本篇論文主要探討賽夏語的及物性和作格性，進一步從形式語法的角度來討論賽夏語的基本及物句結構和衍生過程，並提出三個論點。首先，除了詞綴-om-之外， -en和Si-接在動詞上時，此時的句子在句法上可以有及物性的表現。其次，作為一個分裂作格（split-ergative）的語言，賽夏語在構詞上同時採用受格模式（accusative pattern）和作格模式(ergative pattern)來標記格位，但在句法運作上，例如並列縮寫結構(conjunction reduction)，賽夏語只有作格模式。此外，賽夏語的分裂條件決定於輕動詞(light verb)，而非Dixon (1994)歸納出的四種分裂條件。當動詞標記詞綴-om-時，賽夏語的格位標記採用受格模式；相反地，當動詞不是標記詞綴-om-時，此時的格位標記採用作格模式或受格與作格混合模式。最後，賽夏語有五種會產生在同一個句子中，格位標記為受格模式與作格模式並存的情況，而這五種情況的共通點有二，其一，句子為雙賓語結構；其二，動詞非以詞綴-om-為標記。
In the context of an analysis of grammatical patterns in Saisiyat, this thesis presents evidence for three claims concerning transitivity and ergativity from a formal perspective. First, en-formed clauses and Si-formed clauses can demonstrate morphosyntactic transitivity in addition to om-formed clauses. Second, as a split-ergative language, Saisiyat has both ergative pattern and accusative pattern in morphology to grammatically code arguments, but only ergative pattern in syntactic processes, such as conjunction reduction. The split condition rests on the light verbs, i.e., the transitivity markers, rather than the four split conditions generalized by Dixon (1994). When -om- attaches to verb, Saisiyat will adopt accusative pattern in case marking, while the grammatical pattern will operate on ergative patterns when verbs are not affixed with -om-. In addition, the accusative-ergative mix pattern will also appear in case marking when verbs are affixed with –en and/or Si- but not –om-. Third, there are five situations for Saisiyat to display a coexistence of ergative pattern and accusative pattern for three different arguments in a single clause, and these five situations share two characteristics in common—i) the clause involves three different arguments and ii) the verb is not affixed with -om-.

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ph. D. dissertation. Cornell University.
───. 2008a. Minimalist analysis of ergativity. Sophia Linguistica 55:123-142.
───. 2008b. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118:1440-1469.
───. To appear in Lingua. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog.
───. Forthcoming. Antipassive in Austronesian alignment change. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, ed. by Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, Andrew Garrett. Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chang, Henry Y.-L. 1997. Voice, case and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Ph.D. dissertation. National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
───. 2004. AF verbs: transitive, intransitive, or both? In Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-Cherng Gong on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Lin et al, Language and Linguistics monograph series number 4, 95-120. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
───. 2006. The guest playing host: adverbial modifiers as matrix verbs in Kavalan. In Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages, ed. by Hans-Martin Gaertner et al, 43-82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
───. 2007. On the syntax of Formosan adverbial verb constructions. Paper presented at Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
───. 2008. On missing object in Tsou. Paper presented at National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan, November 27.
───. 2011. Ergativity, transitivity, and the status of O in Tsou. Festschrift in Honor of Professor James. H.-Y. Tai, ed. by Jung-hsing Chang. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Chang, Melody Y. 2004. Subjecthood in Tsou grammar. Doctorial dissertation. National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Chang, Henry Y. and Tsai, Dylan W.-T. 2001. Actor-sensitivity and obligatory control in Kavalan and some other Formosan languages. Language and Linguistics 2(1): 1-20.
Chen, Sih-wei. 2007. Applicative constructions in Atayal. MA thesis. National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Chiang, Fan-mei. 2005. The study of prosody in Saisiyat. MA thesis. National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
Chiang, Shih-yin. 2011. Applicative constructions in Saisiyat. Paper presented at the Workshop on Austronesian Languages. April 23, 2011, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiry. In Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin et al, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
───. 2001a. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
───. 2001b. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.
Chou, Marc Y.-M. 2008. Left periphery and wh-questions in Saisiyat. MA thesis. National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann, 329-394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
───. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Craig, Colette. 1977. The Structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Croft, William. 1998. Event structure and argument linking. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Syntactic Constraints, ed. by M. Butt and W. Geuder, 26-63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Deng, Wan-zhen. 2007. Toward a unified analysis of consonant loss and its related phenomena in Saisiyat. MA thesis. National Tsing Huan University, Taiwan.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 20, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics No. 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
───. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55 (1): 59-138.
───. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics No. 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
───. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 2000. Introduction. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, ed. by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 1-29. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:547-619.
England, Nora C. 1983. Ergativity in Maean (Mayan) languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 19:1-19.
French, Koleen Matsuda. 1988. The focus system in Philippine languages: an historical overview. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 18.2 &19.1:1-27.
Gau, Tsing-jiu. 2008. A Morphological and Semantic Study on Word Formation in SaySiyat. MA thesis. National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan.
Givon, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction, Vol I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
───. 2001. Syntax I-II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harbert, Wayne ad Almeida Toribio. 1991. Nominative objects. Cornell working papers in Linguistics 9:127-192.
Himmelman, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: an update. In The History and Typology of Western Austronesian voice systems, eds. by Fay Wouk and Malcom Ross, 7-16. Canberra: Pacific Linguistic.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56 (2): 251-299.
Hsieh, Fan-yi. 2007. Saisiyat Phonology: with special reference to vowel variations. MA thesis. National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Hsieh Fhui and Huang Shuanfan. 2006. The pragmatics of case marking in Saisiyat. Oceanic Linguistic 45 (1): 91-109.
Hsieh Fuhui. 2007. Language of Emotion and Thinking in Kavalan and Saisiyat. Doctorial dissertation. National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
Huang, Huei-Ju. 2003. The Tense, Aspect and Reality in Tsou and Saisiyat. MA thesis. National Taiwan University. Taiwan.
Huang, Lillian M.-C. 1994. Ergativity in Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 33 (1): 129-143.
───. 1995. A Study of Mayrinax Syntax. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, Shu-pin. 2008. Analysis of Polysemy and Its Applications to Corpus Documentation: A Study Based on Saisiyat. Doctorial dissertation. National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
Keen, Edward L. and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1): 63-99.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li. New York: Academic Press.
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford: CSLI Press.
Laughren, Mary. 1989. The configurationality parameter and Warlpiri. In Configurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries, ed. by Laszlo Maracz and Pieter Muysken, 319-366. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
───. 1992. Secondary Predication as a diagnostic of underlying structure in Pama-Nyungan languages. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, ed. by I. M. Roca, 199-246. Berlin: Foris Publications.
Lee, Terry T.-W. 2010. On relative clause constructions in Saisiyat. MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Legate, Julie. 2002. Warlpiri: theoretical implications. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.
───. 2006. Split absolutive. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed. by Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 143-171. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge University Press.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1978a. A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 49.2: 133-199.
───.1978b. The case-marking systems of the four less known Formosan languages. Papers presented at the Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, January 4-11, 1978, Canberra.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2004. Transitivity and ergativity in Formosan and Philippine languages. Ph.D. dissertation. Hawai’i University.
Lin, K. C. J. 2009. Exploring applicatives in Rukai. USTWPL, 5, 73-88.
Lin, Tze-min. 2005. Automatic Processing of Languages with Small-Scaled Corpus: Part-of-Speech Tagging and Partial Parsing SaiSiyat and Applications. MA thesis. National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1989. Agreement and Agreement Projects. In Functional Heads and Clause Structure, ed. by I. Laka and A. Mahajan, 217-252. MIT working papers in linguistics 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Dissertation in Linguistics. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1, ed. by Sam Mchombo, 113-151. Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.
McCloskey, James. 1997. Subjecthood and subject position. In Elements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 197-235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67 (3): 510-546.
Payne, Thomas E. 1982. Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language 6 (1):75-106.
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Gide for Field Linguistics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A’-element. Natural language and linguistic theory 23:381-457.
Pearson, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Pylkannen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments. Doctorial dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Reid, Lawrence A. and Hsiu-chuan Liao. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics 5 (2): 433-490.
Ross, Malcolm D. 1995. Reconstructing Proto Austronesian Verbal Morphology: Evidence from Taiwan. Papers from the International Symposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Academia Sinica.
Ross, Malcolm D. and Stacy Fang-cing Teng. 2005. Formosan languages and linguistic typology. Language and Linguistics 6 (4): 739-781.
Sag, Ivan A., Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow, and Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Neutral Language and Linguistics 3.2:117-171.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 491-518. New York: Academic Press.
Shibatani, Masayohsi. 1988. Voice in Philippine languages. In Passive and Voice, Typological studies in Language, 16, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 85-142. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Song, Li-shing. 2008. Comparative constructions in Saisiyat. MA thesis. National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2005. Grammatical relations in Puyuma. In The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies, ed. by I Wayan Arka and Malcolm Ross, 137-151. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Urban, Greg. 1985. Ergativity and Accusativity in Shokleng (Ge). International Journal of American Linguistics, 51 (2): 164-187.
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case system: ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11:679-728.
───. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1):111-130.
Wu, Hsiao-Ching. 2003. Spatial Conceptualizations in Tsou and Saisiyat. MA thesis. National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
Yeh, M.-L. 1991. Saisiyat Structure. MA Thesis, Hsinchu: Tsing Hua University.
───. 1995a. Focus and case marking system in Saisiyat. Papers From the First International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, 29-58. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Ltd.
───. 1995b. A preliminary report on tense and aspect in Saisiyat (in Chinese). Papers on Formosan Languages, ed. by Paul, J.-K. and Ying-jin Lin, 347-386. Education Research Committee, Ministry of Education.
───.2000. The Reference Grammar of Saisiyat (in Chinese). Formosan language series. No. 2. Taipei: Yuan-liou Publishing Company.
───. 2003. A syntactic and semantic study of Saisiyat verb. Doctorial dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.