Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages

402 Pages·2014·8.17 MB·English

by  I Wayan Arka

Open Access
College of Asia and the Pacific
The Australian National University

Papers from 12-ICAL, Volume 2
I Wayan Arka and N. L. K. Mas Indrawati (eds.)
A-PL 013 / SAL 002

This volume contains twenty-two papers describing and
discussing the salient features of argument realisations in
Austronesian languages as manifested in the nominal or
verbal domain, or in both. The Austronesian languages
featuring in this volume are typologically and geographically
diverse, from those with rich morphology, as in Taiwan, to
those that are highly isolating, as in Flores. The papers also
reflect diversity in approaches and theoretical frameworks.
This volume should be of interest to Austronesianists and

typologists.
Asia-Pacific Linguistics
SAL: Studies on Austronesian Languages

EDITORIAL BOARD: I Wayan Arka, Mark Donohue, Bethwyn Evans, Nicholas Evans,
Simon Greenhill, Gwendolyn Hyslop, David Nash, Bill Palmer,
Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross, Paul Sidwell, Jane Simpson.

Published by Asia-Pacific Linguistics
College of Asia and the Pacific
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Copyright is vested with the author(s)

First published: 2014

URL: [to be completed]

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:

Title: Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages : papers
from 12-ICAL. Volume 2 / edited by I. Wayan Arka and N. L. K. Mas Indrawati.

ISBN: 9781922185129 (ebook)

Series: Asia-Pacific linguistics 013 / Studies on Austronesian languages 002

Subjects: Austronesian languages --Congresses.
Dewey Number: 499.2
Other Authors/Contributors:
Arka, I Wayan, editor.
Indrawati, Ni Luh Ketut Mas, editor.
Australian National University. Department of Linguistics. Asia-Pacific Linguistics

Cover illustration: courtesy of Vida Mastrika
Typeset by I Wayan Arka and Vida Mastrika
.
Preface and Acknowledgements

The 12th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics was held in Denpasar-
Bali in July 2012. The organisers publish a series of compilations of papers based on
specific topics, and the present volume is one of the planned four volumes containing
papers that describe and discuss argument realisations and related constructions in
Austronesian langauges. All papers have been peer-reviewed and revised before
publication.
The editors would like to thank our colleagues who happily acted as external referees
and some of the contributors who also acted as internal reviewers: Ketut Artawa, Bob
Blust, Resty Cena, Bill Davies, Lilian Huang, Marian Klamer, Amy Pei-jung Lee, Paul Li,
Hsiu-chuan Liao, Åshild Næsh, Hiroki Nomoto, Ika Nurhayani, I Wayan Pastika, Scott
Paauw, Elizabeth Pearce, Sonja Riesberg and Matt Shibatani. We also thank Paul Sidwell,
Bryce Kositz, Andrew Morrison and Vida Mastrika for their editorial help and technical
assistance in preparing the manuscript for publication.
About the Editors

I WAYAN ARKA is a Fellow at the Department of Linguistics, School of Culture,
History and Language, College of Asia and the Pacific ANU and a senior Lecturer at
Udayana University Bali (English Department and Graduate Program in Linguistics). His
interests are in descriptive, theoretical and typological aspects of Austronesian and Papuan
languages of Indonesia. His publications include, among others, books and journal articles
on Balinese, Indonesian, Rongga, and Marori. He is currently working on on Marori as
part of the ARC-funded project on the Languages of Southern New Guinea (2011-2015)
and on his Humboldt project on the languages of Flores (2012-2014).

NI LUH KETUT MAS INDRAWATI is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department
of English Faculty of Letters, Udayana University. She obtained her PhD in 2012 in
Linguistic Typology from Udayana University and her MA in Applied Linguistics in 1994
from Sydney University. Her research interests are in linguistic typology, sociolinguistics
and applied linguistics. Her publications include studies on Indonesian reduplication
(2008), the role of women in Balinese language maintenance (2008), and Balinese serial
verb constructions (2012).
Contents

1 William A. Foley 1 - 51
A comparative look at nominalizations in Austronesian

2 Lenice Harms and Angela Kluge 53 - 68
Demonstratives in Papuan Malay

3 Naomi Tsukida 69 - 79
Correlative clauses in Seediq

4 Yana Qomariana 81 - 91
Binding constraints on pronouns and reflexive pronouns in Javanese

5 James N. Collins 93 - 110
The distribution of unmarked cases in Samoan

6 Arthur Holmer and Loren Billings 111 - 139
Clitic pronouns in Seediq

7 Owen Edwards 141 - 159
How to Index a Subject in Tolaki

8 Anja Latrouite and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. 161 - 174
Event existentials in Tagalog: A Role and Reference Grammar account

9 Dorinda Tsai-Hsiu Liu 175 - 195
Neutral and Imperfective Forms in Kanakanavu

10 Resty M. Cena 197 - 212
A unified account of the Tagalog verb and adjective affix systems

11 Thomas J. Conners and Claudia M. Brugman 213 - 225
The Event Semantic Role of the Nasal Prefix in Jakarta Indonesian

12 Naonori Nagaya 227 - 245
Ditransitives and benefactives in Lamaholot

13 Stacy Wan Tin Huang 247 - 261
Tao Voice Affixes: Derivation or Inflection or Both?
14 I Nyoman Sedeng 263 - 280
Benefactives in the Sembiran Dialect of Balinese

15 Sonja Riesberg 281 - 302
Passive actors are not adjuncts – Consequences for the distinction
between symmetrical and asymmetrical voice alternations

16 Mark Miller 303 - 312
A comparative look at the major voice oppositions in
Sama-Bajaw languages and Indonesian/Malay

17 I Wayan Arka and Fay Wouk 313 - 333
Voice-related constructions in the Austronesian languages of Flores

18 Ika Nurhayani 335 - 351
Maka and the left periphery of Classical Malay

19 Ni Luh Ketut Mas Indrawati 353 - 368
The typological perspective of the Balinese serial verb constructions

20 William D. Davies 369 - 383
Describing Madurese crossed control

21 Yi-Ting Chen 385 - 399
Serial Verb Constructions in Amis

22 Paul Jen-Kuei Li 401 - 409
Conjunction in Thao

1
A comparative look at nominalizations
in Austronesian

WILLIAM A. FOLEY
1 Introduction
Nominalizations are a major site of morphological derivational processes in many
languages. Within theoretical linguistics they have been a major focus of analytical
contention, in fact their proper analysis being the topic of a major paper by Chomsky
(1970), which in turn spawned lexicalist formal theories and indirectly the rivalry between
unificational parallel architecture lexicalist theories and procedural serial derivational non-
lexicalist theories which so dominates the theoretical landscape of linguistics today
(Culicover and Jackendoff 2005; Jackendoff 2007, 2011). Within the more parochial
confines of Austronesian linguistics, they play the central role in certain accounts of how
the typologically unusual voice systems of Philippine and Formosan languages have
evolved (Tuuk 1971 [1864-7]; Capell 1964; Starosta,Pawley and Reid 1982; Kaufman
2009). Yet surprisingly, other than Moyse-Faurie’s (2007) discussion of Oceanic
languages, little comparative attention has been paid to the syntax of nominalizations
within Austronesian. This paper seeks to remedy that gap in a small way by a comparative
look at nominalizations in Tolai, of the Oceanic subgroup and spoken in New Britain, Mori
Bawah, of the Bungku-Tolaki subgroup of eastern Sulawesi, and Puyuma of Taiwan,
argued by Ross (2009) to be a primary first order subgroup of Austronesian. Obviously,
with three languages we cannot hope to arrive at a complete and definitive statement of the
syntax of nominalizations across Austronesian, but, as these three languages belong to
different subgroups, are widely scattered geographically and exhibit significant typological
diversity, such an approach should provide us at least with a preliminary understanding of
the typological similarities and differences in nominalizations across Austronesian. None
of these three languages were included in Moyse-Faurie’s survey, so a comparison of our
results with hers will further enrich our understanding of the parameters of variation.
Fundamentally, nominalizations across the Austronesian languages fall into two types,
what I will call here D-nominalizations and M-nominalizations (see Moyse-Faurie 2007).
D-nominalizations are formed by simply taking a finite verb with or without its arguments
and placing it as a complement of a D head in a DP, as in these Trukese examples
(Goodenough and Sugita 1980):

(1) (a) wú-se wúkkún suupwa
1SG-don’t smoke cigarettes
‘I don’t smoke cigarettes’

Asia-Pacific Linguistics, 2014.
Copyright held by the authors, released under Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0) 1
2 William A. Foley
(b) meyi ngngaw ewe wúkkún suupwa
COP bad D.INVIS smoke cigarettes
‘smoking cigarettes is bad’

While M-nominalizations are done morphologically (hence the M-) by adding an overt
derivational affix of nominalization to the verb (with perhaps other morphological effects
such as reduplication), as in Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972):

(2) (a) nag-salita si Juan sa klase
AV-speak NOM.PRP John OBL class
‘John spoke in class’

(b) pag-sa-salita ni Juan sa klase
NOMZ-RED-speak GEN.PRP John OBL class
‘John’s speaking in class’

The analyses proposed in this paper will be cast in the framework of Lexical-Functional
Grammar (Bresnan 2001), and, in particular, in its head sharing analysis of the mixed
category structure of many nominalizations in the languages of the world. First, we need,
following the important insight of Chomsky (1970), to distinguish between
nominalizations which are formed by non-productive, clearly lexically stipulated formal
correspondences and those derived by productive morphological rule based processes. In
the latter case, the derivational rules and their inputs will still be stipulated in the lexicon,
but not their outputs, as they are productively generated by the rules, while in the former,
the derived nominal themselves also need to be stated in the lexicon. This contrast is easy
to illustrate in English with the nominals derived from a verb like destroy, i.e. destruction
versus destroying. Consider the following well known examples:

(3) (a) the army’s destruction of the city
(b) the army’s destroying of the city

The former is a lexically stipulated, morphologically unproductively derived noun from
destroy, while the latter is productively derived from the same verb by a lexical
derivational rule via the nominalizing affix –ing. In both of these cases, however, the
derived words are clearly nouns, as demonstrated by the fact that they both collocate with
modifying adjectives:

(4) (a) the army’s wanton destruction of the city
(b) the army’s wanton destroying of the city

and comprise the heads of their respective NPs (Bresnan 2001:290-291):
A comparative look at nominalizations in Austronesian 3
DP
(5)

DP D’

NP
The army’s

AP NP

N PP

wanton destruction of the city
destroying

This is a straightforward NP structure of the type we would find with basic underived
nouns, as in (6):

(6) the teacher’s long lost book of linear equations

However, (4b) contrasts with a different structure where the nominalized verb’s
complement does not appear in a PP, the choice for complements of noun heads, but as a
bare DP like the complement direct objects of verbs; note that this structure is not available
for the lexically stipulated derived noun, destruction, nor can it be modified by adjectives,
but requires an adverbial modifier instead:

(7) (a) the army’s destroying the city
(b) *the army’s destruction the city
(c) *the army’s wanton destroying the city
(d) the army’s wantonly destroying the city

Such nominalizations are the classic mixed nominalization constructions (Lefebvre and
Muysken 1988; Malouf 2000); the syntax of these structures is NP-like, taking a
possessive specifier within the dominating DP, but VP-like in that the complement of the
nominalized verb is realized as a direct object (and with overt accusative case if
pronominal). This indicates that the verb does not entirely cede its lexical properties in the
process of nominalization; in particular, its subcategorization for an object grammatical
relation remains, and, due to the constraints of completeness and coherence, must be
specified. It is this which allows syntactic structures for destroying which are prohibited
for destruction; these verbal property retaining nominalizations in English are restricted to
the former type. As generally in Lexical-Functional Grammar, the modules of constituent
structure and functional structure, in this case, subcategorization for grammatical relations,
must be distinguished. This is handled in these English gerund nominalization
constructions by embedding a VP directly under the DP (Bresnan 2001: 292):
4 William A. Foley

(8) DP

DP D’

the army’s VP

AdvP VP

wantonly V NP
<OBJ>

destroying the city
<SUBJ,OBJ>

The base verb destroy is, of course, transitive, and by completeness and coherence
requires both its subject and object functions to be satisfied. The object function is
satisfied straightforwardly by being a complement, a phrase structure sister, of the V node,
but the subject function needs to be satisfied by a rule which states: identify the subject
function of a verb derived into a gerund by –ing with the POSS specifier function of the
dominating DP (Bresnan 2001:294):

(9) V (gerund) ⇒ (↑POSS) = (↑SUBJ)

It is not always the case that the difference between lexically stipulated nominalizations
and productively derived ones is indicated formally, as with destruction and destroy.
Consider painting:

(10) (a) Leonardo’s painting of the Mona Lisa
(b) Leonardo’s painting the Mona Lisa

Here the formal markings are the same. But note a crucial ambiguity in (10a), not
present in (10b); painting in (10a) can refer to the actual physical object, framed and now
hanging in the Louvre or the event of the painting itself, but, excluding the appositional
reading, (10b) only has the latter reading. This specialized meaning of (10a) in referring to
the resulting object from the event is clearly a lexical stipulation, and the item must be
listed as such in the lexicon, just like destruction. Thus, while non-productive forms
always correspond to lexically stipulated items, productive forms may or may not. This
pattern also correlates with a contrast noticed by Grimshaw (1990). She notes a difference
between result nominals, which have no argument structure, i.e no semantically required
nominal participants, and event nominals, which may. The simple nominalization
Leonardo’s painting illustrates this well. In the result reading it denotes the object, e.g. the
framed work hanging in the Louvre, which comes into existence as a result of the event;
clearly no participants are semantically entailed by such a word, a painting. But in the
event reading (or related manner readings, i.e, Leonardo’s style of painting), clearly
Leonardo as the agent carrying out the event is entailed. A similar contrast obtains with