Rethinking the Tsouic Subgroup Hypothesis: a Morphosyntactic Perspective*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Streams Converging Into an Ocean, 565-583 2006-8-005-022-000014-1 Rethinking the Tsouic Subgroup Hypothesis: * A Morphosyntactic Perspective Henry Y. Chang Academia Sinica It is generally held that Kanakanavu and Saaroa should be lumped together with Tsou as a Tsouic subgroup (The Tsouic Subgroup Hypothesis: Tsuchida 1976, Blust 1977, 1999). The paper reassesses this well-accepted assumption in the light of six important morphosyntactic innovations observed in Tsou, viz. the Innovative Focus Morphology, the Complete Loss of the PAn Perfective Marker, the Focus Harmony Restriction on SVCs, the NAF-only Causatives, the Obligatory Auxiliary Constraint, and the Emergence of the 3rd Singular Nominative Bound Pronoun. It is found that none of these Tsou innovations are attested in the so-called southern Tsouic languages, namely, Kanakanavu and Saaroa, or elsewhere in the Austro- nesian family. This casts doubts on the TSH and raises the question of whether Tsou constitutes a subgroup with Kanakanavu and Saaroa as well as the question of whether Tsou is one of the primary branches of the PAn (cf. Starosta 1985). Both questions will be addressed in the paper. Key words: Tsouic, subgroup, morphosyntactic innovations, PAn 1. Introduction Since Tsuchida (1976), it has been generally assumed that Tsou should be grouped * This paper grew out of an on-going research project entitled Classification and Dispersal of the Austronesians: Anthropological, Genetic, and Linguistic Studies Relating to Taiwan (NSC 952627-H-001). I am grateful to the project director Paul J.-K Li for inviting me to join the project and providing financial support. This paper is dedicated to him on his seventieth birthday. I am thankful to the following people for reading an earlier version of this paper and giving useful comments: Robert Blust, Jonathan Evans, Paul J.-K Li, Tsai-hsiou Liu, Malcolm Ross, John Wolff, and two anonymous reviewers. A draft of this paper was presented at the Workshop on Internal and External Relationships of Formosan languages, August 31, 2006. I would like to express my gratitude to the audiences there, in particular, Lillian Huang, Li-may Sung, and Stacy Teng for their helpful suggestions. I am also indebted to my former research assistant Julia Y. Su for her help in editing several tables presented in this paper. Needless to say, I am solely responsible for the remaining errors if there are any. Henry Y. Chang with Kanakanavu and Saaroa as a Tsouic subgroup. Despite some disputes,1 the Tsouic Subgroup Hypothesis (TSH) has been taken as part of the “standard theory” of the Austroneisan subgroupings. This view is reflected in Blust’s (1999:52) remarks: The fundamental evidence for a Tsouic subgroup has been presented by Tsuchida (1976). Although some writers have questioned the unity of Tsouic (Harvey 1982:90), I accept it as established on the basis of Tsuchida’s extensive documentation. Nonetheless, Tsuchida (1976) did not explicitly address the TSH issue, neither did he provide firm evidence for it. It seems that he inherited his belief in TSH from Ferrell (1969) and Dyen’s (1963, 1965) lexicostatistical classification and took it for granted. A reassessment of the TSH is in order. Drawing on the reconstructions put forward by several distinguished Austronesianists (Wolff 1973, Ross 1995, 2002, Blust 2003, Li 2006), this paper enumerates six important morphosyntactic innovations in Tsou and indicates that none of these Tsou innovations are attested in Kanakanavu or Saaroa, or elsewhere in the Austronesian family. In light of the findings, the paper will discuss whether the TSH holds true. First things first, let us consider the Tsou innovations one by one. 2. The innovative focus morphology It has long been observed since Starosta (1985) that main verbs in Tsou are marked with the focus affixes which are used to mark verbs in dependent clauses in other western Austronesian languages, as illustrated in (1): (1) a. mo mo-si ta pangka to emi ’o amo AF2 AF-put OBL table OBL wine NOM father ‘Father puts wine on a table.’ 1 Harvey (1982:90) and Starosta (1985, 1995) have questioned the unity of the Tsouic subgroup, but their efforts have not received much attention. I will return to this issue in section 8. 2 Following the Leipzig Glossing Rules, this paper adopts the following abbreviations and conventions: AF: Actor focus ACC: accusative CAUS: causative EXP: experiential FUT: future tense GEN: genitive IF: instrumental focus IPFV: imperfective IND: Indicative LF: locative focus LOC: locative LNK: linker NAF: Non-Actor focus NEG: negation NEUT: neutral NMLZ: nominalization NOM: nominative OBL: oblique OF: object focus PAST: past tense PFV: perfective PF: Patient focus POSS: possessive RED: reduplication REL: relativizer S: singular TNS: tense TOP: topic 1: first person pronoun 2: second person 3: third person pronoun -: affixes =: clitics 566 Rethinking the Tsouic Subgroup Hypothesis b. i-si si-a ta pangka to amo ’o emi NAF-3S put-PF OBL table OBL father NOM wine ‘Father put the wine on a table.’ c. i-si si-i ta amo ta emi ’o pangka NAF-3S put-LF OBL father OBL wine NOM table ‘Father put wine on the table.’ d. i-si si-eni ta emi ta amo NAF-3S put-I/BF OBL wine OBL father ‘Father kept wine (for him).’ (Zeitoun 2000a:95) As in (1), main verbs are inflected for the focus affixes m-, -a, -i, and -eni in Tsou. Apart from the Actor focus (AF) affix m-, the other three are normally attached to verbs in atemporal clauses such as negatives and imperatives in other western Austronesian languages. Compare: Table 1: Focus markers: Indicative vs. Atemporal (Based on Ross 1995:739) AF PF LF B/IF Indicative <m> -en -an si- Atemporal (unmarked) -a -i -eni Take Seediq for example. In declarative sentences, verbs are inflected for the usual focus affixes m-, -un, -an, and si-, as illustrated below: (2) a. m-imah qsiya (ka) laqi. AF-drink water NOM child ‘The child drinks water.’ b. mah-un na laqi (ka) qsiya. drink-PF GEN child NOM water ‘The child will drink the water.’ c. mah-an na laqi qsiya (ka) sapah purayan. drink-LF GEN child water NOM house kitchen ‘The child drank water in the kitchen.’ d. si-imah na laqi qsiya (ka) kopu. IF-drink GEN child water NOM cup ‘The child used the cup to drink water.’ (Chang 2000:83-84) By contrast, verbs bear a distinct set of focus affixes in negatives and imperatives, as indicated in (3). 567 Henry Y. Chang (3) a. ini-mu mah-i ka sino nii NEG-1S.GEN drink-LF NOM wine this ‘I did not drink the wine.’ b. ini mah-ani begu na laqi ka taku NEG drink-I/BF soup GEN child NOM spoon ‘The child did not use the spoon for soup.’ (Chen 1996:44-46) Given the reconstructions of PAn focus morphology advocated by Wolff (1973) and Ross (1995), Tsou ‘atemporal’ focus affixes are more likely to be innovations rather than retentions. The innovations, however, do not seem to be attested in Kanakanavu and Saaroa. Let’s consider the focus system in Kanakanavu first. According to Mei (1982), there is a three-way distinction in focus marking in Kanakanavu, as indicated below: Table 2: The focus system in Kanakanavu (Based on Mei 1982) AF PF LF Neutral -ai Perfective ni- Imperfective <um>, m-3 -un -a(n) Unlike Tsou, the focus system in Kanakanavu presumably did not undergo any drastic morphological changes. The emergence of the neutral PF suffix -ai in Kanakanavu is not common, but it does not parallel the PF suffix -a in Tsou in its form and function.4 As noted by Tsuchida (1976:51) and Mei (1982:219), -ai is restricted to verbs bearing neutral aspect, as illustrated below: (4) ulung-ai-kani ’inia sua takuis-ini kava-cumai take.off-OF2-IND5 he jacket-his skin-bear ‘He took off his bearskin jacket.’ (Mei 1982:219) 3 According to Tsuchida (1976:47-48), there are three more AF affixes attested in Kanakanavu: mu-. um-, and -em-. The prefix mu- occurs with a stem beginning with a bilabial consonant or ng, as in mu-a-pucupucu ‘to crumple’; the prefix um- occurs with a stem beginning with a vowel, as in um-a-ala ‘to take’; -em- occurs after the perfective aspect infix -in-, as in c-in-em-e’era ‘to see’. 4 Tsuchida (1976: 49) treats -ai as a marker of special focus and notes that “the function of the verb form here …is not clear.” 5 Contra Mei (1982), Tsuchida (1976:52) identifies the suffix -kani as a marker of quotation rather than indicative mode. 568 Rethinking the Tsouic Subgroup Hypothesis Meanwhile, imperfective PF and perfective PF are represented by -un and ni- respectively in Kanakanavu, which are quite comparable to the focus affixes widely observed across western Austronesian languages. Compare: (5) a. tia-kasu itaru-n will-you wait-OF1;IPFV ‘I’ll wait for you.’ (Mei 1982:213) b. ni-pia-pacai cau tutui kill:OF1;PFV person pig ‘Someone killed the pig.’ (Mei 1982:221) In Kanakanavu, Locative Focus (LF) is represented by the wide-spread LF suffix -an, as in: (6) na ta-u-canum-a ni-p-ia-pacal-an-aku tutui at place to draw water kill:LF;PFV-I pig ‘It is at the place to draw water that I have killed the pig.’ (Mei 1982:223) It should also be noted that there is no marker of Benefactive/Instrumental focus (B/IF) reported in the previous literature (Tsuchida 1976, Mei 1982, Li et al. 1997).