DOCSLIB.ORG

He Syntax of Pro-Drop in Thai

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
He Syntax of Pro-Drop in Thai The Syntax of Pro-drop in Thai On-Usa Phimsawat B.A. Burapha 2000 M.A. NIDA 2003 Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the regulations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGLISH LITERATURE, LANGUAGE, & LINGUISTICS SEPTEMBER 2011 © 2011 On-Usa Phimsawat All rights reserved ii Table of Contents Thesis Abstract………………...…………..…………………………..………………….i Acknowledgements….…………………………………..……………………...……...….iii List of Tables and Figures………………………………………………………………..iv List of Abbreviations and Keywords ……………………………………………………v Chapter 1: Introduction.......................................................................................................1 1.1 Nature and Distribution of Overt and Null Pronouns in Thai........................................2 1.1.1 Overt pronouns in Thai..........................................................................................2 1.1.2 Pro-drop in Thai...................................................................................................5 1.2 Overview of Thai Syntax .......................................................................................... 10 1.2.1 The head is initial ............................................................................................ 12 1.2.2 Serial verb constructions ................................................................................. 14 1.2.3 Topic prominence ........................................................................................... 14 1.2.4 Particles .......................................................................................................... 16 1.3 Outline of the Thesis................................................................................................. 17 Chapter 2: Typology of Thai Pro-drop .......................................................................... 19 2.1 R-expressions, Pronominals, Anaphors and the Binding Rules in Thai........................ 19 2.2 Null Pronominals and their Antecedents in Thai.............................................................22 2.2.1 C-commanding antecedents ............................................................................... 22 2.2.2 Discourse (non-c-commanding) antecedents.........................................................24 2.2.2.1 Antecedents in a preceding sentence.........................................................24 2.2.2.2 Understood antecedents.............................................................................25 2.3 Types of Null Pronouns in Thai......................................................................................26 2.4 Restrictions on the Occurrence of Null Pronouns in Thai..............................................30 2.5 Summary.........................................................................................................................32 Chapter 3: Empty Categories in Discourse Pro-drop Languages.....................................34 3.1 Empty Categories (ECs)................................................................................................34 3.2 The Binding Principles .............................................................................................. 36 3.2.1 Binding of ECs ................................................................................................ 36 3.3 Null Arguments in Discourse Pro-drop Languages .................................................... 39 3.3.1 C.-T. J. Huang (1984; 1989)............................................................................. 39 3.3.1.1 Topic-variables and object ECs................................................................45 3.3.2 Xu (1986, 2003)...................................................................................................48 3.3.3 Tomioka (2003) ............................................................................................... 50 3.3.4 Saito (2007) ..................................................................................................... 52 3.3.5 Speas‟s (2001) Optimal Theory (OT) for the syntax of null pronouns .............. 54 3.4 Summary................................................................................................................... 55 Chapter 4: Impersonals, Genericity and Indefinite Topics ........................................... 57 4.1 Some Definitions ........................................................................................................ 57 4.2 The English System of Impersonals ............................................................................ 59 4.3 Generalisations of Impersonal Pronouns in Thai ......................................................... 62 4.3.1 Generic inclusive and generic quasi-inclusive readings ..................................... 64 4.3.2 Generic exclusive and arbitrary readings ........................................................... 66 4.4 Agreement and the Occurrences of Overt Pronouns .................................................... 70 4.5 Properties and Internal Structures of Generic Pronouns (G-pronouns)......................... 71 4.5.1 Inclusive G-pronouns ........................................................................................ 74 4.5.2 Quasi-inclusive G-pronouns. ............................................................................. 77 4.5.3 Exclusive G-pronouns and arbitrary pronouns .....................................................80 4.6 Indefinite Topics ........................................................................................................ 83 4.7 Summary...................... .............................................................................................. 85 Chapter 5: The Interpretation of Referential Null Pronouns and Discourse Functions in Thai. ................................................................................................... 87 5.1 Some Definitions of Topic and Focus.............................................................................87 5.2 Referential Topics...........................................................................................................95 5.2.1 Hanging topics (H-Topics)....................................................................................98 5.2.2 Aboutness topics (A-Topics) vs Aboutness-shift Topics (A-shift Topics)...........98 5.2.3 Familiar topics (F-Topics)...................................................................................103 5.2.4 Contrastive topics (C-Topics).............................................................................104 5.3 Properties and Internal Structures of Referential Null Pronouns .................................106 5.4 Some Criteria for Distinguishing Resumptive Pronouns and Traces/ Copies in Thai..110 5.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................115 Chapter 6: The Structures of Null Arguments in Thai ............................................... 116 6.1 The Properties and Internal Structures of Null Arguments ........................................ 116 6.2 Types of Controllers and Null Arguments...................................................................119 6.3 Phonological Realisation of Pronominal Arguments in Thai.......................................122 6.3.1 Obligatorily null pronominal arguments............................................................122 6.3.1.1 Inclusive G-pronouns............................................................................122 6.3.1.2 Null topics operators.............................................................................124 6.3.1.3 Big PRO................................................................................................127 6.3.1.4 Null object arguments ..........................................................................129 6.3.2 Obligatorily overt pronominal arguments .........................................................131 6.3.3 Optionally null pronominal arguments..............................................................132 6.3.3.1 The speaker as the default antecedent..................................................132 6.4 On the Issue of Control ...............................................................................................134 6.4.1 Indirect control...................................................................................................135 6.4.2 Direct control......................................................................................................139 6.5 Other Syntactic Constraints on the Occurrences of Null Arguments...........................143 6.5.1 Conjoined NPs....................................................................................................143 6.5.2 Prepositional complements................................................................................144 6.6 The Applicability of the ϕ-Featureless Null Noun Account to Other Discourse Pro-drop Languages...................................................................................................145 6.6.1 Null arguments in other discourse pro-drop languages.....................................149 6.7 The Status of Thai in the Typology of Pro-drop Languages........................................155 Chapter 7: Conclusion........................................................................................................159 Bibliography.........................................................................................................................164
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Syntax of the Malagasy Reciprocal Construction: an Lfg Account
    THE SYNTAX OF THE MALAGASY RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION: AN LFG ACCOUNT Peter Hurst University of Melbourne Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universität Konstanz Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors) 2006 CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ ABSTRACT The verbal reciprocal construction in Malagasy is formed by a reciprocal morpheme prefixing on the main verb with a corresponding loss of an overt argument in c-structure. Analyses of similar constructions in Chichewa and Catalan both treat the reciprocalized verb's argument structure as undergoing an alteration whereby one of its thematic roles is either suppressed or two thematic arguments are mapped to one grammatical function. In this paper I propose that the reciprocal morpheme in Malagasy creates a reciprocal pronoun in f-structure - thus maintaining its valency and leaving the argument structure of the verb unchanged, while at the same time losing an argument at the level of c-structure. 1. INTRODUCTION Malagasy is an Austronesian language and is the dominant language of Madagascar. The Malagasy sentences used in the analysis below are from the literature - in particular from a paper by Keenan and Razafimamonjy (2001) titled “Reciprocals in Malagasy” whose examples are based on the official dialect of Malagasy as spoken in and around the capital city Antananarivo. The Malagasy reciprocal construction is formed by the addition of a prefix -if- or -ifamp- to the stem of the verb accompanied by the loss of an overt argument in object position. Compare sentence (1a) below with its reciprocated equivalent (1b): (1) Malagasy a. N-an-daka an-dRabe Rakoto pst-act-kick acc.Rabe Rakoto V O S 'Rakoto kicked Rabe' b.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Syntax & Information Structure: The Grammar of English Inversions Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sv7q1pm Author Samko, Bern Publication Date 2016 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ SYNTAX & INFORMATION STRUCTURE: THE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH INVERSIONS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Bern Samko June 2016 The Dissertation of Bern Samko is approved: Professor Jim McCloskey, chair Associate Professor Pranav Anand Associate Professor Line Mikkelsen Assistant Professor Maziar Toosarvandani Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Bern Samko 2016 Contents Acknowledgments x 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Thequestions ............................... 1 1.1.1 Summaryofresults ........................ 2 1.2 Syntax................................... 6 1.3 InformationStructure . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 1.3.1 Topic ............................... 8 1.3.2 Focus ............................... 11 1.3.3 Givenness............................. 13 1.3.4 The distinctness of information structural notions . ....... 14 1.3.5 TheQUD ............................. 17 1.4 The relationship between syntax and information structure ....... 19 1.5 Thephenomena .............................. 25 1.5.1
    [Show full text]
  • On the Question of Topics in Topic Prominent Interlanguage
    On the Question of Topics in Topic Prominent Interlanguage Marie Fellbaum Korpi Linguistics Program The Australian National University Canberra 2000 [email protected] Abstract For twenty-five years, interlanguage researchers have accepted an early period of topic prominence in the language of a native speaker of Hmong learning English (Huebner 1983). The study was based on Li and Thompson's Typology of Subject-Prominent and Topic Prominent language types. Since Huebner only examined properties of topic prominent languages without also looking for evidence of subject, I revisit the study and show evidence for subjecthood from grammatical relations, semantic functions, and properties of behavior and control. An investigation of one of the properties, namely that topics control co-referential constituent deletion, suggests instead evidence for subject in serial verb constructions. After finding evidence for at least three properties of subject as a basic subject-predicate construction in the interlanguage, I propose an alternative analysis that the learner’s early interlanguage must be re-classified as both subject and topic prominent. Keywords Interlanguage, SLA, Subject, Topic Prominence I would like to thank participants of an ANU/RSPAS 2005 seminar and ALS2005 and for their comments on an earlier version, Anthony Diller, Wayan Arka, and two anonymous ALS reviewers for their comments. 2/16 On the Question of Topics in Topic Prominent Interlanguage 1.0 Introduction The notion of an early stage of topic prominence in interlanguage, the language system of learners as they develop from their first/native language (L1) to the language they are attempting to acquire, the target language (TL), was first proposed by Huebner in 1983.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 12 Expletive Pronouns
    Hardegree, Compositional Semantics, Chapter 12: Expletive Pronouns 1 of 36 Chapter 12 Expletive Pronouns 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2 2. Overview ........................................................................................................................... 2 3. Expletive-There .................................................................................................................. 2 4. Fundamental Proposal: Expletive-There is an Anaphoric Pronoun ..................................... 3 5. How do we Read ‘be’ in ‘There be’? ................................................................................. 3 6. What is the Point of There? ................................................................................................ 6 7. Looney Examples of Topic-Comment ............................................................................... 7 8. Junction-Simplification Revisited ...................................................................................... 7 9. Other Anaphoric Uses of There.......................................................................................... 8 10. Relative-There ................................................................................................................... 9 11. Expletive-it ......................................................................................................................... 9 12. "It" is Raining .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Further Remarks on Reciprocal Constructions (To Appear In: Nedjalkov, Vladimir P
    1 Further remarks on reciprocal constructions (to appear in: Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) 2007. Reciprocal constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.) MARTIN HASPELMATH In view of the breathtaking scope of the comparative research enterprise led by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov whose results are published in these volumes, I have no choice but to select and highlight a few topics that I find particularly interesting and worthy of further comment and further study. I will focus here on conceptual and terminological issues and on some phenomena that have been discussed in the literature but are not so well represented in this work. I will also try to summarize some of the major known generalizations about reciprocals, as discussed in this work and elsewhere, in the form of twenty-six Greenberg-style numbered universals. 1. Reciprocal, mutual, symmetric Let us begin with a terminological discussion of the most basic term, reciprocal. In the present volumes, this term is used both for meanings (e.g. reciprocal situation, reciprocal event) and for forms (e.g. reciprocal construction, reciprocal marker, reciprocal predicate). In most cases, the context will disambiguate, but it seems to be a good idea to have two different terms for meanings and for forms, analogous to similar contrasts such as proposition/sentence, question/interrogative, participant/argument, time/tense, multiple/plural. Since all reciprocals express a situation with a mutual relation, I propose the term mutual for the semantic plane, reserving the term reciprocal for specialized expression patterns that code a mutual situation. A similar terminological distinction is made by König & Kokutani (2006), Evans (2007), Dimitriadis (2007), but these authors propose the term symmetric for meanings, reserving reciprocal for forms.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Person” Category in the Zamuco Languages. a Diachronic Perspective
    On rare typological features of the Zamucoan languages, in the framework of the Chaco linguistic area Pier Marco Bertinetto Luca Ciucci Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa The Zamucoan family Ayoreo ca. 4500 speakers Old Zamuco (a.k.a. Ancient Zamuco) spoken in the XVIII century, extinct Chamacoco (Ɨbɨtoso, Tomarâho) ca. 1800 speakers The Zamucoan family The first stable contact with Zamucoan populations took place in the early 18th century in the reduction of San Ignacio de Samuco. The Jesuit Ignace Chomé wrote a grammar of Old Zamuco (Arte de la lengua zamuca). The Chamacoco established friendly relationships by the end of the 19th century. The Ayoreos surrended rather late (towards the middle of the last century); there are still a few nomadic small bands in Northern Paraguay. The Zamucoan family Main typological features -Fusional structure -Word order features: - SVO - Genitive+Noun - Noun + Adjective Zamucoan typologically rare features Nominal tripartition Radical tenselessness Nominal aspect Affix order in Chamacoco 3 plural Gender + classifiers 1 person ø-marking in Ayoreo realis Traces of conjunct / disjunct system in Old Zamuco Greater plural and clusivity Para-hypotaxis Nominal tripartition Radical tenselessness Nominal aspect Affix order in Chamacoco 3 plural Gender + classifiers 1 person ø-marking in Ayoreo realis Traces of conjunct / disjunct system in Old Zamuco Greater plural and clusivity Para-hypotaxis Nominal tripartition All Zamucoan languages present a morphological tripartition in their nominals. The base-form (BF) is typically used for predication. The singular-BF is (Ayoreo & Old Zamuco) or used to be (Cham.) the basis for any morphological operation. The full-form (FF) occurs in argumental position.
    [Show full text]
  • About Pronouns
    About pronouns Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson Lund University Abstract This essay claims that pronouns are constructed as syntactic relations rather than as discrete feature bundles or items. The discussion is set within the framework of a minimalist Context-linked Grammar, where phases contain silent but active edge features, edge linkers, including speaker and hearer features. An NP is phi- computed in relation to these linkers, the so established relation being input to context scanning (yielding reference). Essentially, syntax must see to it that event participant roles link to speech act roles, by participant linking (a subcase of context linking, a central computational property of natural language). Edge linkers are syntactic features–not operators–and can be shifted, as in indexical shift and other Kaplanian monster phenomena, commonly under control. The essay also develops a new analysis of inclusiveness and of the different status of different phi-features in grammar. The approach pursued differs from Distributed Morphology in drawing a sharp line between (internal) syntax and (PF) externalization, syntax constructing relations–the externalization process building and expressing items. Keywords: Edge linkers, pronouns, speaker, phi-features, context linking, context scanning, indexical shift, inclusiveness, bound variables 1. Introduction* Indexical or deictic items include personal pronouns (I, you, she, etc.), demonstrative pronouns (this, that, etc.), and certain local and temporal adverbials and adjectives (here, now, presently, etc.). In the influential Kaplanian approach (Kaplan 1989), indexicals are assumed to have a fixed reference in a fixed context of a specific speech act or speech event. Schlenker (2003:29) refers to this leading idea as the fixity thesis, stating it as follows: Fixity Thesis (a corollary of Direct Reference): The semantic value of an indexical is fixed solely by the context of the actual speech act, and cannot be affected by any logical operators.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 English Subjectless Tagged Sentences Paul Kay Department Of
    1 English subjectless tagged sentences Paul Kay Department of Linguistics University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 [email protected] 2 Abstract A colloquial English sentence like Fooled us, didn't they? contains a finite main verb but no expressed subject. The identity of the missing subject of fooled is recovered from the tag subject they: compare Fooled us, didn't she?, Fooled us, didn't you? This paper argues (1) that such subjectless tagged sentences (STSs) pose a problem for grammatical approaches based on movement and empty categories and (2) that STSs receive a revealing analysis as part of a finely articulated family of tagged sentence constructions when viewed within a non-derivational, constructional, multiple-inheritance-based approach.* *I would like to thank Peter Culicover, Liliane Haegeman, Charles Fillmore Andreas Kathol and Richard Oehrle for comments on previous versions of this paper, as well as an anonymous reviewer for Language. They have doubtless offered more good advice than I have accepted. 3 0. Introduction. It has been argued from several points of view that whatever can be done with empty categories (ecs) can be done without them (Ades and Steedman 1982, Gazdar et al. 1984, Kaplan and Zaenen 1989, Pollard and Sag 1994 chapter 9, Sag and Fodor 1994, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Sag 1999). It has also been argued that, because there is no hard evidence for their existence, linguistic theory would be better off dispensing with these unobservable entities (Pickering and Barry 1991, Sag and Fodor 1994, Sag 1999).1 The present paper purports to take the argument one step further by showing that there are things that can be done without empty categories that cannot be done with them, at least not with any of the ecs currently available.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammar Essentials for the KALULI LANGUAGE
    Grammar Essentials for the KALULI LANGUAGE (Ethnologue Code: BCO) Andrew Grosh and Sylvia Grosh Summer Institute of Linguistics Papua New Guinea September, 2004 Kaluli Grammar Essentials Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 7 2. PHONOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 PHONEMES AND ORTHOGRAPHIC REPRENSENTATION .............................................................................. 8 2.1.1 Phonological Conventions .............................................................................................................. 8 2.1.2 Orthographic Conventions ............................................................................................................. 8 2.2 SYLLABLE PATTERNS .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 MORPHOPHONEMICS................................................................................................................................ 9 2.3.1 Verbal Morphology ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.1.1 Vowel Harmony ........................................................................................................................................ 10 2.3.1.2 Consonant
    [Show full text]
  • A Set-Based Semantics for Obviation and Animacy
    A set-based semantics for obviation and animacy Christopher Hammerly – University of Minnesota Preprint Draft 1.0 – March 22nd, 2021 Abstract This paper provides an analysis of the semantics of obviation and animacy through a case study of Ojibwe (Central Algonquian). I develop a lattice-based characterization of possi- ble person, obviation, and animacy categories, showing that the addition of two binary features, [±Proximate] and [±Animate], captures the six-way distinction of Ojibwe. These features denote first-order predicates formed from subsets of an ontology of person primitives, with composition and interpretation defined by (i) the functional sequence of the nominal spine, (ii) the denotation of feature values, and (iii) the theory of contrastive interpretations. I show that alternative ac- counts based in lattice actions or feature geometries cannot capture the partition of Ojibwe, and offer extensions of the proposed system to noun classification in Zapotec, Romance, and Bantu. Keywords: obviation, animacy, person, noun classification, gender, '-features 1 Introduction Languages show constrained, but rich, variation in how categories related to person are distin- guished and conflated. At the core of all person systems is the possibility to refer to the author of an utterance, the addressee, and various non-participants — all languages, and indeed all humans, appear to have access to these fundamental concepts. The major point of variation is how these concepts are accessed, encoded, and manipulated by the grammar. The view taken in this paper is that the author, addressee, and others are PRIMITIVES of a mental ontology that is manipulated and accessed by morphosyntactic FEATURES. These features, in turn, give rise to CATEGORIES that allow reference to the primitives.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Peripheral Reciprocal Markers and Unaccusativity
    Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8 O. Bonami & P.Cabredo Hofherr (eds.) 2011, pp. 313–332 http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8 Russian peripheral reciprocal markers and unaccusativity Alexander Letuchiy∗ Introduction In the last few decades, the unaccusativity hypothesis and notion of unaccusativity has been widely discussed in linguistics. The hypothesis, as formulated by Perlmut- ter (1976), Rosen (1984), Mithun (1991), and others, says that the class of intransitive verbs is not homogenous. Different syntactic criteria show that in many languages one observes two classes of intransitives: unaccusative verbs and unergative verbs. The for- mer are, roughly speaking, ‘patientive’ verbs which denote a situation which the sub- ject does not control – in other words, the subject is a patient rather than an agent, since the absence of control, according to Dowty (1991) and Ackerman & Moore (2001) characterizes prototypical patients, and not prototypical agents. Structurally, accord- ing to Perlmutter (1976), the subject of unaccusatives at some level of representation occupies the same place as the object of transitive verbs. In contrast, the core of the unergative class includes situations controlled by the subject (thoughother verbs join the unergativeclass as well). In the syntactic structure, the subject occupies the same place as the subject (agent) of transitive verbs. In this paper, I discuss ‘peripheral’ reciprocal markers in Russian1. First, I analyze the grammatical properties of the prefix vzaimo- ‘mutually’. Surprisingly, this prefix, which cannot be the sole reciprocal marker in the verb form, can serve as the sole marker in nouns and even in participles. I am trying to explain this difference between verbs vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequence-Of-Tense and the Features of Finite Tenses Karen Zagona University of Washington*
    Sequence-of-tense and the Features of Finite Tenses Karen Zagona University of Washington* Abstract Sequence-of-tense (SOT) is often described as a (past) tense verb form that does not correspond to a semantically interpretable tense. Since SOT clauses behave in other respects like finite clauses, the question arises as to whether the syntactic category Tense has to be distinguished from the functional category tense. I claim that SOT clauses do in fact contain interpretable PRESENT tense. The “past” form is analyzed as a manifestation of agreement with the (matrix past) controller of the SOT clause evaluation time. One implication of this analysis is that finite verb forms should be analyzed as representing features that correspond to functional categories higher in clause structure, including those of the clausal left periphery. SOT morphology then sheds light on the existence of a series of finer- grained functional heads that contribute to tense construal, and to verbal paradigms. These include Tense, Modality and Force. 1. Introduction The phenomenon of sequence-of-tense (SOT) poses several challenges for the standard assumption that a “past tense” verb form signals the presence of a functional category in clause structure with an interpretable ‘past’ value. SOT is illustrated by the ‘simultaneous’ reading of sentence (1): (1) Terry believed that Sue was pregnant. a. The time of Sue’s pregnancy precedes time of Terry’s belief (precedence) b. The time of Sue’ pregnancy overlaps time of Terry’s belief (simultaneity) For the ‘precedence’ reading in (1a), the embedded clause tense is semantically transparent in the sense that the past form was corresponds to a past ordering relation (relative to the time of Terry’s belief).
    [Show full text]