Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 11:2 (2021) ► pp.214–247
Thematic section

Syntactic conditions on accusative to ergative alignment change in Austronesian languages

| Academia Sinica
This paper develops the proposal put forth by Aldridge (2015, 2016) for the emergence of ergative alignment in a first-order subgroup of the Austronesian family. I first provide new evidence for reconstructing Proto-Austronesian (PAn) as accusative rather than ergative. I then propose a significantly revised approach to Aldridge’s proposed reanalysis. On the basis of evidence from Tsou, I propose that the reanalysis took place in biclausal constructions embedded under motion or locative verbs. Since such biclausal constructions are contexts for restructuring, no accusative case is available for an object. This forced objects which needed structural licensing to value nominative case with T. I additionally show that subjects were assigned inherent non-nominative case in PAn when objects needed to enter into Agree with T, as when valuing nominative case. These conditions yielded a new ergative clause type in a daughter of PAn, which Aldridge (2015, 2016) calls “Proto-Ergative Austronesian”. No change took place in clauses lacking an object needing structural licensing. Consequently, subjects in intransitive clauses and transitive clauses with indefinite objects continued to surface with nominative case, yielding the type of ergative alignment prevalent in Formosan and Philippine languages today.
Keywords: Syntactic reconstruction, restructuring, grammaticalization, motion verb, alignment change, Austronesian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The alignment of Proto-Austronesian
    • 2.1Was PAn ergative?
    • 2.2Evidence against reconstructing PAn as ergative
  • 3.Reconstructing PAn with accusative alignment
    • 3.1Origin of the tense/aspect auxiliaries in Tsou
    • 3.2Restructuring and grammaticalization of motion/locative verbs
  • 4.Subsequent changes
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.20016.ald
References (60)
References
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 2004. The Coming and Going of ‘Lexical Prefixes’ in Siraya. Language and Linguistics 5:2.333–361.Google Scholar
Ademola-Adeoye, Feyisayo Fehintola. 2011. A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Finite Raising Constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kwazulu-Natal.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 2015. A Minimalist Approach to the Emergence of Ergativity in Austronesian Languages. Linguistics Vanguard 1:1.313–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Ergativity from Subjunctive in Austronesian Languages. Language and Linguistics 17:1.27–62.Google Scholar
. 2017. Intransitivity and the Development of Ergative Alignment. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis, 501–529. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2021. The Nature and Origin of Syntactic Ergativity in Austronesian Languages. Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change ed. by Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson & Thorhallur Eythorsson, 265–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert. 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) ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun & Paul Jen-kuei Li, 31–94. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
. 2003. Three Notes on Early Austronesian Morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 42:2.438–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009/2013. The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies (2nd ed. College of Asia and the Pacific), Australian National University.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert & Victoria Chen. 2017. The Pitfalls of Negative Evidence: ‘Nuclear Austronesian’, ‘Ergative Austronesian’, and Their Progeny. Language and Linguistics 18:4.577–621.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The Projection of Arguments. Functional Projections ed. by E. Benedicto & J. Runner, 19–47. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Henry Y. 2011. Transitivity, Ergativity, and the Status of O in Tsou. Language and Cognition: Festschrift in Honor of James H-Y. Tai on His 70th Birthday ed. by Jung-hsing Chang, 277–308. Taipei: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
2017. The Av-Only Restriction and Locality in Formosan Languages. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 47:2.231–254.Google Scholar
Chang, Henry Y. & Chia-jung Pan. 2018. Zouyu Yufa Gailun [Introduction to Tsou Grammar]. New Taipei City: Council of Indigenous Peoples.Google Scholar
Chang, Melody Ya-Yin. 2000. On Tsou Wh-Questions: Movement or in Situ? Language and Linguistics 1:2.1–18.Google Scholar
Chang, Yung-li. 1997. Voice, Case and Agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Doctoral dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung & Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjects in Austronesian Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 101.375–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological Characteristics. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar ed. by Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–181. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holmer, Arthur. 1996. A Parametric Grammar of Seediq. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter Edwin. 1991. The Emergence of Perfective Aspect in Indo-Aryan Languages. Approaches to Grammaticalization (ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine) 19:2.59–89. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 561.251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive Case and Aspect. The Projection of Arguments ed. by Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2007. Verbal and Nominalized Finite Clauses in Turkish. Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations ed. by Irina Nikolaeva, 305–332. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuo, Jonathan Cheng-Chuen. 2015. Argument Alternation and Argument Structure in Symmetrical Voice Languages: A Case Study of Transfer Verbs in Amis, Puyuma, and Seediq. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie. 2008. Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 391.55–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Chao-Lin. 2009. The Syntax of Prefix Concord in Saaroa: Restructuring and Multiple Agreement. Oceanic Linguistics 48:1.172–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1977. The Internal Relationships of Rukai. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica 48:1.1–92.Google Scholar
Murasugi, Kumiko G. 1992. Crossing and Nested Paths: Np Movement in Accusative and Ergative Languages. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Sara Rosen. 2000. Event Structure and Ergativity. Events as Grammatical Objects ed. by C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky, 187–238. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1992. The Sound of Proto-Austronesian: An Outsider’s View of the Formosan Evidence. Oceanic Linguistics 311.23–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. The History and Transitivity of Western Austronesian Voice and Voice-Marking. The History and Typology and Western Austronesian Voice Systems ed. by Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross, 17–62. 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 ed. by Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang & Dah-an Ho, 521–563. 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 ed. by Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2012. In Defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language and Linguistics 13:6.1253–1300.Google Scholar
Runner, Jeffrey T. 1993. Quantificational Objects and Agr-O. Papers from the Fifth Student Conference in Linguistics (Scil-V), University of Washington ed. by V. Lindblad & M. Gamon, 209–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Soames, S. & David Perlmutter. 1979. Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A Grammatical Subgrouping of Formosan Languages. Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan ed. by Paul J.-K. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho & Chiu-yu Tseng, 683–726. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
. 2001. Reduplication and the Subgrouping of Formosan Languages. Paper Presented at the International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues Relating to Taiwan, Academia Sinica. Formosan Linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s Contributions ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun, 801–834. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, 2009.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley & Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The Evolution of Focus in Austronesian. Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics ed. by Amram Halim, Lois Carrington & S. A. Wurm, 145–170. Pacific Linguistics, C-75.Google Scholar
Tan, Cindy Ro-lan. 1997. A Study of Puyuma Simple Sentences. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Puyuma. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2014. Grammaticalization of Predicative Possession in Nanwang Puyuma and as a Basis for Reconstruction in PAn. Oceanic Linguistics 53:1.141–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. A Reconstruction of the Proto-Puyuma Aspectual and Modal System. Oceanic Linguistics 57:2.303–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Topping, Donald. 1973. Chamorro Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1975. Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Kazuha. 2008. Tense and Aspect in Old Japanese: Synchronic, Diachronic, and Typological Perspectives. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Wolff, John. 1973. Verbal Inflection in Proto-Austronesian. Essays in Honor of Cecilio Lopez on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday ed. by Andrew Gonzales, 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Göttingen: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 1992. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Tsou Focus System. Master’s thesis, National Tsinghua University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
. 1996. The Tsou Temporal, Aspectual, and Modal System Revisited. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 67:3.503–532.Google Scholar
. 2000. Zouyu Cankao Yufa [Tsou Reference Grammar]. Taipei: Yuanliou Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2019. A Comparative Study of Verb Classification across the Rukai Dialects. Paper presented at the Workshop on Verbs in Formosan Languages and Beyond: Cross-Linguistic, Comparative, and Diachronic Perspectives. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, Maria M. Yeh & Anna H. Chang. 1999. Existential, Possessive, and Locative Constructions in Formosan Languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38:1.1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chen, Victoria, Jonathan Kuo, Maria Kristina S. Gallego & Isaac Stead
2022. Is Malayo-Polynesian a primary branch of Austronesian?. Diachronica 39:4 ► pp. 449 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.