Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T12:40:15.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Äiwoo verb phrase: Syntactic ergativity without pivots1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2014

ÅSHILD NÆSS
ÅSHILD NÆSS*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Australia
*
Author's address: School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Formal models of syntax typically accord the structural position external to the verb's domain a privileged status in the overall syntactic makeup of a language, either by assuming that external arguments are always S or A, or by linking external argument position to syntactic pivothood. This paper demonstrates that the Oceanic language Äiwoo has an ergative verb phrase – i.e. A as the VP-internal argument and S/O as external arguments – but no corresponding S/O pivot. That is, the ergative structure of the verb phrase in Äiwoo does not entail any syntactically privileged status of the VP-external arguments; rather, it is simply a by-product of various diachronic developments. This situation shows that what has traditionally been perceived as fundamental differences in grammatical organisation – the difference between an accusative and an ergative pattern of VP structure – need not in fact be associated with any broader differences in syntactic or pragmatic structure. More importantly, it goes against the assumption that it is possible to assign universal functions to syntactic configurations. Instead, it can be seen as providing support for the view argued for by Evans & Levinson (2009: 444) that ‘most linguistic diversity is the product of historical cultural evolution operating on relatively independent traits’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 75 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

The author would like to thank Bill Foley, Thomas Wier, and participants at the 12th International Conference on Austronesian Languages for helpful comments on earlier drafts, Eirik Welo for pointing me in the direction of Falk's analysis of subjects, Alex François for taking time during a lightning expedition to Temotu Province to fill the gap in my quantifier data, and two anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for insightful comments on the prefinal version. None of these necessarily agree with all details of my analysis, and any errors or misconceptions are entirely my own responsibility. A list of abbreviations used in example glosses will be found in the appendix.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arka, I Wayan & Ross, Malcolm. 2005. Introduction. In Arka, I Wayan & Ross, Malcolm (eds.), The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: Some new empirical studies, 1–15. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria & Hale, Ken. 1996. Ergativity: Towards a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27.4, 531–604.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13.3, 343–434.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul. 2001. Introduction. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 2002. Serial verbs in Oceanic: A descriptive typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1990. Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8.1, 41–79.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63.4, 805–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 32, 429–292.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda. 2006. Subjects and Universal Grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2004. Chains of freedom: Constraints and creativity in the macro-verb strategies of Mwotlap. In Bril, Isabelle & Ozanne-Rivierre, Françoise (eds.), Complex predicates in Oceanic languages: Studies in the dynamics of binding and boundness, 107–143. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2011. A minimalist approach to argument structure. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 427–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15.3, 535–567.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: An update. In Wouk, & Ross, (eds.), 7–16.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In Adelaar, Alexander & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–181. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Li, (ed.), 303–333.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. In press. Syntactic ergativity in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island, and its implications for typology. Linguistic Typology.Google Scholar
Li, Charles (ed.). 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Peter C. 1976. Reefs-Santa Cruz as Austronesian. In Wurm, Stephen A. & Carrington, Lois (eds.), Second International Conference on Austronesian: Proceedings, 929–967. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Lynch, John, Ross, Malcolm & Crowley, Terry. 2002. The Oceanic languages. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1988. Nominal agent incorporation in Indonesian. Journal of Linguistics 24, 111–136.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2006. Bound nominal elements in Äiwoo: A reappraisal of the ‘multiple noun class systems’. Oceanic Linguistics 45.2, 269–296.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2013. From Austronesian voice to Oceanic transitivity: Äiwoo as the ‘missing link’. Oceanic Linguistics 52.1, 106–124.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild & Boerger, Brenda H.. 2008. Reefs-Santa Cruz as Oceanic: Evidence from the verb complex. Oceanic Linguistics 47.1, 185–212.Google Scholar
Olstad, John & Næss, Åshild. 2013. Symmetrical voice in Proto Oceanic: Evidence from Nehan. Ms., University of Newcastle, Australia.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Reid, Lawrence. 2011 [1979]. The evolution of transitive constructions in Austronesian. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~reid/Combined%20Files/A21.%201979.%20Pawley-Reid_AN%20transitivity_rev%2011-06-09.pdf (accessed July 2012).Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Explaining syntactic ergativity. Presented at the 9th International Conference on Oceanic Languages, University of Newcastle, Australia, February 2013.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In Wouk, & Ross, (eds.), 17–62.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2004. The morphosyntactic typology of Oceanic languages. Language and Linguistics 5.2, 491–541.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2012. Just how different was Proto Oceanic from Proto Malayo-Polynesian? Presented at the 12th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (12ICAL), Denpasar, Indonesia, July 2012.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm & Næss, Åshild. 2007. An Oceanic origin for Äiwoo, the language of the Reef Islands? Oceanic Linguistics 46.2, 456–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? In Li, (ed.), 491–518.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In Cole, Peter & Sadock, Jerrold M. (eds.), Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics 8), 279–306. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sheppard, Peter & Walter, Richard. 2006. A revised model of Solomon Islands culture history. Journal of the Polynesian Society 115, 47–76.Google Scholar
Spriggs, Matthew. 1997. The Island Melanesians. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vaa, Anders. 2006. Some aspects of referent mention and discourse organisation in Äiwoo. MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen & Arka, I Wayan. 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: An argument structure based theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 387–441.Google Scholar
Wouk, Fay & Ross, Malcolm (eds.). 2002. The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wurm, Stephen A. 1976. The Reef Islands-Santa Cruz family. In Wurm, Stephen A. (ed.), New Guinea area languages and language study, vol. 2: Austronesian languages (Series C–39), 637–674. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wurm, Stephen A. 1978. Reefs-Santa Cruz: Austronesian, but…. In Wurm, Stephen A. & Carrington, Lois (eds.), Second International Conference on Austronesian: Proceedings, 969–1010. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Wurm, Stephen A. 1981. Notes on nominal classification systems in Äiwo, Reef Islands, Solomon Islands. In Gonzalez, Andrew & Thomas, David (eds.), Linguistics across continents: Studies in honor of Richard S. Pittman, 123–142. Manila: Summer Institute of Linguistics/Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Wurm, Stephen A. 1992. Some features of the verb complex in Northern Santa Cruzan, Solomon Islands. In Dutton, Tom, Ross, Malcolm & Tryon, Darrell (eds.), The language game: Papers in memory of Donald C. Laycock (Series C–110), 527–551. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar