Proquest Dissertations
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
VOLUME I ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF TSOU: SIMPLEX and COMPLEX PREDICATES by GUJING LIN RICE UNIVERSITY Argument Structure of Tsou: Simplex and Complex Predicates by Gujing Lin A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE Doctor of Philosophy APPROVED, THESIS COMMITTEE Masayoshi Shibatani, Deedee McMurtry Professor of the Humanities jnguistics Philip W.\Davi^, Professor Emeritus Linguistics Claire Bowern, Ad/unct Professor Linguistics Stj66hfeTT~Tyler, Professor Anthropology and Linguistics HOUSTON, TEXAS DECEMBER, 2009 UMI Number: 3421430 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT Dissertation Publishing UMI 3421430 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. uestA ® ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT Argument Structure of Tsou: Simplex and Complex Predicates by Gujing Lin This thesis investigates the argument structure of Tsou, a Formosan language within the Austronesian family. The investigation studies both simplex and complex predicates as well as describes the valency groupings and alignment patterns emerging from various clausal configurations. Assuming the stance that language description should respect language-specific categories and that cross-category comparison should be justified with sufficient similarities, this thesis depicts Tsou argument structure as the interaction of a lexical predicate with the syntactic construction in which the predicate occurs. A predicate introduces event-specific participants that are to be aligned with the argument roles licensed by particular constructions. Within a construction, an argument is associated with the ACTOR/PATIENT/REFERENCE/LOCATION distinction (the four grammatical roles) and the TOPIC/NON-TOPIC contrast (the two grammatical relations). Both layers of distinctions figure prominently in determining clausal structure and the operation of syntactic processes. Disregarding any layer would inadvertently conflate the functional divisions in Tsou, leading to incomplete analyses. Adopting the constructional approach, this thesis argues that there are four major valency constructions in Tsou: Valency=0 Construction, Valency=l Construction, Valency=2 Construction, and Valency=3 Construction. Depending on the alignment of the ACTOR/PATIENT/REFERENCE/LOCATION distinction and the TOPIC/NON-TOPIC contrast, a valency construction may instantiate various types of focus constructions. A verb may interact with different constructions and therefore illustrate alternating valency. By adopting the constructional approach, this thesis depicts alternating valency without necessarily assuming that one of the constructions involved is more basic than the other(s). On the one hand, a construction may display partial overlap of syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic properties with other constructions, but on the other hand, may carry features specific to its own. A constructional analysis is therefore capable of capturing both cross-construction similarities and construction-specific features, allowing a more comprehensive understanding of the Tsou language. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It took two villages of people for this dissertation to be made possible. First and foremost, I would like to thank the TapangU villagers who had helped me throughout these years. I want to extend my greatest gratitude to my three consultants, Ms. Yangu'e Luheacana, Ms. Sayung'e Tiakiana, and Mr. Yapsuyong'e Niamoeoana, for sharing with me the beauty of the Tsou language. Without their patience and never-failing encouragement, I would not have come so far. I would also like to thank the entire Yasiungu clan for their hospitality and generosity in receiving me into their community. Special thanks also go to Mr. Xingshi Wang of the TapangU village, Mr. Qisheng Wang and Mr. Qixian Yang of the Lalauya village, Mr. Zhengzong Zheng of the Tfuya village, Mr. Xinde Zheng of the Saviki village, and Dr. Henry Y. Chang of Academia Sinica. I benefited from discussions with them during these years, although none of them is in any way responsible for the analysis in this dissertation. I would like to express my appreciation to the Rice students, i.e., the Rice villagers, who have provided the firmest support during my stay in Houston, Anne-Marie Hartenstein, Monica Sanaphre, Martin Hilpert, Caleb Everett, and Chris Koops have added so much to my graduate school experience, both intellectually and socially. Dave Katten, Chris Taylor, and Pumsup Shim were always kind enough to lend their ears to my grumbles, linguistic or otherwise. I greatly appreciated the friendship and encouragement provided by Katie Nelson, Jen Hoecker, Chelsea McCracken, and Ann Marie Olivo. They formed the best support group when I was deeply frustrated with the criticisms about my writing style. I have also enjoyed the presence of Linda Lanz, Vica Papp, Natalie Weber, Chris Schmidt, and Nori Nagaya in the department, both as friends and as linguists. Their feedback on the earlier drafts of this dissertation has had a considerable influence on the way I restructured and revised this dissertation. Additionally, their wide range of interests and knowledge always made talking to them a pleasure. Jayeonjeong and Soyeon Yoon provided friendship, Korean cooking, and moral support when I needed them most. I would not have been able to write these acknowledgments without their unyielding support. Thanks are also due to Cassandra Pace, Sarah Lee, Michelle Morrison, Elizabeth Brunner, Andrew Pantos, Carlos Molina, Haowen Jiang, Piotr Nowak, Bethany Townsend, Ruping Tso, and Akua Agyei-Owusu. I also want to express my gratitude to the Linguistics faculty at Rice. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with them. Suzanne Kemmer is a strongly influential presence and was one of my first contacts with Cognitive n Grammar and Construction Grammar. She has a large share in shaping my view of the relation between language, function, and cognition. Robert Englebretson provided one of the role models for me inside and outside the classroom, always discerning and keeping a fresh eye on different ways of thinking. I also benefited from discussions with Michel Achard on the commonalities and variations among various cognitive approaches to linguistics. Thanks to Nancy Niedzielski, Katherine Crosswhite, Syd Lamb, and Christina Willis for discussions of particular issues. Warm thanks also go to the department coordinator Rita Riley. Rita rocks! An endless share of thanks is due to my committee. The influence of Claire Bowern on this dissertation is pervasive. Her immense knowledge on syntactic theories and language documentation has been extraordinarily valuable; her unfailing persistence on verse and presentation taught me the importance of being a responsible writer. I greatly appreciate her taking the time to work with me. Philip Davis' fresh views on language function and structure have guided me through the labyrinth of the Austronesian focus systems. He was one of the first people to remind me of the language-specificity of thematic roles. I hope to have acquired something of his way of looking at linguistic phenomena from an unorthodox but illuminating angle. Thanks are due to Steve Tyler. It is difficult to put into words the gratitude that I feel. Steve's unfailing encouragement has assisted me through the ups and downs of the writing process. I hope some day to be as good a committee member as he has been to me. Most special thanks go to my advisor, Matt Shibatani. I consider it a great privilege to have had the benefit of his expert intellectual guidance. I appreciate his stimulating questions on the earlier drafts of this dissertation. He taught me the importance of independent thinking and critical reading. I owe my growth as a linguist to him. Finally, I would like to thank my family: Dad, Mom, and my brother Dongcheng. Their moral support and blessings across the world gave me the strength to survive the struggles of graduate school. in TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xi Abbreviations xiii Chapter 1 Overview 1 1.1 Organization of Contents 2 1.2 Relevant Background Issues: Language Consultants and Data Collection 5 Chapter 2 Formosan and Western Malayo-Polynesian Languages: Issues and Controversies 9 2.1 The Austronesian Voice Systems 10 2.1.1 Types of Distinctions 10 2.1.2 Symmetry between AF and PF Clauses? 14 2.2 Nominal Marking Systems 18 2.3 Grammatical Relations Systems in Formosan and Western Malayo-Polynesian Languages: Problems and Puzzles 22 2.3.1 S/A Topic=Nominative Argument=Subject 23 2.3.2 S/P Topic=Absolutive Argument 26 2.3.3 Two Subjects/Non-English-Type Subject 32 2.3.4 Actor as Subject, Topic as A'-element 36 2.4 Argument Structure: Organization of Thematic Roles and its Alignment with Grammatical Relations 40 2.4.1 Organization of Thematic roles: Their Usefulness and the Limit of Usefulness 43 2.4.2 Alignment between Thematic Roles and Grammatical Relations: Thematic Hierarchy 48 2.5 Language-Specificity in Grammatical Relations and Grammatical Categorioes 50 2.5.1 Language-Specificity in a Historical