UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title Comparative Syntax in Austronesian Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9cw8s190 Author Foley, William Publication Date 1976 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Comparative Syntax in Austronesian By William Auguste Foley A.B. (Brown University) 1971 M.A. (Uni vers Hy of California) 197.3 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Li ngui sti cs in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Approved: Committee in Charge DEGREE CONFER^!') ";?!E l% 1975 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acknowle dgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the patient help of my informants, Maria Kmedrang Reynolds for Palauan and Teresita Zaragosa for Tagalog. I wish to express my gratitude to them. I wish to thank the chairman of my committee, Charles Fillmore, for bearing my continuous state of frenzy during the writing of this dissertation and for his constructive comments and criticism , as well as the other members of my committee, Jesse Sawyer and Larry Hyman, for their help and encouragement. I also wish to thank my many friends at Berkeley for their feedback on many of the ideas con tained in this dissertation, especially Robert Van Valin for many conversations lasting until 3 a.m. during which much of this dissertation was conceived. It is difficult to adequately convey the great debt I owe to Professor Alton L. Becker of the University of Michigan. As my primary intellectual mentor his influence is evident throughout this work. Finally, I wish to express my deep gratitude to Victor Girard, who typed the final copy at a last minute's notice and did a splendid job. i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abbreviations 1 first person E Experiencer 2 second person erg ergative 3 third person excl exclusive I P o s itio n I fu t fu tu re Ip pronominal marker for G Goal P o s itio n I gen g e n itiv e II Position II IF Instrument Focus IIP pronominal marker for imperf imperfective Position II IN Instrum ent A A ctor incl inclusive a c t a c tiv e IPF Instrument Pre-fo AF Actor Focus L L ocative APF Actor Pre-focus LF Locative Focus a r t a r t i c l e l i g lig a tu r e B Benefactive NEG negative BF Benefactive Focus nom nom inative Cl clause introducer noml nominalization o' o c irc circumstantial C_l. o b je ct c la s c l a s s i f i e r obj mk object marker def d e f in ite obi oblique dl dual P P a tie n t i i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PAN Proto-Austronesian pres present part participle prog progressive pass passive S Source pc p au cal sg singular PEO Proto-Eastern Oceanic stat stative perf perfective subj subject PE Patient Focus subj :nk subject marker p i p lu r a l subord subordinator PO Proto-Oceanic T Time poss possessive TP Topic PPF Patient Pre-focus TR transitive PPN Proto-Polynesian x i i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents Page Chapter I Introduction 1.0 Basic Goals 1 1.1 The Austronesian Languages 5 1.2 U niversal Grammar 9 C hapter I I The Noun Phrase 2.0 In tro d u c tio n 13 2 .1 .0 Adjunct + Noun and Palauan Grammar 13 2.1.1 The Bnndedness Hierarchy l7 2.1.2 Tagalog 25 2.1.3 Ilokano 29 2.1.4 Toba Batak 34 2.1.5 Tolai 37 2 .1 .6 Wolio 42 2.1.7 Malagasy 48 2.2 Diachrony 51 2.3 The Noun + Noun System 68 2.3.1 Palauan 69 2 .3 .2 Tagalog 71 2.3.3 Quantifiers in Toba Batak 73 2 .3 .4 Tongan 74 2 .3 .5 The Noun + Noun System in U n iv ersal Grammar 79 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.4 Summary 85 Notes to Chapter II 86 Chapter III Clause Structure: the Philippine Type 3.0 Introduction 87 3.1 Toward a Theory of Clause Level Grammar 88 3.2.0 Tagalog Clause Structure 103 3.2.0.0 Introduction 103 3.2.0.1 Actor Focus 105 3.2.0.2 Patient Focus 107 3.2.0.3 Locative Focus 108 3 .2 .0 .4 B en efactiv e Focus 110 3.2.0.5 Instrument Focus 111 3.2.1 Role and Reference in Tagalog Grammar 113 3.2.2 Another Look at Patient Focus 123 3.3 Bilaan 125 3.4 In ib a lo i 131 3.5 Tagalog R e v isited 136 3.6 Toward a Typology of Philippine Clause S tru c tu re 140 3.7 Summary 145 Chapter IV Clause Structure: the Oceanic Type 4.0 Introduction 147 4.1 Clause Structure in Eastern Oceanic 149 4.2 Fijian Clause Structure 155 4.2.1 Verb Sub-categorization 156 4.2.2 Fijian Transitive Clauses 166 v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 .2 .3 R o le a n d Reference in F ijia n Grammar 173 4.3 Tongan: the Genesis of an Ergative Type 186 4 .4 Summary 199 Chapter V Palauan and Proto-Austronesian Clause Structure 5.0 In tro d u c tio n 201 5.1 The Palauan P assive 201 5.2 Proto-Austronesian Clause Structure 214 5.3 The E volution of th e P h ilip p in e Type 221 5.4 Summary 233 References 234 v i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C hapter I Introduction 1.0 Basic Goals In this study we w ill undertake a comparative study of the syntax of the noun phrase and the clause in the Austro- nesian languages. Our first goal will be to formulate general principles which account for the varied types of structures we encounter. Because these languages are all genetically related, we will also be able to trace certain historical developments which produced these structures. This w ill be the second goal of this study. We w ill distinguish between universal and language specific features in formulating our general principles. Certain syntactic features which are widespread in the Austronesian family may be candidates for universals, but they may also be simply features of the proto-language which have been preserved in the daughter languages. If, however, a non-random variation is attested across the languages, as with the distribution of the ligatures dis cussed in Chapter II, then a principle which explains this pattern in a straightforward fashion is a strong candidate Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 for a language universal. This is the case of the Bonded- ness Hiei'archy of Chapter II, which accounts for the non- random distribution of the ligature particles in the noun phrases of many Austronesian languages. Thus, a strong piece of evidence for a proposed language universal is that the universal exhibit an independent, but non-random variation across the languages in question. When dealing with genetically related languages, the independence of the variation across languages is crucially important. This simply means that the variation is not traceable back to an earlier source from which all the modem languages derive. If this is possible, we may be dealing with a family or sub-group specific feature, not a language universal. If, however, the pattern of variation can be shown to be innovated independently in at least one language, but preferably several, then we are dealing with a possible language universal. A good indicator of inheritance based variation as against universal based variation is consistent, but arbi trary gaps in the pattern across languages. If the varia tion is really based on a universal principle, then any gaps should also be subject to a statement of universals. If the gaps do not seem to be subject to such a statement, then we are likely dealing with a pattern of variation due to inheritance from a language ancestral to the languages being investigated. The classes of verbs in Tongan and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 Fijian are a good example of an inheritance based variation. Both languages divide their verbs into classes along the lines of action versus process verbs (Chafe 1970). Such a dichotomy is widespread in the languages of the world. However, in both languages there are some verbs, the class membership of which is arbitrary, and these verbs do not follow the semantic criteria for their class. But the arbitrariness of class membership for these verbs is con sistent across the two languages; the verbs agree in class in both languages. These arbitrary, but consistent gaps in the pattern indicate that the two systems are related through inheritance and are not independently innovated on the basis of a language universal. In this study we w ill be looking at the Austronesian languages primarily for what their comparative syntax can tell us about principles of syntax in general. We will deal with their comparative syntax in two parts: the syntax of the noun phrase and the syntax of the clause.