UMI Number: 3140799

Copyright 2004 by
Aldridge, Edith Catherine

W
All rights reserved.

IE
EV
PR

UMI Microform 3140799

Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
PR
EV
IE
W
ERGATIVITY AND WORD ORDER IN AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES

W
A Dissertation
IE
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of Cornell University
EV
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
PR

by

Edith Catherine Aldridge

August 2004
 W
IE
© 2004 Edith Catherine Aldridge
EV
PR
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

In 1984, after receiving an Associate of Applied Science degree at Kirkwood

Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edith Aldridge moved to Tokyo, Japan, to

work as a computer programmer. One year later, she entered Sophia University and

graduated with a BA in Japanese and linguistics in 1990. She subsequently advanced

to the master’s program at the same university and earned her MA in linguistics in

1992.

From 1992 to 1995, Aldridge lived in Beijing, Inner Mongolia, and

Guangdong, China, in order to study Chinese. After this, she returned to the United

W
States and entered the Ph.D. program in linguistics at Cornell University. She studied

Tagalog and Indonesian at Cornell and pursued advanced study of Tagalog at the
IE
University of the Philippines during the summer of 1998. From the summer of 1999

to the winter of 2000, she lived in Taiwan in order to do fieldwork on Seediq.

EV

Since the fall of 2002, Aldridge has been teaching linguistics at the State

University of New York at Stony Brook.

PR

iii
 W
IE
This thesis is respectfully dedicated to the memory ofUmanokan.
EV
PR
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I owe my greatest debt of gratitude to my advisor and thesis committee chair

John Whitman. Without his help and encouragement, I could never have begun

writing this thesis, let alone complete it. I also thank John for the years of advice and

support which have helped me secure research opportunities, become an active

member of my field, and find my first job as a linguist. But perhaps I thank John most

for providing me with a lifelong role model as teacher, typologist, and theoretician.

I am also indebted to the other members of my committee. I thank John Wolff

for his astute criticisms concerning the empirical aspects of this thesis. I am humbled

W
by his knowledge and understanding of Austronesian languages, which I believe to be

unparalleled in the field. To Molly Diesing, I owe thanks for her theoretical expertise
IE
and for her encouragement. Her wry wit has cheered me up and kept me from quitting
EV
on more than one occasion.

This thesis would not have been possible without the help of many native

speaker language consultants. For the Tagalog data used in this thesis, I am most
PR

indebted to my fellow Austronesian linguist and Tagalog instructor Thess Savella. Let

me also thank Tagalog speakers Raph Mercado, Cecilie Conaco, Edna Alfonso, and

Emily Graw.
The Seediq data cited in the thesis were all obtained from speakers residing in

Qingliu and Zhongyuan villages in Nantou, Taiwan. Let me begin by thanking

Umanokan and Iwan Iban for their patience during the arduous process of fieldwork,

for their generosity in sharing their language and past with me, and for their friendship.

Special thanks also goes to Pawan Toleh, who allowed me to study his Seediq

textbook and other writings. Let me further thank Ape Baga and Uma Pihu for their

time and patience.

 I am grateful to Qiu Jiantang (Takun Walis) and Li Yuqin for welcoming me

into their home and time and time again. It was due to their hospitality and generosity

that I was always assured of a warm and comfortable home base during my myriad

visits to Qingliu and Zhongyuan. Let me also thank Father Richard Devoe of

Zhongyuan, for his friendship and for his example, as a person whose compassion,

consideration, and respect for his fellow human being know no borders.

I would also like to thank the speakers of Atayal who helped me in my

fieldwork. The aspects of Atayal which are relevant to this thesis are almost identical

to cousin language Seediq, so I decided not to include this data in the thesis. However,

W
I am nonetheless grateful for the hours of patient cooperation from the residents of

Meiyuan village in Nantou, especially Chiwas Buyun and Sayun Noke. Let me also
IE
thank Jian Jinhua of Ulai village, Taipei. I would further like to offer heartfelt

gratitude to Masa Tohui of Taoyuan, not only for the hours of his time he gave to my
EV
fieldwork but also for his kind nature and his soft-spoken and eloquent Japanese,

which so often felt to me like a warm blanket on a wet winter’s day.

I also had the good fortune to travel to Pingdong, Taiwan, where I gathered
PR

data on Paiwan. I would like to thank the speakers who made this trip a success: Tang

Xianhui, Hua Jiajing, Chen JinZhi, and Yaburigan Dagas.

Let me also offer thanks to my fellow linguist and friend Niken Adisasmito-

Smith for help with Indonesian.

I would like to take this opportunity acknowledge the funding agencies which

made my fieldwork possible. A Fulbright Hays fellowship provided me with support

to live in Taiwan for the 1999-2000 academic year. I was able to extend that stay by a

semester through a Lee Teng-hui fellowship from the Cornell University East Asia

Program. Two travel grants from the East Asia Program also allowed me to make

additional trips to Taiwan during the summers of 1998 and 2001.

 I am indebted to the Institute of Linguistics at Academia Sinica for their

sponsorship during my time in Taiwan. Let me specially thank Institute directors Ho

Dah-An and Li Jen-Kuei. I would also like to thank the many Institute researchers

who offered me assistance. Elizabeth Zeitoun and Chang Yong-li were invaluable in

helping me make contacts for my fieldwork. Tang Zhizhen (Jane) and Wei Peichuan

also made special efforts to exchange ideas with me and broaden my education.

I wish to thank my other professors at Cornell, especially Carol Rosen, who

first encouraged me to investigate ergativity in Tagalog, John Bowers and Wayne

Harbert, who listened to my ideas and offered their advice, and Abby Colin and Sally

W
McConnell-Ginet, who have always offered their support. I also extend my thanks to

the other students in Cornell linguistics for their fellowship and friendship. I
IE
particularly benefited from exchanging ideas with Thess Savella, Niken Adisasmito-

Smith, Daniel Kaufman, Marc Brunell, Andrew Joseph, Paul Washbum, Whitney
EV
Postman, and Justin Spence. I additionally thank Anastasia Riehl, Evelyn Browne,

Marisol del Teso-Craviotto, Tobey Doeleman, Fred Hoyt, Catalin Kaser, Tanya

Matthews, Marek Przezdziecki, Devon Strolovitch, Kirsten Walstedt, and many others
PR

for their friendship.

Completion of this thesis also would not have been possible without the

understanding and encouragement of my current colleagues at SUNY, Stony Brook.

Nor would I ever have embarked on a career in linguistics without the encouragement

and assistance of my MA advisor Yasuhiko Kato, who showed confidence in an

enthusiastic but confused young American in Japan.

Finally, I thank my parents Martha Aldridge and Bob Aldridge for instilling in

me a thirst for learning and for providing me with my first opportunities for

international experience. I also thank my father for his example as a teacher and a

vii
scholar. And I thank my mother for providing me with a model of strength, courage,

and professionalism.

W
IE
EV
PR

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH in

ACKNOWLEGMENTS v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION 1

1. Overview 1

2. Theoretical Orientation 2

W
2.1. Ergativity 4

2.2. Verb-initial Word Order 9

IE
3. Grammatical Sketches of the Languages

3.1. Tagalog
14

16
EV
3.2. Seediq 33

4. Organization of the Thesis 47

PR

CHAPTER TWO : ERGATIVITY AND CASE-CHECKING 50

1. Introduction 50

2. Characterization of Ergativity 52

3. The Philippine Ergativity Debate 59

3.1. Transitive Status of Ergative Clauses 59

3.2. Antipassive 67

3.2.1. Questions Regarding Antipassive in Tagalog 67

3.2.2. Cross-linguistic Characterization of Antipassive 68

3.2.3. Antipassive in Tagalog 71

4. Ergativity in Formosan Languages 77

ix
5. Ergativity in Malagasy 86

6. Indonesian 92

7. Variation in Ergativity 97

7.1. Case-checking in v-Type Ergative Languages 99

7.2. Case-checking in T-Type Ergative Languages 110

7.3. EPP on v H8

7.4. Analysis of Antipassive 124

8. Indonesian as Accusative with Remnant Ergative Syntax 135

9. Comparison with Other Frameworks 139

W
9.1. Absolutive as Nominative 140

9.2. Problems with the Abs=Nom Approach 146

9.4. “Split Absolutive”

IE
9.3. Absolutive as Accusative 150

151
EV
10. Conclusion 152

CHAPTER THR EE: VERB-MOVEMENT IN TAGALOG 155

PR

1. Introduction 155

2. Tagalog as a VSO Language 156

2.1. A VOS Analysis of Tagalog 156

2.2. Problems with the VOS Approach 160

3. Previous Approaches to VSO Word Order 165

3.1. Early Verb-Movement Approaches i 66

3.2. Subject Raising 170

3.2.1. Subject Raising below V 170

3.2.2. Subject Agreement above V 173

3.2.3. EPP and Verbal Agreement 177

x
 3.2.4. Covert Movement 179

4. Verb-movement in Tagalog 181

5. Evidence for the Verb-movement Analysis 184

5.1. Surface Positions of External and Internal Arguments 184

5.2. VP-intemal Hierarchy 189

5.3. Configurationality 194

6. Conclusion 199

CHAPTER FOU R: PREDICATE-FRONTING IN SEEDIQ 200

W
1. Introduction 200

2. Seediq Verb-movement 200

3. TP-fronting in Seediq

4. Evidence
IE 209

213
EV
4.1. Position of the Absolutive 213

4.2. Resumptive Pronouns 216

4.3. Information Structure 218

PR

4.4. CED Effects 224

4.5. CED Effects in Other VOSFormosan Languages 229

5. VP-movement 232

6. Comparison with the Rightward Subject Analysis 249

7. Conclusion 254

CHAPTER FIV E: PREDICATE-FRONTING IN OTHER

AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES 256

1. Introduction 256

2. TP-fronting in Tagalog 256

xi

I
 2.1. VOS Word Order in Tagalog Antipassives 256

2.2. Non-verbal Predicates 261

2.3. Head-final Relative Clauses 267

3. Predicate-fronting in Malagasy 274

3.1. Previous Analyses 275

3.2. Questions for the V2 Analysis 281

3.3. Proposal for Malagasy 288

4. Predicate-fronting in Niuean 293

4.1. VP-fronting in Niuean 293

W
4.2. Alternative Analysis for Niuean 296

5. VP-movement in Tagalog? 301

6. Conclusion
IE 311
EV
CHAPTER SIX : ABSOLUTIVE RESTRICTION ON EXTRACTION 313

1. Introduction 313

2. Structure of ^-questions 315

PR

3. Account of the Absolutive Extraction Restriction 337

3.1. Local Movement 337

3.2. Long Distance Movement 345

4. Agreement Accounts of the Absolutive Restriction 351

4.1. Thematic Agreement 352

4.2. Case Agreement 358

4.2.1. Case Agreement Account of Chamorro 358

4.2.2. Case Agreement Approach to Palauan 363

4.2.3. Case Agreement for Malagasy 367

4.2.4. Case Agreement for Tagalog 371

xii
5. Problems with the Case Agreement Approach 374

5.1. Specific Direct Objects in Antipassives 375

5.2. Case-checking in Applicative Constructions 380

5.3. Function of Subject 382

5.4. Applied Objects as Objects or Subjects? 384

6. Ergative Analysis Extended toOther Austronesian Languages 387

6.1. Indonesian 388

6.2. Chamorro 394

6.3. Palauan 402

W
6.4. Malagasy 402

7. Conclusion 404
IE
CHAPTER SEV EN: CONCLUSION 406
EV

BIBLIOGRAPY 409
PR

xiii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

is first person singular

Ip first person plural

2s second person singular

2p second person plural

3s third person singular

3sm third person singular masculine

3 dm third person dual masculine

W
3p third person plural

4s fourth person singular

4p fourth person plural

IE
Abs absolutive
EV
Acc accusative

AccP accusative pivot

Act active
PR

Adv adverb

AF actor focus

Ag agent

Agr agreement

Aor aorist

AP antipassive

App applicative

Asp aspect

AT actor topic

AV actor voice

xiv
BF benefactive focus

C complementizer

Caus causative

Cl cleft

Compl completive

Cop copula

CT circumstantial topic

Dat dative

DatP dative pivot

W
Def definite

Dem demonstrative

Dep dependent
IE
Det determiner
EV
Dir directional

Dist distributive

DO direct object
PR

DS directional suffix

EA external argument

Emph emphatic

Erg ergative

Excl exclusive

Foe focus

Fut future

Gen genitive

Hort hortative

Imperf imperfective

XV

I
Inc inclusive

Ind indicative

Inf infinitive

Instr instrumental

Intr intransitive

10 indirect object

Irr irrealis

LF locative focus

Lk linker

W
Loc locative

Mod modalis

Monop monopersonal
IE
Neg negation
EV
Norn nominative

NomP nominative pivot

Nonfat nonfuture
PR

Obj object

Obi oblique

OCOMP object of comparison

Op operator

OV object voice

P preposition

Part partitive

Pass passive

Perf perfective

PF patient focus

xvi
Pl plural

PN personal name

Polyp polypersonal

Poss possessive

Pot potential

Pred predicate

Pres present

Prog progressive

Ptcl particle

W
Ptop participle

Purp purpose

Q question particle
IE
Real realis
EV
Rec recent past

Recip reciprocal

Red reduplication
PR

Refl reflexive

Rei relativizer

RN relational noun

Sbjn subjunctive

Sg singular

Subj subject

Suff suffix

Th theme

Top topic
Tr transitive

TT theme topic

W
IE
EV
PR

xviii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. Overview

This thesis explores and proposes an analysis of two key features of

Austronesian syntax: ergativity and verb-initial word order. Verb-initial word order is

a pervasive characteristic of Austronesian languages, found in nearly all Austronesian

languages spoken in Taiwan and the Philippines and most of those spoken in the

Pacific basin, Indonesia, Malaysia, and other regions. Those Austronesian languages

W
which now have predominantly subject-initial word order are also believed to have

evolved from verb-initial languages (Starosta et al. 1982, Cumming 1991, Kikusawa

2002).
IE
Ergativity is manifested to different degrees and in different ways among
EV
Austronesian languages. I argue in this thesis that Tagalog and Seediq are both

syntactically ergative languages, though representative of different types. Some

Austronesian languages, like standard Indonesian, essentially display accusative

PR

syntax, while others, like Malagasy, exhibit a split in which the antipassive has been

reanalyzed as transitive. However, most Formosan and Western Austronesian and

some Oceanic languages, e.g. Tongan, retain the hallmark feature of ergative syntax:

the absolutive restriction on A’-extraction.

In this thesis, I direct my analysis to the Philippine language Tagalog and the

Atayalic language Seediq, spoken in central Taiwan. These two Austronesian

languages are representative of the two types of syntactic ergativity that I propose to be

manifested cross-linguistically. They also exhibit two distinct types of verb-initial

word order. Tagalog unmarked word order is VSO but it allows some scrambling.

Seediq is a strict VOS language, in which the absolutive nominal appears in clause­

1
 2

final position in basic word order. The purpose of this thesis is to develop an analysis

to account for the similarities and differences in these two languages within a broader

theory of ergativity and verb-initial word order. It is also hoped that the analysis

proposed here will have the potential to be extended to other languages in the

Austronesian family, and I make specific reference to Malagasy, Indonesian, and

Chamorro, and other languages at appropriate points in this thesis.

2. Theoretical Orientation

The theoretical framework assumed in this thesis is the Minimalist Program, as

W
proposed by Chomsky (2000, 2001a, 2001b). In this theory, developed for accusative

languages, internal arguments are merged in VP and the external argument in the
IE
specifier of vP. In a transitive clause, the external argument checks case with T and

the internal argument with v. This is accomplished under an Agree relation between a
EV
probe and goal. Uninterpretable features on a functional head act as a probe which

seek a goal with matching features in its c-command domain. DPs are merged with

unvalued case features. When Agree is established, the case feature of DP is valued
PR

(Chomsky 2001a).

TP

vP

V[»Acc]
 3

In accusative languages, nominative case is checked by T, accusative by v. In a

great many accusative languages, an EPP feature on T also ensures that the subject be

located in the specifier of this functional projection at the time of Spell-Out.

TP

DPea

tEA

W
IE
The derivation proceeds phase by phase, with vP and CP defined as phases.
EV
Each phase is transferred individually to the phonological and semantic components.

In mapping to the phonetic representation, the sister (domain) of the phase head is

spelled out (Chomsky 2001b). The head and specifiers, i.e. the edge, of the phase
PR

remain accessible until transfer of the next phase. In order to allow movement to take

place, a phase head may have an EPP feature, which raises an XP to the phase edge.

Successive cyclic movement proceeds through the edge of all phases along the path of

movement. For instance, long distance movement of an object may look like the

following, where the moved XP originates in the VP of the embedded clause and

moves incrementally through the edge of each vP and CP phase on the way to the

matrix [Spec, C].

(3) [cp XP ... [vp txp... [cp txp ••• [vP txp... [vp ••• txp ••• ]]]]]
 4

Movement out of a phase is allowed only from the edge. The domain of the

phase is inaccessible after construction of the phase.

(4) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) (Chomsky 2001b:5)

The domain of a phase head is not accessible to operations, but only the edge

is.

2.1. Ergativity

Though numerous attempts have been made to equate absolutive with

W
nominative (Marantz 1984, Levin 1983, Murasugi 1992, Bittner and Hale 1996a,b,

among many others), the notion of subject cannot be translated directly into ergative
IE
systems. In the analysis of ergativity that I develop in this thesis, there is no single

grammatical function that corresponds to subject. Rather, the grammatical properties

EV
generally associated with nominative subjects tend to be divided between the ergative

and absolutive roles in ergative languages. Therefore neither ergative nor absolutive

can be said to exhaustively possess the typical properties of subjects.

PR

There are also different types of ergative language. Morphologically ergative

languages display ergative case-marking but behave syntactically like accusative

languages. Syntactically ergative languages exhibit syntactic characteristics which are

different from accusative languages. The most salient of these properties is the

restriction that only DPs with absolutive status are able to undergo A’-movement.

However, syntactic ergativity can be further divided on the basis of how subject

properties are distributed among ergative and absolutive roles. The roles that can be

assumed only by a subject which I consider in this thesis are as follows.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.