Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oslo, 5-9 August 2013
Edited by Dag T.T. Haug
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 334] 2015
► pp. 257–280

The argument indexing of early Austronesian verbs

A reconstructional myth?

This paper re-examines the Proto Austronesian (PAn) split-clitic construction, which has had a considerable influence on the reconstruction of Austronesian morphosyntactic history, suggests that it is a myth, and proposes alternative reconstructions, on the basis of data from Austronesian languages of Taiwan. At the same time the paper exemplifies and reinforces the observation by scholars of historical morphosyntax that cognate constructions across languages need to be identified not only on the basis of syntactic similarity but also on the basis of cognate morphology. Without the latter, there is no strong evidence of cognacy, as similar syntax may occur through parallel development, chance or contact.
Keywords: Austronesian, Proto-Austronesian, reconstruction, split-clitic construction
Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.334.14ros
References (54)
References
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 2011. Siraya: Retrieving the Phonology, Grammar and Lexicon of a Dormant Formosan Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adelaar, K. Alexander & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, eds. 2005. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2014. “Ergativity from Subjunctive in Austronesian Languages”. Paper presented to the 14th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 4–6 June 2014.
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012. “Reconstructing Syntax: Construction Grammar and the Comparative Method”. Sign-Based Construction Grammar ed. by Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag, 257–308. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Billings, Loren & Daniel Kaufman. 2004. “Towards a Typology of Austronesian Pronominal Clisis”. Proceedings of the Eleventh meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (= ZAS Papers in Linguistics 34), ed. by Paul Law, 15–29. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 1977. “The Proto-Austronesian Pronouns and Austronesian Subgrouping: A Preliminary Report”. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 9/2:1–15.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Subgrouping, Circularity and Extinction: Some Issues in Austronesian Comparative Linguistics”. Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (= Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica 1), ed by Elizabeth Zeitoun & Paul Jen-kuei Li, 31–94. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert A. & Stephen Trussell. 2011. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. [URL].Google Scholar
Chang, Anna Hsiouchuan. 2006. A Reference Grammar of Paiwan. PhD thesis, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Chang, Henry Yungli. 2009. “Adverbial Verbs and Adverbial Compounds in Tsou: A Syntactic Analysis.” Oceanic Linguistics 48:439–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Early, Robert & John Whitehorn. 2003. One Hundred Paiwan Texts. (= Pacific Linguistics 542) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Egli, Hans. 1990. Paiwangrammatik. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2002. Paiwan Wörterbuch: Paiwan-Deutsch, Deutsch-Paiwan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Evans, Bethwyn. 1995. Reconstructing Object Markers in Oceanic Languages. BA Honours sub-thesis. Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ferrell, Raleigh. 1982. Paiwan Dictionary. ( = Pacific Linguistics C-73) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. “Reconstruction in Syntax: Reconstruction of Patterns”. Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction ed. by Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach, 73–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. “Person Marking and Grammatical Relations in Sulawesi”. Papers in Austronesian linguistics No. 3 (= Pacific Linguistics A-84) ed. by Hein Steinhauer, 115–136. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2005. “The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological Characteristics”. Adelaar & Himmelmann, eds., 110–181.Google Scholar
Ho, Dah-an (Hé Dàān). 1998. “Táiwǎn Nándǎoyŭ de yŭyán guǎnxi” [Genetic relationships among the Formosan languages]. Chinese Studies 16:141–171.Google Scholar
Holmer, Arthur J. 1996. A Parametric Grammar of Seediq. ( = Travaux de L’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 30.) Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Holmer, Arthur & Loren Billings. 2014. “Clitic Pronouns in Seediq”. Papers from 12-ICAL, 2: Argument Realisations and Related Constructions in Austronesian Languages ed. by I Wayan Arka & N. L. K. Mas Indrawati, 131–141. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
Huang, Shuanfan & Michael Tanangkingsing. 2011. “A Discourse Explanation of the Transitivity Phenomena in Kavalan, Squliq, and Tsou”. Oceanic Linguistics 50:93–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Wei-chen. 2012. A Study of Verbal Morphology in Puljetji Paiwan. MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2008. “South Sulawesi Pronominal Clitics: Form, Function and Position”. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 17:13–65.Google Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2003. “A New View of the Proto-Oceanic Pronominal System”. Oceanic Linguistics 42:161–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Lilian Li-ying. 2010. Clitics in Nantou Isbukun Bunun (Austronesian). MA thesis, National Chi Nan University, Puli, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2013. “From Austronesian Voice to Oceanic Transitivity: Äiwoo as the ‘Missing Link’”. Oceanic Linguistics 52:106–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild & Brenda H. Boerger. 2008. “Reefs-Santa Cruz as Oceanic: Evidence from the Verb Complex”. Oceanic Linguistics 47:186–213.Google Scholar
Palmer, Bill. 2011. “Subject-indexing and Possessive Morphology in Northwest Solomonic”. Linguistics 49:685–747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pecoraro, Ferdinando. 1979. Elements de grammaire taroko, precedes de la presentation de la vie et de la culture des taroko. Paris: Association Archipel.Google Scholar
Pires, Acrisio & Sarah G. Thomason. 2008. “How Much Syntactic Reconstruction is Possible?”. Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction, ed. by Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach, 27–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A. & Hsiu-chuan Liao. 2004. “A Brief Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages”. Language and Linguistics 5:433–490.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1986. “A Genetic Grouping of Oceanic Languages in Bougainville and the Western Solomons”, FOCAL II: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (= Pacific Linguistics C-94) ed. by Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington & S.A. Wurm, 75–200. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Reconstructing the Case-Marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian”. Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul ­Jen-kuei Li on his 70th birthday (= Language and Linguistics Monograph Series W5) ed. by Henry Yungli Chang, Lillian M. Huang & Dah-an Ho, 521–564. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Proto Austronesian Verbal Morphology: A Reappraisal”. Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust (= Pacific Linguistics 601) ed. by Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2012a. “In Defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic)”. Language and Linguistics 13:1253–1330.Google Scholar
. 2012b. “Some Proto Austronesian Coronals Reexamined”. Ms., The Australian National University.
. 2013. “How Rukai became Accusatively Aligned”. Unpublished draft, Australian National University.
. 2015. “Revising the Reconstruction of Early Austronesian Personal Pronouns”. Papers from 12-ICAL, 3: Language change in Austronesian languages ed by Malcolm Ross & I Wayan Arka, 109–122. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
Ross, Malcolm & Åshild Næss. 2007. “An Oceanic Origin for Äiwoo, the Language of the Reef Islands?”. Oceanic Linguistics 46:456–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 2004. “The Higher Phylogeny of Austronesian and the Position of Tai-Kadai”. Oceanic Linguistics 43:411–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1988. The Case for Lexicase: An Outline of Lexicase Grammatical Theory. London and New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley & Lawrence A. Reid. 1981. “The Evolution of Focus in Austronesian”. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Bali. Published in Zeitoun ed., 2009:329–481.
. 1982. “The Evolution of Focus in Austronesian”. Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 2: Tracking the travellers (= Pacific Linguistics C-75) ed. by Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & S.A. Wurm, 145–170. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Puyuma, an Austronesian Language of Taiwan. (= Pacific Linguistics 595.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Notes on Puyuma Preverbal Portmanteau Forms”. Unpublished draft, Academia Sinica.
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching & Elizabeth Zeitoun. 2014. ”Kanakanavu Personal Pronouns Revisited”. Unpublished ms, Academia Sinica.
Tsukida, Naomi. 2005. “Seediq”. Adelaar & Himmelmann, eds. 291–325.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U. 1996. “The Development of the Passive Verb with Pronominal Prefix in Western Austronesian Languages”. Reconstruction, Classification, Description: Festschrift in Honor of Isidore Dyen ed. by Bernd Nothofer, 15–40. Hamburg: Abera.Google Scholar
Yen, Doris Ching-jung. 2012. Clitics in Kavalan (East Formosan, Austronesian). MA thesis, National Chi Nan University, Puli, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2005. “Tsou”. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Adelaar & Himmelmann, eds. 259–290.Google Scholar
, ed. 2009. Formosan Linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s Contributions, vol. 2 (= Language and Linguistics Monograph Series C6-2.) Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Stacy Fang-ching Teng. 2014. “The Position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa within the Formosan Languages Revisited”. Paper presented to the 14th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 4–6 June 2014.
Zobel, Erik. 2002. “The Position of Chamorro and Palauan in the Austronesian Family Tree: Evidence from Verb Morphosyntax”. The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems (= Pacific Linguistics 518) ed. by Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross, 405–434. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Daniels, Don, Danielle Barth & Wolfgang Barth
2019. Subgrouping the Sogeram languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 9:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2017. A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. Studies in Language 41:3 ► pp. 577 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2021. The issue of arbitrariness in syntactic reconstruction. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s2 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.