ergative Argument    195
3.1.2.    Ergative Argument within Relative Clause    196
3.2.    Epithet    197
3.3.    The Whole-part Topic (WPT)    198
3.4.    The Possessive Topic (PT)    198
3.5.    Interim Summary    200
4.    Indefinite Wh-word (Focus)    200
5.    Relative Clause    201
6.    Other Topic    202
7.    Island Constraint    204
7.1.    The Absolutive Case Marker ku’ and ’i’    204
7.2.    The Absolutive Case Marker a’    207
8.    The Hierarchy between Discourse Topic    209
Chapter 8.    On the Syntax of Topic in Mayrinax Atayal    213
1.    Previous Studies    213
1.1.    Aldridge (2004, 2013)    213
1.2.    Potsdam (2004)    217
1.3.    Tsai (2015)    219
2.    Analysis of Topic in Mayrinax Atayal    221
2.1.    The Hierarchy of Topic    221
2.2.    Topicalization in Mayrinax Atayal    224
3.    Focalization    229
Chapter 9.    Conclusion    232
References    235


                                

Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Dissertation, Cornell University.
Aldridge, E. 2007. Minimalist analysis of ergativity. Sophia linguistica 55: 123-142.
Aldridge, E. 2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 2.5: 966-995.
Aldridge, E. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122 (2012) 192–203.
Alexiadou, Artemis 2006. Left Dislocation (including CLLD). In Everaert, Martin & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Vol. II, 668-699. Oxford: Blackwell.
Badan, Linda & Francesca Del Gobbo. 2010. On the syntax of topic and focus in Chinese. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery, 63-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bei, Tsai Li. 2014. Modal constructions in R'uyan Atayal. MA dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Beninca and Poletto 2004. Topic, Focus, and V2.
Beninca’P. 1988. L'ordine degli element della frase e le costruzioni marcate. in L. Renzi (ed.) Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Bologna: Il Mulino, vol. l, 129-194.
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656.
Chang, Henry Y. 1997. Voice, case and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. PhD dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Chang, Henry Y. and Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 2001. Actor-sensitivity and Obligatory Control in Kavalan and Some Other Formosan Languages*. Language and Linguistics.
Chang, Henry Y. 2005. “The Guest Playing Host: Adverbial Modifiers as Matrix Verbs in Kavalan,” in Hans-Martin Gartner et al., eds., Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages,Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 43-82.
Chao, Y.-R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cheng, Hui-Wen Wendy. 2015. Non-finite Clauses in Mayrinax Atayal: A view from Cartographic Approach. MA dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Chomsky, N. 1977. 'On Wh movement', in: A. Akmajian, P. Culicover and T. Wasow (eds.), Formal Syntax. Academic Press, New York, pp. 71-132.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser eds, The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, p. 1-52. Cambridge MA, MIT Press. dissertation. Los Angeles: UCLA.
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A' Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, G. 1982. Topic Construction in some European Languages and Connectedness."in K. Ehlich H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) Connectedness in Science, Text and Discourse. Tilburg: Tilburg, University, 7-14.
Culicover, Peter. 1992. Polarity, Inversion, and Focus in English, in Westphal et al. (eds), ESCOL1991, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, pp. 46-48.
Egerland. 2013. The Apropos-Topic, the Concerning-Topic & the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface.
Ernst, Thomas, and Chengchi Wang. 1995. Object Preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4:3, 235-260.
Gao, Q. 1994. Focus criterion: Evidence from Chinese. In: Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, J. Camacho and L. Choueiri (eds.), 51–73. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Guilfoyle, E., H. Hung, and L. Travis. 1992. “Spec of IP and Spec of VP: TwoSubjects in Austronesian Languages.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10: 375-424.
Gundel, Jeannette. 1977. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.
Hsiao, I-Ling Stella. 2004. Advebials in Squliq Atayal. MA Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1989. Pro drop in Chinese: A generalized control approach. In The null subject parameter, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli and Ken Safir, 185-214. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Huang, C.-T. James, Y.-H. Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Lillian M. 1995. A Study of Mayrinax Syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Huang, Lillian M. 2001. Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspective. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities and Social Science. 46. 1-2:51-69.
Huang, Lillian. M. 2002a. Nominalization in Mayrinax Atayal. Language and Linguistics, 3.2: 197-225.
Huang, Lillian. M. 2000b. Tàiyǎyǔ cānkǎo yǔfǎ (泰雅語參考語法). Taipei: Yuǎnliú Press.
Huang, Lillian. M. 2008. Tàiyǎyǔ fāngyán yánjiù (泰雅語方言研究). Project funded by the National Science Council of Taiwan (NSC 96-2144-H-158-008).
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. “Remarkable Subjects in Malagasy.” in Charles N. Li (ed.)
Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press.Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Subject and Topic: a new typology of language. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 457-489. New York: Academic Press.
Li, Y.-H. A. 2000. Topic Structures and Minimal Effort. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 20:1-20.
Lin. 2006. Interrogatives in Squliq Atayal. MA Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Liu, Dorinda Tsai-hsiu. 2011. Complementation in three Formosan languages—Amis, Mayrinax Atayal and Tsou. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai’i.
Lu, Yu-an. 2009. Quantifier stranding and reflexive stranding in Mayrinax Atayal. 25th Northwest Linguistics Conference (NWLC).
Massam, Diane. 2003. Questions and the left periphery in Niuean. In Proceeding of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Austronesia Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 9) [Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19], Anastasia Riehi and Thess Savella (eds), 94-106. Ithaca NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.
Paris, M.-C. 1998. Focus operators and types of predication in Mandarin. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie orientale 27: 139–159.
Paul, Ileana. 2000. Malagasy Clause Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.
Paul, Ileana. 2008. On the Topic of Pseudoclefts. Syntax 11:1,91-127.
Paul, W. 2005. Low IP and left periphery in Mandarin Chinese, Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, vol. 33: 111-134.
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach. PhD dissertation.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 355-426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Potsdam, Eric. 2004. Wh-Questions in Malagasy. In Proceedings of AFLA 11. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 34, ed. by Paul Law, 244-258. Berlin: Zentrum fü rAllgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the Clausal Typing Hypothesis. Lingua 116: 2154-2182.
Potsdam, Eric. 2007. Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:577-613.
Potsdam, Eric. 2009. Austronesain verb-initial languages and Wh-question strategies. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:937-771.
Riemsdijk, Henk van 1997. Left Dislocation. In: Materials on Left Dislocation. Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk C. van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts (eds.), 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rizzi, L. 1997 “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”, in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 281-337.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1999. On the Position “Int(errogative)” In the Left Periphery of the Clause. Ms. Universitá di Siena.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Ross, John R. 1986. Infinite syntax! Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Shi, Dingxu. 2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language 76: 383-408.
Shyu, S. 1995. The Syntax of Focus and Topic in Mandarin Chinese, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan.1994. On Economizing the Theory of A-Bar Dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1997a. taiwan nandaoyu yiwencide wudinyongfa – gamalanyu zouyu ji saidekeyu de bijiao yanjiu [Indefinite Wh-construals in Formosan languages: A comparative study of Kavalan, Tsou, and Seediq]. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 27.4:381–422. [In Chinese]
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 1997b. Indefinite Wh’s in Formosan Languages and Typology of Wh-Dependencies: Evidence from Seediq and Tsou, paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Taipei, Dec. 28-31.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1997c. “Indefinite Wh construals in Taiwan Austronesians—the Comparative Study on Kavalan, Tsou, and Seediq.” Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 27(4), 381-422.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. On Relativizing Adverbials. Language and Linguistics 9.4: 967-984.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Left Periphery and How-Why Alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17:83-115.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2015. Subjecthood and temporal adjunct in Atayal, Seediq, and Tsou*.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2015. On the Topography of Chinese Modals. In Beyond
Functional Sequence, ed. by Ur Shlonsky, 275-294. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wang, J. 2005. Resumptive Pronouns are not Optional.
Wei, Ting Chi. 2009. Possessor Extraction in Mandarin Chinese Revisited A pro Analysis
Wu, Chun-Ming. 2013. The Syntax of Linking Constructions in Mayrinax Atayal and Sinvaudjan Paiwan. PhD dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Yu, Xin-Xian Rex. 2008. Two types of adverbials in Mayrinax Atayal. Nanzan Linguistics: 125-137.
Yu, Xin-Xian Rex. 2015. Modals and Mood Particles in Mandarin Chinese and Mayrinax Atayal. PhD dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文