Nominalization and Possession in Formosan Languages (original) (raw)
Related papers
Representation of possessiveness in the verbs of languages of different systems
Revista EntreLinguas, 2021
Possessiveness at a certain stage of development could be expressed by the forms of personal pronouns. In many languages, verbs with special indicators of belonging, which are possessive, enclitic forms of personal pronouns, form possessive conjugation. The material identity of the considered indicators in verbs and nouns shows their common origin. As the noun and the verb differentiated, these single formants were subjected to splitting: in the nouns they remained in a personal possessive meaning, and in the verbs they began to express subject-object relations. The present article contributes to the development of general linguistics and is of interest to researchers of the theory and typology of languages.
02. The Origins of Nominative Case in Austronesian
2021
This paper proposes a reconstruction of subject marking in Proto-Austronesian (PAn). I depart from previous approaches in not reconstructing nominative case, per se. Rather, I propose that subjects in PAn surfaced as bare DPs, and the case markers that are reflected in present day Formosan and Philippine languages resulted from later innovations. The marking with initial /k-/ that appears widely on subjects projected from common nominals originated as a topic marker *k-in PAn. In contrast to this, case-marking on personal nominals like names and pronouns derives from the PAn locative preposition *i. The preposition was used in differential object marking of personal nominal absolutives in the newly innovated ergative clause type in a daughter of PAn, Proto-Ergative Austronesian. The preposition further grammaticalized into a determiner and subsequently into the marker of [PERSON] in PEAn's daughter Proto-Nuclear Austronesian. The person marker i-is ubiquitously reflected in case markers in Nuclear Austronesian languages. This analysis additionally accounts for the fact that nominative marking with a reflex of *i is not found in Rukai dialects. Proto-Rukai retained the accusative alignment of PAn and consequently did not have ergative clauses with nominative objects. Rukai dialects do have strategies for differential object marking, but this is found only with non-nominative objects. * My Rukai field data was collected with support from the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange (JS015-A-12),
Linguistics, 2023
A distinction between inalienable and alienable possession is considered to be crosslinguistically common. For the Tungusic languages, it is generally illustrated with examples that contrast inherently possessed body parts with body parts belonging to a non-inherent possessor, with the latter being formally marked with a suffix-ŋ(V). However, as we argue here for Negidal (Northern Tungusic), rather than marking 'alienable' or 'indirect' possession, the suffix-ŋ(i) flags the occurrence of non-canonical possessive constructions; the supposedly straightforward interpretation of the oft-cited examples involving body parts is merely a secondary effect of the particular kind of non-canonical construction involved. This analysis unifies the diverse constructions in which-ŋ(i) occurs, namely with obligatorily possessed body parts, with non-possessible items such as nouns denoting humans or environment terms as well as demonstratives or adjectives, and with other modifiers when the possessee is elided. We complement our investigation with the analysis of the cognate suffix-ŋi, whose main function is to mark the possessor in possessive constructions with an elided head. The function of both suffixes can thus be subsumed under the marking of non-canonical possessive constructions. This analysis can be extended to several Tungusic languages, as the comparison with Negidal's sister languages shows.
The Origins of Nominative Case in Austronesian*
2021
This paper proposes a reconstruction of subject marking in Proto-Austronesian (PAn). I depart from previous approaches in not reconstructing nominative case, per se. Rather, I propose that subjects in PAn surfaced as bare DPs, and the case markers that are reflected in present day Formosan and Philippine languages resulted from later innovations. The marking with initial /k-/ that appears widely on subjects projected from common nominals originated as a topic marker *kin PAn. In contrast to this, case-marking on personal nominals like names and pronouns derives from the PAn locative preposition *i. The preposition was used in differential object marking of personal nominal absolutives in the newly innovated ergative clause type in a daughter of PAn, Proto-Ergative Austronesian. The preposition further grammaticalized into a determiner and subsequently into the marker of [PERSON] in PEAn’s daughter Proto-Nuclear Austronesian. The person marker iis ubiquitously reflected in case marke...
Austroasiatic Affixes and Grammatical Lexicon
Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective, 2020
The editors of this volume collaborated to create this Austroasiatic grammatical lexicon as a resource for the investigation of the history of PAA syntax. It began as a simple compilation of grammatical and grammaticalised items extracted from Shorto's (2006) reconstruction of Proto-Austroasiatic/Mon-Khmer, and was then augmented with data from the SEAlang Mon-Khmer and Munda Languages Project. Later, special sections on pronouns and morphology were added, extending beyond Shorto's work with other published sources. As noted in the introduction, in the history of Austroasiatic research, mor-phosyntax has been somewhat neglected in favour of lexical and phonological studies, and this has affected the quality and quantity of available grammatical data and remains a serious ongoing problem. This is not to denigrate previous work; researchers legitimately prioritized those facets of language, especially phonology and lexicon that were important to them, and were largely consistent with their immediate professional milieu. In the second half of the 20th century, the diverse and highly dynamic world of grammatical theory often seemed remote from the concerns of those collecting primary data, and work presented within the constraints of particular theoretical approaches was not made more accessible by that fact. Consequently, we feel that it is appropriate to take a back-to-basics approach and present a broad index of grammatical items in etymological context. Austroasiatic reconstruction remains a maturing field. Thus, it is not possible to simply list proto-AA forms for any or all grammatical items, yet it is still often premature to set aside particular etyma that are not widely attested, so we must proceed carefully while always making clear our data sources and reasoning. The compilation presented here is to be regarded as a working document and resource in a highly contingent field of inquiry. Some reconstructions involve only a couple of branches (with a number of items moved to the the final subsection of this paper as items of less likely PAA items or complete exclusions), while others appear in several branches and thus can be considered stronger candidates for original Proto-AA status rather than later innovations which spread aross multiple branches. This data thus gives a sense of Proto-AA grammar, from personal and demonstrative pronouns, to negation and time, to location and comparison.