泰雅語施用結構之研究｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	陳思瑋 Sih-Wei Chen
論文名稱：	泰雅語施用結構之研究 Applicative Constructions in Atayal
指導教授：	蔡維天 Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai
口試委員:
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：	2007
畢業學年度：	95
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	121
中文關鍵詞：	泰雅語、施用標記、施用結構、語態、論元結構、處所語態、受惠/工具語態
外文關鍵詞：	Atayal, Applicative Marker, Applicative Construction, Voice, Argument Structure, Locative Voice, Beneficial/Instrumental Voice
相關次數：	點閱：2 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

本篇論文旨在討論泰雅語中的兩種施用詞組，確立施用結構在句法上的高低位置以及論元結構的安排。
事實上，在台灣南島語和菲律賓類型的語言中，語態構詞本身就包含論元的引介與選擇受事者為主語(或焦點)的功能；而Shibatani (2005)也觀察到部分南島語言中施用標記有逐漸和語態構詞分工的現象；這些都暗示我們有必要考慮施用詞組的地位。Rackowski (2002)就採用施用結構來重析Tagalog 的論元結構，但他是在語態之下另外假設一個沒有語音形式的施用中心語以及其投射，而將語態分析成是反應論元位置的格位對協；但是我發現這樣的看法無法解釋泰雅語的現象，有些語態的確容許原本應該提升至主語位置的對應論元留在直接賓語的位置─即典型非典論元所出現的位置。另一方面，基於語態之間有許多功能、語意以及構詞句法上的不對稱，我嘗試重新劃分傳統上四分的語態系統，將語態詞綴和施用標記分開，認為二分的語態系統比較合適(參見Starosta 1986, Ross 2006 and Wu 2007)，即分成主事語態與受事語態兩大類，在受事語態之下則有兩種施用標記，分別是-an (即原本的PV)和s(i)- (即原本的I/BV)。
奠基於前人對施用結構的研究(尤其Marantz 1993, Pylkkänen 2002 and McGinnis 2001)，我認為這這兩種施用標記在句法上有各自或高或低的投射，分別反映在它們所引介的論元角色，以及論元在事件層次上的分派。施用標記除了引介動詞論元結構之外的非典論元，還可以幫忙引介論元結構中所需的必要論元，這也是Pylkkänen (2002)所謂高階施用詞組與低階施用詞組的差別。
以施用標記-an為中心語的施用詞組可有三層不同的位置：最低的一層位於動詞組之下，用以引介雙賓句式的來源/目地論元，或是存在句中的處所論元；最高的一層位於輕動詞組之上，引介事件發生的地點、受事件影響的蒙受者，或心理層面的感知者。並且可能還有一層居中的施用詞組，引介既與論旨/受事有關又涉及事件層次的「持有蒙受者」。另一方面，以施用標記s(i)-為中心語的施用詞組目前結果也得到至少有兩層高低的分別：較低的一層是引介雙賓句或使動處所句中的「位移論旨」，但和施用標記-an為中心語的低階施用詞組不同，雖然同樣引介雙賓動詞的論元，前者語意為AT，而後者為HAVE；較高的一層能引介的論元相當豐富，包括工具、受惠者、蒙受者和原因等等，這些論元的區別則是由謂語類型以及使事性來決定。
研究結果發現，雖然兩個施用詞組都有自己各自的階層分佈，但是-an在低階的論元較為豐富，而s(i)-偏向引介非典論元。施用結構的建立，為泰雅語中論元和語態的對應關係提供一個較完善的解釋並減輕語態的負擔。

This thesis aims to provide an explanation for the mapping between arguments and voice markers of Atayal from a stance of the applicative structure.
In Formosan and Philippine-type languages, it is believed that some voices in their function combine applicativization and undergoer selection effect. Besides, Shibatani (2005) observes that the applicatives decouple from the voice morphology in Austronesian. However, I find that the Rackowski’s (2002) pioneering work of Tagalog applicative structure, which still treats voice affixes as equally case agreements on the verb, cannot reflect the fact of Atayal that subject raising does not all conform to the voice morphology. Here I look into Atayal, and suggest a dichotomy between voice and applicative heads for the former voice affixes. Based on both functional and morphosyntactic asymmetries among the four voice affixes of Atayal─AV, PV, LV and I/BV, they are reanalyzed as two voices─AV on one hand and NAV with two applicative heads on the other (Starosta 1986, Ross 2006 and Wu 2007).
The two applicative heads recognized in this study are the suffix -an and the prefix s(i)-. Following the research on the applicative structure (Marantz 1993, Pylkkänen 2002 and McGinnis 2001 among others), I further identify different projections for the two applicatives in terms of their semantic and syntactic restrictions. The applicative structures can lighten the burden of voices and reconcile the argument configurations.
The applicative head -an has three different projections. The low one is merged below VP, which complements the argument structure of the verb by introducing goal/source or location. The high one is merged above vP, which relates location/goal, affectee or percept to the event of the verb. In particular, the middle applicative head –an is hypothesized when the “possessor affectee” involving both the event itself and the inner of the event is discovered. On the other hand, the applicative head s(i)- has two projections at least. The ‘transported theme’ sports the lower applicative head s(i)-, and the low applicatives s(i)- and –an parallel a dative alternation. In addition, a variety of thematic roles (including instrument, beneficiary/malefactor, affectee and reason etc.), determined by predicate type and agentivity, dominates the high applicative s(i)-.
The study shows that the applicative -an and s(i)- have their own spectrum respectively but divide the labors of (extra-)argumentality into two directions─-an is lower and s(i)- is higher.

Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………i
English Abstract………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………iii
List of Abbreviations………………………………………………iv
List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………v
Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………1
1 An Overview…………………………………………………………1
2 A Sketch of Atayal Grammar……………………………………3
2.1 General Background……………………………………………3
2.2 Phonemic Inventory……………………………………………4
2.3 Word Order………………………………………………………5
2.4 Case-marking System……………………………………………7
2.5 Pronominal System……………………………………………11
2.6 Voice System……………………………………………………13
2.7 Summary…………………………………………………………17
Chapter 2 Two-Voice System…………………………………………18
0 Introduction………………………………………………………18
1 The Inadequacies of Four-voice System……………………19
1.1 Mapping Problems………………………………………………20
1.2 Asymmetries in Voices………………………………………24
2 Two Applicatives…………………………………………………26
2.1LV –an and B/IV s(i)- Function as Applicatives………26
2.2 PV vs. LV, B/IV………………………………………………28
3 Two Voices…………………………………………………………30
3.1 Function of Voice……………………………………………30
3.2 Morphosyntactic Differences between Voice and Applicative……………………………………………………………33
3.3 Syntactic Differences between Voice and Applicative……………………………………………………………35
4 The Architecture of Two-Voice System………………………36
4.1 Dichotomy between Voice and Applicative………………36
4.2 Theoretical Assumptions……………………………………39
Chapter 3 Literature Review………………………………………41
1 Introducing Applicatives………………………………………41
2 Applicative (A)Symmetry………………………………………42
3 The Applicative Head……………………………………………45
3.1 Marantz (1993) ………………………………………………45
3.2 Pylkkänen (2000, 2002) ……………………………………47
4 Previous Approaches to A-movement…………………………49
4.1 Locality-based Analysis……………………………………50
4.2 Phase-based analysis…………………………………………51
5 The Problem of Austronesian Applicatives…………………52
6 Applicative Construction in Tagalog………………………53
Chapter 4 Lower Applicatives -an…………………………………56
0 Introduction………………………………………………………56
1 The Distribution of Recipient/Source………………………56
1.1 No Double Accusative Objects in AV………………………58
1.2 Dative Goal as Adjunct………………………………………59
1.3 Nominative Goal as Applicative Argument………………62
2 Low Applicatives…………………………………………………65
2.1 To and From……………………………………………………65
2.2 AT…………………………………………………………………70
3 Middle Applicatives……………………………………………71
3.1 Introducing Possessor Affectee……………………………71
3.2 Predicate Types………………………………………………74
3.3 Anti-low Applicatives………………………………………76
3.4 Middle Applicative Projection……………………………77
4 High Applicatives………………………………………………79
4.1 Location/Goal………………………………………………79
4.2 Percept…………………………………………………………81
4.3 Affectee…………………………………………………………82
5 Summary……………………………………………………………84
Chapter 5 Higher Applicatives s(i)-……………………………86
0 Introduction………………………………………………………86
1 Exceptional Low Applicatives…………………………………86
1.1 ‘Transported Theme’ in S. Huang (2005) ……………88
1.2 Dative Construction…………………………………………89
1.3 Dative Alternation……………………………………………92
1.3.1 C-command Asymmetry………………………………………94
1.3.2 Animacy Restriction………………………………………95
1.3.3 Optionality…………………………………………………97
2 High Applicatives………………………………………………97
2.1 Thematic Roles…………………………………………………98
2.1.1 Instrument and Beneficiary………………………………98
2.1.2 Beneficiary and Malefactor………………………………99
2.1.3 Affectee……………………………………………………100
2.1.4 Malefactor and Reason……………………………………102
2.2 Arguments for High Applicative Head……………………103
2.2.1 Transitivity Restriction………………………………104
2.2.2 A-movement…………………………………………………105
2.2.3 No Possession Relation…………………………………106
3 Ambiguity of s(i)- between ’Instead of’ and Benefactive……………………………………………………………108
4 Extra-High Applicatives? ……………………………………109
5 Summary……………………………………………………………112
Chapter 6 Conclusion………………………………………………114
References……………………………………………………………116

                                

Alsina, Alex and Sam Mchombo. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chichewa applicative construction, In Mchombo, S. ed., Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar. CSLI Publications
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from Clitics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 17: 347-354.
Bresnan, Joan. 1978. A realistic transformational grammar. In Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, ed. by Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan and George A. Miller. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1–59.
Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu
syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 21:147-185.
Chang, Henry Yung-li. 2004. AF verbs: transitive, intransitive or
both? Studies on Sini-Tibetan Languages, 95-119.
Chang, Henry Yung-li. 1997. Voice, Case and Agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Ph.D. Dissertation. Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University.
Chang, Melody Ya-Yin. 2004. Subjecthood in Tsou grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation. Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University.
Cheng, Ju-Chang. 2001. A Phonological Perspective of phonetic Symbolic System of Atayal: The Case of Tausan. MA Theses. NHCTC. Taiwan. [in Chinese]
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka eds., Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz & K. Hale eds., A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Croft, William A. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R Dirven and K. Panther eds., Motivation in language: studies in honour of Günter Radden, 49-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Egerod, S ren. 1980. Atayal-English Dictionary. (= Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Monograph Series No. 35). London: Curzon Press.
French, Koleen Matsuda. 1988. The focus system in Philippine languages: an historical overview. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 18. 2 & 19. 1: 1-27.
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2, 29-68.
Hole, Daniel. 2005a. Extra argumentality – a binding account of “possessor raising” in German, English and Mandarin. In Ji-Yung Kim, Barbara H. Partee and Yury A. Lander ed., Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, 365–383. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Hole, Daniel. 2005b. Reconciling “possessor” datives and “beneficiary” datives – towards a unified voice account of dative binding in German. In Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllstein-Leisten ed., Event Arguments in Syntax, Semantics and Discourse, Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hsiao, Yi-Ling. 2004. Adverbials in Squliq Atayal. MA Theses. NTHU. Taiwan.
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 1993. A Study of Atayal Syntax. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 1995a. A Study of Mayrinax Syntax. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 1995b. The syntactic structure of Wulai and Mayrinax Atayal: a comparison. Journal of Taiwan Normal University, 40: 261-293.
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 1996. A syntactic and semantic study of –ay, -aw and –anay in Mayrinax Atayal. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 22: 15-36.
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 2000a. A reference grammar of Atayal. Taipei: Yuanliou. [in Chinese]
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 2000b. Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics, 39.2: 364-390.
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 2001. Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspective. Journal of Taiwan Normal University, 46: 51-69.
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 2006. Manifestations of participants in Atayal: a cross-dialectal study. Handout from paper presented at 10th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (ICAL-10). January 17-20. Palawan, Philippines.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2005. Split O in Formosan languages─a localist interpretation. Language and Linguistics, 6.4: 783-806.
Huang, Shuanfan and Huang, Huei-ju. 2005. Causative and applicative: their split and syncretism in Formosan languages. Paper presented at the Taiwan-Japan Workshop on Austronesian Languages, June 24-25, Taipei.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jeong, Youngmi. 2006. The landscape of applicatives. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Kratzer, Angelika.1996. Sevenng the external argument from its verb. In J.Rooryck & L.Zaring, ed., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: CSLI.
Kroeger, Paul R. 1996. The morphology of affectedness in Kimaragang Dusun. In Hein Steinhauer, ed., Papers in Austronesian linguistics, 3: 33–50. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 335–392.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1980. The phonological rules of Atayal dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 51.2: 349-405. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1995a. Formosan vs. non-Formosan features in some Austronesian languages in Taiwan. In Paul Jen-kuei Li et al., ed., Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, 651-681. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1995b. The case-marking system in Mayrinax, Atayal. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 66.1: 23-52. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1998. The dialectal differences in Atayal in I-Lan. In Suan-fan Huang, ed., Selected Papers from the Second International Synmposium on Languages in Taiwan, 49-78. Taipei: The Crane.
Lin, Chiao-Chun. 2005. Interrogatives in Squliq Atayal. MA Theses. NTHU. Taiwan.
Liu, Kun-Lung. 2004. On relativization in Squliq Atayal. MA Theses. NTHU. Taiwan.
Mabugu, Patricia. 2000. Accommodating recalcitrant data within an analysis of
Chishona applicatives. Paper presented at the Edinburgh postgraduate conference.
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object construction. In S. Mchombo ed., Theoretical Aspect of Bantu Grammar, 113-150. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try a morphological analysis in the privacy of you own lexicon. U. Penn working papers in linguistics, 4.2: 201-25.
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
McGinnis, Martha. 2000. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In Min-Joo Kim & Uri Strauss ed., Proceedings of NELS 31, 333-349. GLSA Publications: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. In P. Pica & J. Rooryck ed., Linguistic Variations Yearbook, 101-142. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Mei, Kuan. 1994. Taiyayu (wenshui fangyan) de yuxu, gewei han jiaosi duixie (Word
order, case, and theta-agreement in Mayrinax Atayal), in the Proceeding of the
first Symposium on Austronesian Languages of Taiwan, 268-381.
Taipei: Academic Sinica. [in Chinese]
Ngonyani, Deo, and Peter Githinji. 2006. The asymmetric nature of Bantu applicative constructions. Lingua 116, 1: 31-63.
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammar of the English dative alternation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Department of Linguistics Ph.D. Dissertation.
Ogawa, Naoyoshi and Asai, Erin.1935. The Myths and Traditions of the Formosan Native Tribes. Taihoku: Taihoku Teikoku Daigaku Gengo-gaku Kenkyu-shitsu. [in Japanese]
Payne, Thomas E. 1994. The pragmatics of voice in a Philippine language: actor-focus and goal-focus constructions in Cebuano narrative. In Talmy Givon, ed., Voice and inversion, 317–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: a guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach. UCLA Dissertations in Linguistics 21. UCLA Linguistics Department.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. What applicative heads apply to. In Minnick, M., A. Williams and E. Kaiser eds., Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics, 7.1.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry, 36:565-599.
Rau, Der-Hwa. V. 1992. A grammar of Atayal. Taipei: Crane.
Ross, Malcolm D. 2002. The history and transitivity of Western Austronesian voice and voice marking. In F. Wouk and M.D. Ross eds., 17-62.
Ross, Malcolm D. and Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2005. Formosan languages and linguistic typology. Language and Linguistics, 6:739-781.
Ross, Malcolm D. 2006. The argument structure of undergoer voice. Paper presented at AFLA 13, 24-26 March, Hsinchu.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2005. The attrition of the Austronesian focus system. In ed., Proceedings of the Taiwan-Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages, 1-18. Paper presented at Taiwan-Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages, 23-24 June, Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Starosta, Stanley. 1986. Focus as recentralisation. In Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington, and S.A. Wurm, ed., FOCAL I: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 73-95. Canberra: Australian National University.
Starosta, Stanley. 1997. Formosan clause structure: Transitivity, ergativity, and case marking. In Chinese Languages and Linguistics IV: Typological studies of languages in China. Symposium series of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 2. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Su, Mei-Juan. 2004. Negation in Taoshan Atayal. MA Theses. NHCTC. Taiwan. [in Chinese]
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2005. Grammatical relations in Puyuma. In I Wayan Arka and Malcolm Ross, ed., The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: some new empirical studies, 137-151. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Travis, Lisa. 2001. Derived objects in Malagasy. In W. D. Davies and S. Dubinsky ed., Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories and configurationality, 123-155. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999. The Hows of Why and the Whys of How. In Francesca Del Gobbo. and Hidehito Hoshi eds., UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 155-184.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2005. Left periphery and how-why alternations. Paper presented in the 5th Asian GLOW, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India, October.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2007. Four types of affective constructions in Chinese. Paper.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1976. Reconstruction of proto-Tsouic phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple Feature-Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.
Wolff, John U. 1996. The development of the passive verb with pronominal prefix in Western Austronesian languages. In B. Nothofer ed., Reconstruction, classification, description – festschrift in honor of Isidore Dyen, 15-40. Hamburg: Abera-Verlag.
Wu, Joy. 2007. “Voice” markers in Amis: a role and reference grammar analysis. Language and Linguistics, 8.1: 95-142.
Yeh, Marie M. 2003. A syntactic and semantic study of Saisiyat verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate Institute of English, National Taiwan Normal University.
Yeh, Yu-ting. & Huang, Shuanfan. 2006. Transitivity and Ergativity in Squliq Atayal Reexamined. Paper presented at Tenth International Conference on
Austronesian Linguistics, 17-20 January, Puerto Princesa City.
Zeller, Jochen, and Jean Paul Ngoboka. 2006. Kinyarwanda locative applicatives and the Minimal Link Condition. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 24: 101-124.

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