DOCSLIB.ORG

How to Gather Materials on Evidentiality Systems in Lha'alua

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How to Gather Materials on Evidentiality Systems in Lha'alua 1 34 Evidentiality in Formosan Languages Chia-jung Pan 1 Formosan languages Five Formosan languages—Bunun, Paiwan, Kanakanavu, Saaroa and Tsou—are discussed in this chapter, in that these are the languages for which evidential systems have been described. Evidentiality in these languages is a grammatical category in its own right, and not a subcategory of epistemic or some other modality, or of tense-aspect. Taiwan's aborigines are Austronesian peoples, with genetic links to other Austronesian ethnic groups. The overall population of aborigines is approximately 2 percent of Taiwan's total population. At present there are 16 ethnic groups, including Amis, Atayal, Bunun, Kanakanavu, Kavalan, Paiwan, Puyuma, Rukai, Saaroa, Saisiyat, Sakizaya1, Thao, Truku2, Tsou, Seediq, Yami. The languages spoken by the aborigines of Taiwan are collectively referred to as the Formosan languages, subsumed under the Austronesian language family. There 1 Sakizaya was recognised as an independent ethnic group (from Amis) by the Taiwan government in January 2007. However, most linguists consider Sakizaya as a dialect of Amis. 2 Taiwan government has officially recognised Truku since January 15, 2004. In terms of language itself, Truku is part of the Seediq language. 2 are fourteen Formosan languages: Atayal, Saisiyat, Pazeh3, Thao, Bunun, Tsou, Saaroa, Kanakanavu, Rukai, Paiwan, Puyuma, Amis, Kavalan and Seediq. A fifteenth indigenous language is Yami, spoken on Orchid Island, Taitung County; Yami is included in the literature on Formosan linguistics, although it is genetically closer to the Philippine languages (Batanic subgroup). Some grammatical characteristics of Formosan languages are as follows. The basic syllable pattern is (C)V(C). Underived roots carrying the basic meaning of words usually have more than two syllables. Grammatical morphemes are usually a single syllable, e.g. construction markers. A vowel with primary stress is characterised by higher pitch and greater intensity. Formosan languages exhibit rich morphology, and are synthetic and agglutinating. Usually a word contains a largish number of morphemes (roots, affixes and clitics) but at the same time morpheme boundaries are clear. Prefixation is the most productive morphological process, whereas other types of affixation are less. Reduplication is widely deployed. Verb and noun are the two major word classes, with rich morphology marking. Adjectival and adverbial elements usually behave as verbs. Constituent order is VAO or VOA, if transitive, and VS, if intransitive. The pronominal system consists of bound pronouns and independent pronouns. There are four main verbal clause patterns: (i) Pattern 1: monovalent 3 The last well-known speaker of Pazeh passed away in 2010. Whether there are other speakers or language rememberers of Pazeh is not clear. It is likely that Kahabu, one of the dialect of Pazeh, might have language rememberers. 3 intransitive clauses, (ii) Pattern 2: bivalent intransitive clauses, (iii) Pattern 3: bivalent transitive clauses, and (iv) Pattern 4: applicative clauses. (i) and (ii) take Actor voice (AV); (iii) takes patient voice (PV); (iv) takes locative voice (LV), instrumental voice (IV), or beneficiary voice (BV). The manifestation of voice in an independent clause depends on the definiteness of arguments; these features play a role in determining what the subject is (Pan 2012). 2 Organization of the evidential system In Formosan languages, a sentence may contain an indication of how the information was acquired by the speaker. In Formosan languages with evidentials, these are never the only means of expressing information source. Verbs, adjectives, adverbials, and speech reports may offer additional detail, to do with attitude to knowledge—the sum of what is known and the information this is based on. Our main concern within this chapter is an investigation of expression of knowledge through evidentials as a major grammatical means to express the information source. The system of grammatical evidentials in Formosan languages has a limited number of choices. Formosan languages with grammatical evidentials divide into types depending on how many information sources are assigned a distinct grammatical marking. Except for Tsou that has the richest system of grammatical 4 evidentials, other Formosan languages are relatively poor in evidentiality. Bunun exhibits the smallest evidential system, a system with just one, reported, evidential covering information acquired through someone else's narration. Tsou displays the largest evidential system, consisting of visual, non-visual, experiential, non-experiential, and reported evidentials. Boas (1911), in his grammatical description of Kwakiutl, was one of the first Western scholars to mention the idea of obligatory marking information source in grammar. In languages with obligatory evidentiality, a closed set of information sources has to be marked in every clause; otherwise, the clause is ungrammatical, and a possible misunderstanding may occur. In Formosan languages with grammatical evidentials, Tsou is the only language that requires information source to be obligatorily marked in grammar. Other Formosan languages optionally use evidentials in order to ensure efficient communication. 3 Bunun Bunun is spoken in Nantou County, Hualian County, Taitung County, and Kaohsiung City, Taiwan. Bunun is an endangered Formosan language, with fluent speakers all over the age of 60. Bunun is subdivided into five dialects: Isbukun, Takbunuaz, Takivatan, Takibaka and Takituduh. Isbukun, the dominant dialect, is mainly spoken 5 in southern Taiwan. Takbunuaz and Takivatan are mainly spoken in central Taiwan. Takibaka and Takituduh are northern dialects. A sixth dialect, Takipulan, became extinct in the 1970s. There is a reported evidential =dau in Isbukun Bunun. The reported evidential =dau is a clitic, in that it usually attaches to the first clausal constituent. Isbukun Bunun does not distinguish between secondhand and thirdhand information sources. The reported evidential indicates the information is obtained from someone else, as in (1) (Li 2013: 2). (1)a. ma-ludah=dau saia takna ivut.4 Bunun AV-hit=REP NOM.3SG yesterday snake 'It is said that he/she hit a snake/snakes yesterday.' b. saia=dau abas hai mastaan manauað. Bunun 3SG.DIST.NOM=REP before TOP most beautiful 'It is said that he/she was the most beautiful person before.' In Isbukun Bunun, the reported evidential implies the speaker is uncertain 4 For consistency and ease of comparison, examples cited from other linguists in this chapter are re-organised or re-analysed. 6 about the event. If the speaker is sure about the event, the reported evidential cannot be used, as in (2) (Li 2013: 2). (2) luvus nastuan=i, aupa laupaŋ h<in>udan-an. Bunun wet ground=Q because a.while.ago <PFV>rain-LV 'The ground was wet, because it was raining a while ago.' Evidentials can only rarely fall within the scope of negation (Aikhenvald 2003: 16). The reported evidential in Isbukun Bunun is in line with the observation; that is, while the truth value of the proposition is negated, the information source is not, as in (3-4) (Li 2013: 9). (3) ni=in=dau saia muhna ku-saintin. Bunun NEG=PFV=REP 3SG.DIST.NOM again go-3SG.PROX.OBL 'It is said that he has not been here again.' (4) na=ni=dau saia ku-saintin kutun. Bunun FUT=NEG=REP 3SG.DIST.NOM go-3SG.PROX.OBL tomorrow 'It is said that s/he will not come here tomorrow.' 7 When the reported evidential is used in interrogative clauses, it acquires additional overtones. As shown in the examples below, while the speaker is directing a question to the hearer, its origin is not within the speech act situation; that is, the question's author comes from a third party, and the question is repeated by the speaker, as in (5) (Li 2013: 3). (5) a. na=ku-isa=as=dau? Bunun FUT=go-where=NOM.2SG=REP 'Where are you going?' b. h<in>udan-an=dau kamu takna saintin? Bunun <PFV>rain-LV=REP NOM.2PL yesterday 3SG.PROX.OBL 'Did it rain in your place yesterday?' 4 Paiwan Paiwan is spoken in Taitung County and Pingtung County, Taiwan. Paiwan is an endangered Formosan language, with fluent speakers all over the age of 60. Paiwan is traditionally classified based on its distribution: Eastern Paiwan, Central Paiwan, 8 Southern Paiwan, and Northern Paiwan. Paiwan exhibits a small evidential system, consisting of an inferential evidential and a non-inferential evidential. 4.1 Inferential evidential kaumaya The inferential evidential kaumaya is used to mark inferences made on the basis of visual evidence as in (6) (Chang 2012: 118-9), of the general knowledge as in (7) (Chang 2012: 119), or of reasoning as in (8) (Chang 2012: 119). The inferential evidential is a particle, rather than a verb, in that unlike verbs, it cannot be inflected with voice and take aspectual markers. (6) inika pa-cu-cun tjiamadju, a marekaka Paiwan NEG see.AV-RED-see.AV 3PL.OBL LINK brothers a zua tiamdju a marekaka pai, NOM that 3PL.NOM LINK brothers PAI vaik kaumaya a kivangavang. go.AV INFER LINK play.AV '(The caretaker) did not see the brothers. They perhaps had gone out to look for fun.' 9 (7) pai sa cevel-in kaumaya niamadju. Paiwan PAI then bury-GV INFER 3PL.GEN 'And then they perhaps buried (him).' (8) lakua macula=anga kaumaya, Paiwan but hungry.AV=Com INFER a zua kaka ʔ<em>aung sakamaya. NOM that brother cry<AV>cry simply 'However, that brother perhaps got hungry. He simply cried.' 4.2 Non-inferential evidential aya In Paiwan, the non-inferential evidential aya covers information obtained visually and non-visually. As shown in (9) (Chang 2012: 120), it is used to mark visual information. (9) vaik a paucn. Paiwan go.AV LINK see.AV na=maca=anga aya tua zua uʔalay. PFV=die.AV=Com NON.INFER OBL that male 10 'They went to have a look. That man had died.' When referring to non-visual information, the non-inferential evidential aya covers quotative information acquired from a specified person and from an unspecified source, as in (10-2) (Chang 2006: 357; 2012: 120, 121).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tonhauser, Judith
    UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Theories of Everything Volume 17, Article 7: 43-58, 2012 Nominal Tense in Tsou: Nia and Its Syntax/Semantics* Henry Y. Chang This paper investigates nominal tense (NT) in the Formosan language Tsou. In light of the NT diagnostics proposed in Nordlinger and Sadler (2004), this paper analyzes the nominal temporal marker nia as an instance of Independent NT (INT), heading a DP-internal tense phrase (TP). The INT-analysis explains nicely why (i) nia makes a temporal distinction of past versus nonpast within a noun phrase, (ii) nia cannot be replaced by a verbal tense/mood auxiliary, (iii) the meaning of nia is rather abstract—nia applies widely to nouns of various kinds, including nouns denoting artifacts, location and time, (iv) nia is normally preceded by a case marker, (v) a verb is required to undergo nominalization upon patterning with nia, (vi) nia is compatible both with definite and indefinite noun phrases, (vii) nia can co-occur either with a realis auxiliary or an irrealis auxiliary. These findings may advance our understanding of Tsou nominal structure on the one hand and shed new lights on the universal nominal structure on the other (cf. Cinque 2005, 2011). Keywords: Tsou, nominal temporal marker, independent nominal tense, past versus nonpast, nominal structure. 1 Introduction It is generally held that temporal information is characteristic of verbal categories and normally marked on them. However, recent studies have shown that temporal marking is also possible and productive with nominal categories across many genetically unrelated languages. The major debate in this connection is whether nominal temporal markers are instances of nominal tense (Nordlinger and Sadler 2004, 2008, Tonhauser 2007, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The Endangered Languages in Taiwan
    The Endangered Languages in Taiwan Paul Li Academia Sinica Abtract All Formosan languages are endangered and threatened with extinction. The problems of the criteria for being endangered languages and what aspects of language to study are briefly discussed. There are five most endangered Formosan languages: Pazih, Thao, Kanakanavu, Saaroa and Kavalan, each with a few speakers left. An account of the work that has been done on each of these languages is given. Finally there is a brief discussion of what has been done to conserve and revitalize all the endangered languages in Taiwan. 1. Languages in Taiwan: The Past and the Present There are two main types of languages spoken in Taiwan, Austronesian and Chinese. All the aboriginal languages, spoken in the plains or mountain areas, belong to the Austronesian language family. The population of the indigenous peoples (450,000) is very small, only barely 2% of the total population of Taiwan (23,000,000). The rest of the population speaks a variety of Chinese dialects, including Mandarin, Minnan (Taiwanese), and Hakka. Mandarin has been adopted as the official language by the Nationalist Government since 1945, and it has become the predominant language at the expense of all the other languages in Taiwan. Hence these languages, especially the aboriginal, are endangered and threatened with extinction. Despite all the efforts of the new government in the past eight years, it seems hard to turn the tide. When I started to work on Rukai, an Austronesian language in Taiwan, in 1970, it was sound and healthy, as were many other Formosan languages, such as Atayal, Seediq, Bunun, Tsou, Paiwan, and Amis.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverbial Verb Constructions in Truku Seediq
    W O R K I N G P A P E R S I N L I N G U I S T I C S The notes and articles in this series are progress reports on work being carried on by students and fac- ulty in the Department. Because these papers are not finished products, readers are asked not to cite from them without noting their preliminary nature. The authors welcome any comments and suggestions that readers might offer. Volume 45(1) April 2014 DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA HONOLULU 96822 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution Working Papers in Linguistics: University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Vol. 45(1) DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS FACULTY 2014 Victoria B. Anderson Andrea Berez Derek Bickerton (Emeritus) Robert A. Blust Lyle Campbell Kenneth W. Cook (Adjunct) Kamil Deen (Graduate Chair) Patricia J. Donegan (Chair) Katie K. Drager Emanuel J. Drechsel (Adjunct) Michael L. Forman (Emeritus) Roderick A. Jacobs (Emeritus) William O’Grady Yuko Otsuka Ann Marie Peters (Emeritus) Kenneth L. Rehg Lawrence A. Reid (Emeritus) Amy J. Schafer Albert J. Schütz, (Emeritus, Editor) Jacob Terrell James Woodward Jr. (Adjunct) ii ADVERBIAL VERB CONSTRUCTIONS IN TRUKU SEEDIQ MAYUMI OIWA Formosan languages are known to employ verb-like entities (adverbial verbs) for adverbial expression. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of adverbial verb constructions in Truku Seediq, an Austronesian language of Taiwan, and explores historical and typological implications. I will demonstrate that all Truku adverbial verbs have the ability to occur in two distinct constructions: (i) serial verb constructions in which they behave like stative verbs, and (ii) constructions in which they behave on a par with preverbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Reduplication and Odor in Four Formosan Languages*
    LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 11.1:99-126, 2010 2010-0-011-001-000300-1 Reduplication and Odor in Four Formosan Languages* Amy Pei-jung Lee National Dong Hwa University This paper is a morpho-semantic study of olfactory terms and linguistic expressions for describing odor in four Formosan languages, including Kavalan, Truku Seediq, Paiwan, and Thao, based on the author’s firsthand data. It shows that apart from very limited olfactory terms, reduplication is the most common means for manifesting the meaning of ‘(having) a smell / an odor of X’ in these languages. The formation usually involves a prefix which is found similar in these languages, in Kavalan as su-, Truku Seediq as s-, Paiwan as sa-, and Thao as tu-. Two parameters are taken into consideration: first, the selective restriction on the relevant lexical items for the reduplicative construction, and secondly, the reduplicative patterns in each language. It is proposed that the reason why odor is manifested by reduplication is due to its association with both iterative aspects and plurality. Having a smell is a continuing process, and it is mentally perceptible so that there should be enough entities in order to produce a persistent smell. Inspired by experimental studies in psychology on odor recognition and identification, which suggest a poverty of linguistic representation for odor perception, this paper discusses similarities and differences regarding how each language indicates such a meaning, as well as the semantic implications drawn from the comparison. Key words: reduplication,
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis HUMA 2009
    A Phonetic Study on Implosives in China by Cun Xi A Thesis Submitted to The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Division of Humanities April, 2009, Hong Kong i HKUST Library Reproduction is prohibited without the author’s prior written consent UMI Number: 3365904 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ______________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 3365904 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. _______________________________________________________________ ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 Acknowledgements At this exciting and momentous time, the first person I would like to thank is my supervisor Prof. Zhu Xiaonong. Many years ago, when I was a newcomer to linguistics, he introduced me to the possibilities along that path and encouraged me to explore them. Reading and correcting every detail of my thesis is not his style, but his comments often hit the nail on the head. He likes to talk to students in an open-hearted way, as our friend, and invite us to meals at his home.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Position of Philippine Languages in the Austronesian Family
    The Br Andrew Gonzalez FSC (BAG) Distinguished Professorial Chair Lecture, 2017 De La Salle University Revisiting the Position of Philippine Languages in the Austronesian Family Lawrence A. Reid University of Hawai`i National Museum of the Philippines Abstract With recent claims from non-linguists that there is no such thing as an Austronesian language family, and that Philippine languages could have a different origin from one that all comparative linguists claim, it is appropriate to revisit the claims that have been made over the last few hundred years. Each has been popular in its day, and each has been based on evidence that under scrutiny has been shown to have problems, leading to new claims. This presentation will examine the range of views from early Spanish ideas about the relationship of Philippine languages, to modern Bayesian phylogenetic views, outlining the data upon which the claims have been made and pointing out the problems that each has. 1. Introduction Sometime in 1915 (or early 1916) (UP 1916), when Otto Scheerer was an assistant professor of German at the University of the Philippines, he gave a lecture to students in which he outlined three positions that had been held in the Philippines since the early 1600’s about the internal and external relations of Philippine languages. He wrote the following: 1. As early as 1604, the principal Philippine languages were recognized as constituting a linguistic unit. 2. Since an equally early time the belief was sustained that these languages were born of the Malay language as spoken on the Peninsula of Malacca.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphology and Syntax of Gerunds in Truku Seediq : a Third Function of Austronesian “Voice” Morphology
    MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF GERUNDS IN TRUKU SEEDIQ : A THIRD FUNCTION OF AUSTRONESIAN “VOICE” MORPHOLOGY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS SUMMER 2017 By Mayumi Oiwa-Bungard Dissertation Committee: Robert Blust, chairperson Yuko Otsuka, chairperson Lyle Campbell Shinichiro Fukuda Li Jiang Dedicated to the memory of Yudaw Pisaw, a beloved friend ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my most profound gratitude to the hospitality and generosity of the many members of the Truku community in the Bsngan and the Qowgan villages that I crossed paths with over the years. I’d like to especially acknowledge my consultants, the late 田信德 (Tian Xin-de), 朱玉茹 (Zhu Yu-ru), 戴秋貴 (Dai Qiu-gui), and 林玉 夏 (Lin Yu-xia). Their dedication and passion for the language have been an endless source of inspiration to me. Pastor Dai and Ms. Lin also provided me with what I can call home away from home, and treated me like family. I am hugely indebted to my committee members. I would like to express special thanks to my two co-chairs and mentors, Dr. Robert Blust and Dr. Yuko Otsuka. Dr. Blust encouraged me to apply for the PhD program, when I was ready to leave academia after receiving my Master’s degree. If it wasn’t for the gentle push from such a prominent figure in the field, I would never have seen the potential in myself.
    [Show full text]
  • (Pré)Histoires D'articles Et Grammaire Comparée Des Langues Austronésiennes
    Alain Lemaréchal Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, t. XCIX (2004), fasc. 1, p. 395-456 (PRÉ)HISTOIRES D'ARTICLES ET GRAMMAIRE COMPARÉE DES LANGUES AUSTRONÉSIENNES RÉSUMÉ. — Après avoir examiné dans une perspective comparative le système des diathèses et des voix de quelques langues austroné- siennes (BSLP 2001), nous nous livrerons au même travail sur un autre domaine associant dans cette famille stabilité et renouvelle- ments/remaniements, celui des articles-«∞∞∞marques de cas∞∞∞», à partir d'un échantillon de 35 langues. Introduction Cet article s'inscrit dans le prolongement de celui paru dans le BSLP 20011 qui examinait les systèmes de marques de voix («∞∞∞focus∞∞∞») et de quelques autres marques verbales dans un certain nombre de langues austronésiennes. En effet, si ces dernières constituent sans doute l'élément le plus constant et le plus stable permettant (hors langues océaniennes) d'identifier une langue comme appartenant à la famille austronésienne, les articles + marques de cas + prépositions forment aussi une constellation récur- rente, certes en remaniement constant dans les différentes langues, mais réunissant des marques à signifiant stable et en petit nombre∞∞∞: les articles2 *a(∞), *i ou *si (*t'i chez Dahl), la marque de Génitif et de complément d'agent *n-, des prépositions/marques d'objet, de locatif, etc., *sa (*t'a chez Dahl), *i ou *di, *kV (ou *kan). Le Note∞∞: Je n'ai pu tirer parti, pour cet article prévu par le BSLP 2003, des textes parus dans Faits de langues, 23-24, 2004 (voir bibliographie). 1. «∞∞∞Problèmes d'analyse des langues de Formose et grammaire comparée des langues austronésiennes∞∞∞», BSLP, XCVI/1, p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Austronesian Languages of Taiwan, with Special Reference to Siraya
    1 Paper in progress: please do not quote without permission of the author The Austronesian languages of Taiwan, with special reference to Siraya Alexander Adelaar Melbourne Institute of Asian Languages and Societies The University of Melbourne 1. Introduction This paper discusses the indigenous or Formosan (indigenous) languages of Taiwan, with special attention to Siraya. In Section 2, it provides a survey of these languages detailing their numbers of speakers, and in Section 3 it explains their genetic affiliations (vis-à-vis each other as well as within the wider context of Austronesian languages elsewhere). In Section 4, the paper explains the great importance of these languages for Southeast Asian archaeology, and in Section 5 the increasing relevance of the Formosan population for Taiwanese politics and nationalism. One of the Formosan languages, Siraya, is now extinct, although it was once one of the most widely spoken languages in south western Taiwan. Some indications on the location of this language are given in Section 6, and notes on the history and ethnography of its speakers are given in Section 7. Section 8 reports on the efforts that are being made for the revival of Siraya. Section 9 gives an overview of the linguistic data of Siraya. Finally, Section 10 discusses some unusual characteristics of Siraya grammar. 2. Formosan languages: numbers of speakers and vitality In the seventeenth century there were at least 25 indigenous languages spoken on Taiwan, and they were all Austronesian. Today, ten of these have become extinct1, and at least five others are on the verge of extinction2; languages that are not under immediate threat of extinction are those spoken by the Amis (168,548), Atayal (87,649), Bunun (46,783), Paiwan (79,497), Puyuma (1,090), Rukai (11,263), Saisyiat (5,477), Truku (7,844), Tsou (6,049) and Yami (3,572); (Council of Indigenous Peoples 2005)3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Discourse Study of Indigenous Language Revitalisation Policy in Taiwan
    A Critical Discourse Study of Indigenous Language Revitalisation Policy in Taiwan Chien Ju Ting A thesis submitted to Auckland University of Technology in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 2021 Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication School of Language and Culture i Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures and Tables .............................................................................................. viii List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................. ix Attestation of Authorship .................................................................................................. x Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... xi Abstract .......................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1. What is this study on revitalisation of Taiwan’s Indigenous languages all about? 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 How this started for me ........................................................................................... 1 1.3 This study ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Higher Phylogeny of Austronesian and the Position of Tai-Kadai Laurent Sagart
    The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai-Kadai Laurent Sagart To cite this version: Laurent Sagart. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai-Kadai. Oceanic Lin- guistics, University of Hawai’i Press, 2004, 43 (2), pp.411-444. halshs-00090906 HAL Id: halshs-00090906 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00090906 Submitted on 4 Sep 2006 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THE HIGHER PHYLOGENY OF AUSTRONESIAN AND THE POSITION OF TAI-KADAI1 Laurent Sagart CNRS, Paris 1 This is a modified version of a paper presented at the workshop on "Les premiers austronésiens: langues, gènes, systèmes de parenté", Paris, May 5, 2004. Thanks go to Sander Adelaar, Peter Bellwood, Bob Blust, Isabelle Bril, Alexandre François, Jeff Marck, Estella Poloni, Lawrence Reid, Malcolm Ross, Alicia Sanchez-Mazas and John Wolff for useful discussion. Abstract This paper presents a new higher phylogeny for the Austronesian family, based on three independent lines of evidence: the observation of a hierarchy of implications
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Focus in Austronesian 1
    The Evolution of Focus in Austronesian 1. Introduction 1.1 The problem In this paper,1we will attempt to reconstruct the features of Proto-Austronesian morphology and syntax which gave rise to the focus systems exhibited by modern Philippine languages. In order to approach this problem, it will be necessary to consider the following questions: 1) What is the grammatical structure of sentences showing ‘verbal focus’ in Philippine languages? And in particular, what is their synchronic and diachronic relation to nominalizations which show affixes cognate with the verbal focus affixes? We need to have a reasonably clear idea of the endpoint of an evolutionary sequence before we can reconstruct the stages that led up to it. 2) Do the focus systems of Philippine languages represent a retention from Proto-Austronesian or an innovation? What kind of case marking system can we reconstruct for the proto-language which will allow us to provide plausible accounts of how a single original system could evolve into the Oceanic object focus system in one area and the Philippine subject-focus system in another? An attempt to answer 2) will require consideration of such specific questions as: 3) What are the higher-order subgroups within Austronesian? The position we take on this question of course will determine which combinations of languages will count as adequate witnesses for reconstructing a morphological or syntactic feature all the way back to the proto-language. 4) What is the current distribution of Philippine-style focus systems by geographic regions and within subgroups of Austronesian languages? This will determine how far back we can reconstruct this syntactic property.
    [Show full text]