Teng Stacy - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Teng Stacy
Oceanic Linguistics, 2010
Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 2005
The purpose of this paper is to apply Croft's (2001) Radical Construction Grammar approach t... more The purpose of this paper is to apply Croft's (2001) Radical Construction Grammar approach to an analysis of the major clause types in Puyuma in order to show how a constructional approach can illuminate the relationship among constructions from a typological perspective. When ...
LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS- …, 2005
Oceanic Linguistics, 2011
Ross (2009) proposes the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis, according to which the Formosan languag... more Ross (2009) proposes the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis, according to which the Formosan languages Puyuma, Rukai, and Tsou are each probably a primary branch of Austronesian and all Austronesian languages other than these three belong to a single, Nuclear Austronesian, branch defined by the nominalization-to-verb innovation originally proposed by Starosta, Pawley, and Reid (1981, 1982) for Proto-Austronesian itself. Sagart (2010) argues that there is evidence that Puyuma has also undergone the nominalization-toverb innovation and is accordingly not a primary branch of Austronesian. In this short paper we show that Sagart's evidence is based on misanalyses of Puyuma data and that these data do not reflect the nominalization-to-verb innovation. Sagart's argument against the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis does not stand up to closer scrutiny. 1. INTRODUCTION. 1 In his paper "Is Puyuma a primary branch of Austronesian?," which appeared in the June 2010 issue of Oceanic Linguistics, Laurent Sagart "point[s] out some problems" with the outline of early Austronesian phylogeny presented in Ross (2009). Starosta, Pawley, and Reid (1981, 1982) showed that nominalizing morphology was reanalyzed as verbal morphology in very early Austronesian. Thus the undergoer-voice affixes *-en 'patient subject', *-an 'location subject', and *Si-'circumstance subject', along with the perfective infix *‹in›, reflected in the verb forms of many Formosan and Philippine languages, were originally nominalizers. We will call this innovation the "nominalization-to-verb" (Nomto-V) innovation. 2 Ross's phylogeny is based on the claim that this innovation had not occurred prior to Proto-Austronesian, as its discoverers had thought, since it is not reflected in Puyuma, Rukai, or Tsou. Instead, Ross suggests that it occurred in what he calls "Proto-Nuclear Austronesian," a language ancestral to all Austronesian languages other than the three 1. We thank Robert Blust and Elizabeth Zeitoun for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this squib. The two authors of course retain responsibility for its contents. It is difficult to describe our roles precisely, but the impetus for this paper came from Teng, who provided the diachronic phonological analysis of Puyuma in section 2 and the synchronic morphosyntactic analyses and the arguments in sections 3 and 5. Ross provided the comparisons in section 2 and the argument of section 4. The argument of section 2 was a joint effort.
Oceanic Linguistics, 2014
In Puyuma, the marker i-is used to express meanings of wearing, possession, instrumentality, and ... more In Puyuma, the marker i-is used to express meanings of wearing, possession, instrumentality, and existence. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how these different meanings can be related and what the developmental path is. It is suggested that the original meaning of this marker is 'carry, wear', and that this was later grammaticalized to give the meanings of possession and instrumentality. The meaning of existence is the result of a later development. Evidence from other Formosan languages also shows that the morpheme *Si-, meaning 'wear, carry', can be reconstructed to Proto-Austronesian, and thus supports our hypothesis.
There is quite a longstanding convention whereby Formosan languages (the Austronesian languages o... more There is quite a longstanding convention whereby Formosan languages (the Austronesian languages of Taiwan) are described using a framework and terminology developed by linguists working on the Austronesian languages of the Philippines. Linguists using this terminology talk, for example, about the 'focus system' of verbal constructions and about the 'topic' of the clause. Because this terminology is (i) unfamiliar to linguists working outside Taiwan and the Philippines and (ii) deficient in certain respects (it is often unclear, for example, what the function of the 'topic' is), descriptions of Formosan and Philippine languages using this terminology are sometimes somewhat opaque and rather difficult for other linguists to read. In this paper we attempt to re-frame the description of certain aspects of the morphosyntax of Formosan languages in terms more familiar to typologists and to linguists working in other parts of the world. Among other things, the notion of 'topic' is reexamined , and the 'focus system' is reformulated in a framework derived from the work of the typologist William Croft. A re-framing of this kind should lead to two main benefits: increased comprehensibility and increased differentiation among the descriptions of Formosan languages (which are sometimes treated as being more similar to each other than they appear to be).
Oceanic Linguistics, 2010
Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 2005
The purpose of this paper is to apply Croft's (2001) Radical Construction Grammar approach t... more The purpose of this paper is to apply Croft's (2001) Radical Construction Grammar approach to an analysis of the major clause types in Puyuma in order to show how a constructional approach can illuminate the relationship among constructions from a typological perspective. When ...
LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS- …, 2005
Oceanic Linguistics, 2011
Ross (2009) proposes the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis, according to which the Formosan languag... more Ross (2009) proposes the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis, according to which the Formosan languages Puyuma, Rukai, and Tsou are each probably a primary branch of Austronesian and all Austronesian languages other than these three belong to a single, Nuclear Austronesian, branch defined by the nominalization-to-verb innovation originally proposed by Starosta, Pawley, and Reid (1981, 1982) for Proto-Austronesian itself. Sagart (2010) argues that there is evidence that Puyuma has also undergone the nominalization-toverb innovation and is accordingly not a primary branch of Austronesian. In this short paper we show that Sagart's evidence is based on misanalyses of Puyuma data and that these data do not reflect the nominalization-to-verb innovation. Sagart's argument against the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis does not stand up to closer scrutiny. 1. INTRODUCTION. 1 In his paper "Is Puyuma a primary branch of Austronesian?," which appeared in the June 2010 issue of Oceanic Linguistics, Laurent Sagart "point[s] out some problems" with the outline of early Austronesian phylogeny presented in Ross (2009). Starosta, Pawley, and Reid (1981, 1982) showed that nominalizing morphology was reanalyzed as verbal morphology in very early Austronesian. Thus the undergoer-voice affixes *-en 'patient subject', *-an 'location subject', and *Si-'circumstance subject', along with the perfective infix *‹in›, reflected in the verb forms of many Formosan and Philippine languages, were originally nominalizers. We will call this innovation the "nominalization-to-verb" (Nomto-V) innovation. 2 Ross's phylogeny is based on the claim that this innovation had not occurred prior to Proto-Austronesian, as its discoverers had thought, since it is not reflected in Puyuma, Rukai, or Tsou. Instead, Ross suggests that it occurred in what he calls "Proto-Nuclear Austronesian," a language ancestral to all Austronesian languages other than the three 1. We thank Robert Blust and Elizabeth Zeitoun for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this squib. The two authors of course retain responsibility for its contents. It is difficult to describe our roles precisely, but the impetus for this paper came from Teng, who provided the diachronic phonological analysis of Puyuma in section 2 and the synchronic morphosyntactic analyses and the arguments in sections 3 and 5. Ross provided the comparisons in section 2 and the argument of section 4. The argument of section 2 was a joint effort.
Oceanic Linguistics, 2014
In Puyuma, the marker i-is used to express meanings of wearing, possession, instrumentality, and ... more In Puyuma, the marker i-is used to express meanings of wearing, possession, instrumentality, and existence. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how these different meanings can be related and what the developmental path is. It is suggested that the original meaning of this marker is 'carry, wear', and that this was later grammaticalized to give the meanings of possession and instrumentality. The meaning of existence is the result of a later development. Evidence from other Formosan languages also shows that the morpheme *Si-, meaning 'wear, carry', can be reconstructed to Proto-Austronesian, and thus supports our hypothesis.
There is quite a longstanding convention whereby Formosan languages (the Austronesian languages o... more There is quite a longstanding convention whereby Formosan languages (the Austronesian languages of Taiwan) are described using a framework and terminology developed by linguists working on the Austronesian languages of the Philippines. Linguists using this terminology talk, for example, about the 'focus system' of verbal constructions and about the 'topic' of the clause. Because this terminology is (i) unfamiliar to linguists working outside Taiwan and the Philippines and (ii) deficient in certain respects (it is often unclear, for example, what the function of the 'topic' is), descriptions of Formosan and Philippine languages using this terminology are sometimes somewhat opaque and rather difficult for other linguists to read. In this paper we attempt to re-frame the description of certain aspects of the morphosyntax of Formosan languages in terms more familiar to typologists and to linguists working in other parts of the world. Among other things, the notion of 'topic' is reexamined , and the 'focus system' is reformulated in a framework derived from the work of the typologist William Croft. A re-framing of this kind should lead to two main benefits: increased comprehensibility and increased differentiation among the descriptions of Formosan languages (which are sometimes treated as being more similar to each other than they appear to be).