Article published In:
Language and Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Verbal marking, intransitivity, and argument structure

The case of Budai Rukai

| University of Mississippi
This paper provides an intransitive analysis for an array of predicates which exhibit specific marking patterns in Budai Rukai. Contra previous lexical approaches, it is argued that a verbal prefix found on the predicates instantiates a functional head v, which constructs an intransitive vP. Its spell-out form is conditioned by its interaction with other higher functional categories, including tense, causative, passive, and complementizer. With respect to intransitivity, the resulting vP does not admit an accusative object, and it exhibits unergative, unaccusative, and anticausative properties. Regarding argument structure, these predicates are mostly one-place predicates. The sole argument is the grammatical subject which usually denotes an affected theme or an experiencer.
Keywords: intransitivity, argument structure, functional category, Formosan, Austronesian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Budai Rukai and some basic patterns
  • 2.Predicate type and related characteristics
  • 3.Basic marking patterns
    • 3.1The paradigm and tense marking patterns
    • 3.2Negation
    • 3.3Modality
  • 4.Marking patterns and clause structure
    • 4.1Causative
    • 4.2Complementizer phrases
      • 4.2.1 La ‘and (then); therefore; so (that)’
      • 4.2.2 Lu ‘as; if; when’
      • 4.2.3 Sa ‘when’
      • 4.2.4 Sana ‘whenever; if’
    • 4.3Other constructions
      • 4.3.1Coordination
      • 4.3.2Passive
      • 4.3.3Imperative
      • 4.3.4Resultative
  • 5.Syntactic and semantic properties
    • 5.1The vP structure and the spell-out rule
    • 5.2Case marking
    • 5.3Argument structure and structural considerations
      • 5.3.1Argument structure
      • 5.3.2Structural considerations
      • 5.3.3Interim discussion
    • 5.4Lack of causation
    • 5.5Non-conforming forms
  • 6.Conclusions and future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 22 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00164.che
References (64)
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2017. Φ-feature competition: A unified approach to the Austronesian extraction restriction. In Kantarovich, Jessica & Truong, Tran & Xherija, Orest (eds.), CLS 52: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1–20. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. 2021. The nature and origin of syntactic ergativity in Austronesian languages. In Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Eythórsson, Thórhallur (eds.), Syntactic features and the limits of syntactic change, 265–300. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2010. On the morphosyntax of (anti)causative verbs. In Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Doron, Edit & Sichel, Ivy (eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, 177–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2004. Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, 114–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation (Studies in Generative Grammar 91), 187–212. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2003. Three notes on early Austronesian morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 42(2). 438–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Revised edn. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Gregory Norman. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Chen, Cheng-Fu. 1999. Wh-words as interrogatives and indefinites in Rukai. Taipei: National Taiwan University. (Master’s thesis.)
. 2008. Aspect and tense in Rukai: Interpretation and interaction. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2011. Use and temporal interpretation of the Rukai future tense. In Musan, Renate & Rathert, Monika (eds.), Tense across languages, 91–108. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Noun incorporation, doubling, and predicate restriction: The case of Budai Rukai. Taiwan Yuwen Yanjiu 17(1). 117–178.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP). 2016. Online aboriginal language dictionary: Rukai. New Taipei City: Council of Indigenous Peoples. ([URL]) (Accessed 2022-09-14.)
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(2). 347–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16(4). 547–593.Google Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Huang, Lillian M. 2000. Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39(2). 364–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Indigenous Languages Research and Development Center (ILRDC). 2019. Indigenous language learning vocabulary list (Budai Rukai). ([URL]) (Accessed 2024-03-06.)
Irwin, Patricia L. 2012. Unaccusativity at the interfaces. New York: New York University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuo, John Ching-Hua. 1979. Budai complementation. New Taipei City: Fu-Jen Catholic University. (Master’s thesis.)
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1973. Rukai structure. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei & Ho, Dah-an & Huang, Lillian M. & Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Saillard, Claire. 1997. Kaohsiung xian Nandao yuyan. Kaohsiung: Kaohsiung County Government.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2). 201–225.Google Scholar
. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 1301. 152–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Jaeger, Jeri J. & Woodbury, Anthony C. & Ackerman, Farrell & Chiarello, Christine & Gensler, Orin D. & Kingston, John & Sweetser, Eve E. & Thompson, Henry & Whistler, Kenneth W. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–189. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Kylie Rachel. 2003. The case for meaningful case: The interaction of tense, aspect, and case in Russian. Cambridge: Harvard University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Rothstein, Susan Deborah. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2001. Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Shelley, George LeRoy, III. 1978. Vudai Ḍukai: The language, its context, and its relationships. Hartford: The Hartford Seminary Foundation. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Timothy Angus. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Sung, Li-May. 2011. Clausal nominalization in Budai Rukai. In Yap, Foong Ha & Grunow-Hårsta, Karen & Wrona, Janick (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 523–559. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Why exclamatives in Budai Rukai. In Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy Fang-chin & Wu, Joy J. (eds.), New advances in Formosan linguistics, 291–312. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2010. Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1975. Small clauses in English. In Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 41, 249–273. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1). 203–238.Google Scholar
1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2). 287–308.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 2016. Elements of formal semantics: An introduction to the mathematical theory of meaning in natural language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000a. Rukai yu cankao yufa. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
. 2000b. Dynamic vs. stative verbs in Mantauran (Rukai). Oceanic Linguistics 39(2). 415–427.Google Scholar
. 2007. A grammar of Mantauran (Rukai). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
. 2015. Analogy and grammatical change: A case study of the verb of ‘saying’ in Mantauran Rukai. In Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy Fang-chin & Wu, Joy J. (eds.), New advances in Formosan linguistics, 431–450. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Huang, Lillian M. 1997. Toward a typology of tense, aspect and modality in Formosan languages: A preliminary study. In Tseng, Chiu-yu (ed.), Chinese languages and linguistics, vol. IV: Typological studies of languages in China, 595–618. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2000. Concerning ka-, an overlooked marker of verbal derivation in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 39(2). 391–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Huang, Lillian M. & Yeh, Marie M. & Chang, Anna H. & Wu, Joy J. 1996. The temporal, aspectual, and modal systems of some Formosan languages: A typological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 35(1). 21–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Huang, Lillian M. & Yeh, Marie M. & Chang, Anna H. 1999. Existential, possessive, and locative constructions in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38(1). 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy Fang-chin. 2009. From ki-N ‘get N’ in Formosan languages to ki-V ‘get V-ed’ (passive) in Rukai, Paiwan and Puyuma. In Evans, Bethwyn (ed.), Discovering history through language: Papers in honour of Malcolm Ross, 479–500. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar