Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 48:1 (2024) ► pp.65–120

The constructional categorization of Saisiyat multi-predicate sentences

ORCID logo | Hubei Polytechnic University
This study investigates the constructional categorization of multi-predicate sentences in Saisiyat. This type of complex sentences simultaneously involves features of serial verb construction and complementation in Saisiyat, which give rise to indeterminacy in constructional categorization. In order to solve this problem, the current study probes into the categorization between serial verb construction and complementation regarding Aarts’ (2007) constructional gradience and semantic relations (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997). The investigation demonstrates a discrete boundary between the two constructions with convergence on each other, while subtypes of multi-predicate sentences are aligned on the convergence based on intra- and inter-categorical relations. Two structural dependencies are proposed to carry out a taxonomy of Saisiyat complex sentences. A theoretical implication derives from this study that Saisiyat multi-predicate sentences are manifestations of formalized morphosyntactic configurations with a pairing of particularized semantic relations instead of coinage based on analogic conventionalization (Fillmore 1997; Goldberg 2019).
Keywords: serial verb construction, complementation, complex sentence, Saisiyat, construction grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A grammatical sketch for multi-predicate sentences and related constructions in Saisiyat
  • 3.Constructional categorization of complex sentences and the research scope
    • 3.1The types of syntactic structures investigated
    • 3.2The diagnostic features for intra- and inter-categorical relations
  • 4.Characteristics of prototypes in Saisiyat SVC and complementation
    • 4.1Prototypical instances of SVC in Saisiyat
    • 4.2Prototypical instances of complementation
  • 5.Intra-categorical relations of multi-predicate sentences in Saisiyat
    • 5.1The characteristics of non-prototypical members of Saisiyat SVC
      • 5.1.1Non-prototypical Saisiyat serial verbs which only involving SVC features
      • 5.1.2Non-prototypical serial verbs involving complementation
        • 5.1.2.1SVC traits of non-typical serial verbs
        • 5.1.2.2The complementation traits of non-typical serial verbs
      • 5.1.3Interim summary
    • 5.2The characteristics of non-prototypical members of complementation
      • 5.2.1Non-prototypical complementation
      • 5.2.2The SVC features observed in the non-prototypical complementation
      • 5.2.3Interim summary
  • 6.The boundary between SVC and complementation in Saisiyat
    • 6.1On inter-categorical relations
    • 6.2The status of multi-predicate sentences regarding constructional boundaries between the SVC and complementation
  • 7.Structural dependency and taxonomical classification of Saisiyat multi-predicate sentences
  • 8.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations and glossing conventions
  • References
Published online: 8 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21034.wan
References (65)
References
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M. W. Dixon. 1998. Dependencies between grammatical systems. Language 74(1). 56–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial verb construction in typological perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2018. Serial verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1997. A notional theory of syntactic categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2007. Nexus and juncture types of complex predicates in Oceanic languages: Functions and semantics. Language and Linguistics 8(1). 267–310.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Essegbey, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke & Felix K. Ameka. 2007. Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83(3). 495–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Henry. Yung-li. 2006. The guest playing host: Adverbial modifiers as matrix verbs in Kavalan. In Hans-Martin Gaertner, Paul Law & Joachim Sabel (ed.), Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, 43–82. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Henry Yung-li. 2007. On the syntax of Formosan adverbial verb constructions. In Raphael Mercado, Eric Potsdam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds.), Austronesian and theoretical linguistics, 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuan Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chou, Marc Yi-ming. 2016. Two types of object control in Saisiyat: A movement-based approach. Linguistics and Literature Studies 4(3). 188–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language 31(2). 409–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 2002. Serial verbs in Oceanic: A descriptive typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 543–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defina, Rebecca. 2016a. Serial verb constructions and their subtypes in Avatime. Studies in Language 40(3). 648–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Do serial verb constructions describe single events?: A study of co-speech gestures in Avatime. Language 92(4). 890–910. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1997. Grammatical categories in verb serialization. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds.), Complex predicates, 289–354. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1997. Construction grammar lecture notes. Ms. Available at [URL] (last access 25 November 2022).
Givón, Talmy. 1984. The speech-act continuum. In William S. Chiholm, Jr. (ed.), Interrogativity: A colloquium on grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages, 245–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3). 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1995. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2019. Explain me this. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmer, Arthur. 2006. Seediq-adverbial heads in a Formosan language. In Hans-Martin Gartner, Paul Law & Joachim Sabel (eds.), Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, 43–82. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Fuhui. 2007. Language of emotion and thinking in Kavalan and Saisiyat. Taipei: National Taiwan University PhD dissertation.
Huang, Lillian Mei-jin. 1993. A study of Atayal syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodeny. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarkey, Nerida. 2010. Cotemporal serial verb constructions in White Hmong. In Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker & Mark Harvey (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, 110–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1995. ‘Construction grammar?’ In Jef Verschueren, Jan-ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual, 171–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The limits of construction grammar. In Graeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffery & Lu Li. 1995. ‘Indeterminacy’ between noun phrases and adjective phrases as complements of the English verb’. In Bas Aarts & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English, 183–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1978. A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 49(2). 133–199.Google Scholar
Liu, Dorinda Tsai-hsiu. 2011. Complementation in three Formosan languages – Amis, Mayrinax Atayal and Tsou. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa PhD dissertation.
Maling, John. 1983. Transitive adjectives: a case of categorical reanalysis. In Frank. Heny & Barry Richards (eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles (Vol. I1), 253–289. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neustupný, Jiří V. 2004. On the analysis of linguistic vagueness. In Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Popova Gergana (eds.), Fuzzy grammar: A reader, 341–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1965. Descriptive statement and serial relationship. Language 41(2). 205–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 71. 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1996. Vagueness. In Rosanna Keefe & Peter Smith (eds.), Vagueness: A reader, 61–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schiller, Eric. 1990. On the definition and distribution of serial verb constructions. In Brian D. Joseph and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), When verbs collide: Papers from the 1990 Ohio State Mini-conference on serial verbs, 34–64. Ohio, US: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2002. Constructions in language description. Functions of Language 9(2). 269–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 2004. What do we really know about serial verb construction Austronesia and Papuan languages. In Isabelle Bril and Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre (eds.), Complex predicates in Oceanic languages: Studies in the dynamics of binding and boundness, 49–63. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2007. Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics 11. 118–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. R. 1998a. Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
1998b. Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 177–201. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2003. Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Randy John LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Chien-pang. 2018. Interclausal relations in Tungho Saisiyat: A Role and Reference Grammar approach. Taipei, ROC: National Taiwan Normal University PhD dissertation.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1990. Prototypes save: On the uses and abuses of the notion of ‘‘prototype’’ in linguistics and related fields. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 347–367 London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. 1990. Toward a theory of syntactic prototypes. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 285–306 London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wu, Jing-lan. 1994. Complex sentences in Amis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University MA thesis.
Yeh, Maya Yuting & Shuanfan Huang. 2009. A study of triple verb serialization in four Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 48(1). 79–110.Google Scholar
Yeh, Mei-li. 2000. A reference grammar of Saisiyat (Formosan language series no. 2). Taipei: Yuan-liu Publishing. [In Chinese]Google Scholar
. 2003. A syntactic and semantics study of Saisiyat verbs. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University PhD dissertation.
. 2018. A sketch grammar of Saisiyat (Series on Formosan Languages 3). Taipei: Council of Indigenous Peoples. [In Chinese].Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000. Notes on a possessive construction in the Formosan languages. In Videa DeGuzman, DeGuzman Videa, & Byron Bender (eds.), Grammatical analysis: Morphology, syntax and semantics, 241–257. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Tai-hwa Chu & Lalo a tahesh kaybaybaw. 2015. A study of Saisiyat morphology. Oceanic linguistics special publication 401. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar