Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:2 (2020) ► pp.407–460

Indefinite expressions and accessibility hierarchy to core argument functions in a sample of Austronesian languages (and beyond)

ORCID logo | LACITO-CNRS | Labex EFL
In many languages, indefinite expressions are known to have restricted access to core argument functions. This article focuses on the accessibility hierarchy of indefinite expressions to subject and object functions in a sample of Austronesian languages. Aiming at some comparative analysis, some cross-linguistic perspectives on the differential encoding of ± definite core arguments and other types of restrictions are discussed. The questions addressed are: (i) What type of indefinite nouns have core argument function? (ii) If barred from core argument function, how are indefinite arguments circumvented? (iii) Does existence or lack of indefinite articles correlate with access to core argument function, and in what way?
In Austronesian languages, one finding is that languages with indefinite articles display fewer restrictions on the access of indefinite NPs to core argument function. Another finding is that differences of definiteness, individuation and specificity of arguments tend to be expressed by distinct domains: the noun phrase in languages with indefinite articles, the verb phrase in languages without indefinite articles (via valency, voice alternations, alignment changes), with an intermediate situation in some Micronesian languages.
Keywords: Austronesian, articles, indefinite NPs, accessibility hierarchy to argument functions, definiteness effect, existential constructions, presentational constructions, specificity, generic NPs, voice shifts, depivotisation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The sample
    • 1.2The aims
  • 2.Defining indefiniteness, specificity and genericity
    • 2.1Definiteness and indefiniteness
    • 2.2Specific and non-specific indefinite NPs
    • 2.3Generic NPs
  • 3.Indefinite NPs and restrictions on argument function
    • 3.1Cross-linguistic perspectives on the differential encoding of ± definite core arguments
      • 3.1.1Differential object case-marking and ‘deobjectivisation’
      • 3.1.2Differential subject case-marking and ‘desubjectivisation’
      • 3.1.3Word order and patterns of subject agreement
      • 3.1.4Incorporation of indefinite arguments
      • 3.1.5Languages with articles: Existential and stage-framing constructions
    • 3.2Constraints on indefinite subjects and existential predications
    • 3.3Austronesian-Oceanic languages
  • 4.Restrictions of access to subject function in languages with and without indefinite articles
    • 4.1Access to subject function in languages without indefinite articles
      • 4.1.1Constraints on indefinite subjects and existential predications
    • 4.2Access to subject function in languages with ± specific indefinite articles
      • 4.2.1Maori: Argument function accessibility of indefinite nouns
        • 4.2.1.1Thetic event sentences and episodic sentences
        • 4.2.1.2Event-denoting, episodic sentences with transitive and intransitive verbs
          • 4.2.1.2.1Subject accessibility: tētahi NPs only
          • 4.2.1.2.2Subject accessibility: tētahi and he NPs
          • 4.2.1.2.3Subject accessibility of passive verbs: tētahi and he NPs
      • 4.2.2Mavea (Vanuatu)
  • 5.Access to object function
    • 5.1Languages without indefinite articles: Access to object function
      • 5.1.1Nêlêmwa
      • 5.1.2Access to object function in languages with or without articles and with semi-transitive constructions
        • 5.1.2.1Saliba
        • 5.1.2.2Trukese and Marshallese (Micronesian)
    • 5.2Languages with indefinite articles: Access to object function
      • 5.2.1Maori: Accessibility to object function
      • 5.2.2Access to object function in Biak (Eastern Malayo-Polynesian)
      • 5.2.3Access to object function in Mavea (Vanuatu)
  • 6.Access of generic expressions to argument function
    • 6.1Generic expressions and subjecthood in Nêlêmwa
    • 6.2Generic NPs in Maori
    • 6.3Generic NPs in Biak and Mavea
      • 6.3.1Generic NPs in Mavea
      • 6.3.2Summary of Section 6
  • 7.Accessibility hierarchy in Western Austronesian
    • 7.1Thetic, existential predications in Northern Amis
      • 7.1.1Event existentials: Elision of non-specific actor subjects
      • 7.1.2Event existentials: Elision of non-specific undergoer subjects
    • 7.2Voice alternations: Avoiding indefinite subjects in Northern Amis
    • 7.3Voice alternations: Avoiding indefinite arguments in Tagalog
      • 7.3.1Existential predications in Tagalog
      • 7.3.2Indefinite patients in Tagalog
      • 7.3.3Oblique indefinite patients of non-factive verbs
    • 7.4Existential predications in Kapampangan (Philippines)
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19064.bri
References (78)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 39–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Definiteness and existentials. Language 731: 103–108. DOI logo (Last access: 13 February 2020)Google Scholar
. 2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. Definite and indefinite. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., vol.31), 392–399. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Cornell University Ph.D Dissertation.Google Scholar
Bauer, Winifred. 1983, 1997 (2nd edition). Reference grammar of Maori. Auckland: Reed Publ.Google Scholar
Beaver, David, Itamar Francez & Dmitry Levinson. 2005. Bad subject: (Non)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In Efthymia Georgala & Jonathan Howell (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XV1, 19–43. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bender, Byron W. 1969. Spoken Marshallese. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Benton, Richard A. 1968. Numeral and attributive classifiers in Trukese. Oceanic Linguistics 7(2), 104–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2000. Dictionnaire nêlêmwa-nixumwak-français-anglais. Collection Langues et Cultures du Pacifique, n° 14, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2002. Le nêlêmwa (Nouvelle-Calédonie): Analyse syntaxique et sémantique. Collection Langues et Cultures du Pacifique, n° 16, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2017. Roots and stems: lexical and functional flexibility in Amis and Nêlêmwa. In Eva van Lier (ed.), Studies in Language. Special issue on lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages 41(2), 358–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 413–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2008. Possessors and definiteness effects. Two Austronesian languages. In: Lisa Matthewson (ed.), Quantification: A cross-linguistic perspective. North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic variation, vol. 641, 179–224. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & William L. Ladusaw. 2004 [2001]. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2014. Existential predication in typological perspective. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: [URL] (Last access: 13 February 2020)
De Hoop, Helen. 2012. Type-shifting. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics, Vol. 31, 2259–2271. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Claire Beyssade. 2012. Redefining indefinites. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 85. New York, London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Indefinite articles. In: Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL] (Last access: 13 February 2020)
2014. Competing methods for uncovering linguistic diversity: The case of definite and indefinite articles (Commentary on Davis, Gillon, and Matthewson). Language 90(4), 232–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 631, 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, Neue Folge, Band 100/1, Jg. 1892, S. 25–50. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Definiteness and referentiality. In Joseph Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 41, 291–330. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Syntax. (21 volumes). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guérin, Valérie. 2007. Definiteness and specificity in Mavea. Oceanic Linguistics 46(20), 538–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. A grammar of Mavea. An Oceanic language of Vanuatu. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2), 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3), 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Cross-linguistic implementations of specificity. In: Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt & Ken Turner (eds.). Meaning through language contrast. vol 21, 405–421. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heuvel, Wilco van den. 2006. Biak: Description of an Austronesian language of Papua. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2017. The partitive A: On uses of the Finnish partitive subject in transitive clauses. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 423–453. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Pei Te Hurinui and Bruce Biggs. 1995. Nga iwi o Tainui: The traditional history of the Tainui people. Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
Kamali, Beste. 2015. Caseless direct objects in Turkish revisited. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 581, 107–123.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1999. Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian Nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35 (1), 1–49. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. A semantic definition of indefinite NP. In Eric J. Reuland, Alice Ter Meulen (eds.). The representation of (in)definiteness, 286–317. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics ? Natural Language Semantics 11(2), 187–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 1111, 315–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Absolutely a matter of degree: The semantics of structural case in Finnish. Paper presented at Chicago Linguistic Society, April 2005. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In Robert B. Young & Yuping Zhou (eds.) Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XIII, 180–203. Cornell: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 91, 153–185.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. On the status of canonical SVO sentences in French discourse. In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, 217–261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja & Robert D. van Valin. 2014. Event existential in Tagalog; A role and reference grammar account. In I Wayan Arka & Lina Indrawati (eds.), Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages, 161–174. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A Grammar of Manam. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 18. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margetts, Anna. 1999. Valence and transitivity in Saliba, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2008. Transitivity discord in some Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 47(1), 30–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 2011. Existential sentences. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 21, 1829–1848. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English, Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 31, 1–29.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 601, 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In: Barbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice: Its form and function (Typological Studies in language 27), 247–277. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ngata, A. T. 1926. Complete manual of Maori grammar and conversation with vocabulary, 2d ed. Auckland: Whitcombe and Tombs.Google Scholar
Ngata, H. M. 1994. English-Maori dictionary. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
Orbell, Margaret, transl. 1992. Traditional Māori stories. Auckland: Reed.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Lawrence Reid. 1980. The evolution of transitive constructions in Austronesian. In Paz B. Naylor (ed.), Austronesian studies: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages, 103–30. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Center for South and Southeastern Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Masha. 1991. Maori ‘he’. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Hawaii, Honolulu.
Polinsky, Maria. 1992. Maori ‘he’ revisited. Oceanic Linguistics, 31(2), 229–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–254. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, Kenneth L. 1981. Ponapean reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand A. 1905. On Denoting. Mind. New Series, Vol. 14, No. 56, 479–493. Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2009. Existential sentences in Tagalog. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27(4), 675–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 251, 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Fé T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1950. On Referring. Mind, New Series, Vol. 59, No. 235, 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugita, Hiroshi. 1973. Semitransitive verbs and object incorporation in Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12(1/2), 393–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waititi, Hoani R. 1974. Te rangatahi, advanced 2: A Māori language course. Wellington: GP Publications.Google Scholar
Willson, Heather. 2008. Subject positions in Marshallese. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Hanni. 1977. Onondaga noun incorporation: Some notes on the interdependence of syntax and semantics. International Journal of American Linguistics 41(1), 10–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wouk, Fay. 1986. Transitivity in Proto–Malayo-Polynesian and Proto-Austronesian. In Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington & Stephen A. Wurm (eds.), FOCAL I: Papers form the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 133–58. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar