Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:26:16.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Javanese adversatives, passives and Mapping Theory1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

William D. Davies
William D. Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, The University of Iowa570 English Philosophy Building, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1408, U.S.A.E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relational Grammarians have proposed Union analyses for adversatives many languages. An odd asymmetry in base predicates contrasts Japanese (Dubinsky 1985), in which adversatives may not be formed on unaccusatives, and Indonesian (Kana 1986), in which adversatives may only be formed on unaccusatives. A close examination of adversatives in Javanese (a language closely related to Indonesian) resolves this asymmetry, revealing that Javanese adversatives (and by implication Indonesian adversatives) are best analyzed not as Unions but as passives. However, the passive analysis violates Perlmutter & Postal's (1984) I-Advancement Exclusiveness Law, which figures crucially in Dubinsky's elegant account of the distribution of Japanese adversatives. Gerdts' (1993a) Mapping Theory, rooted in an RG tradition, provides a solution, in which it is possible to capture the similarities of adversatives and other Javanese passives and at the same time preserve the insights of Dubinsky's analysis of Japanese.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 15 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bickford, J. A. (1987). Universal constraints on relationally complex clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Bintoro, (1980). Javanese transitive verbs: a tagmemic analysis. NUSA Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia 8. Jakarta: NUSA.Google Scholar
Cartier, A. (1978). On Ke-verb sentences in Indonesian. In Wurm, S. A. & Carrington, L. (eds.) Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: proceedings, Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 61. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1976). An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesia. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 41–87.Google Scholar
Culy, C. & Davies, W. D. (1993). Mapping Theory and Fula verbal extensions. Presented at the 6th Biennial Conference on Grammatical Relations.Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Cumming, S. (1986). World order change in Malay. In Geraghty, P., Carrington, L. & Wurm, S. A. (eds.) FOCAL I: papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University. 97–111.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. (1984). Antipassive: Choctaw evidence for a universal characterization. In Perlmutter, D. M. & Rosen, C. (eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 331–376.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. (1993). Javanese subjects and topics and psych verbs. Linguistics 31. 239–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. D. & Rosen, C. (1988). Unions as multi-predicate clauses. Language 64. 52–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. D. & Sam-Colop, L. (1990). K'iche' and the structure of antipassive. Language 66. 522–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, S. (1985). Japanese union constructions: a unified analysis of -sase and -rare. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, S. (1993). A union analysis for Japanese ‘adversative passives'. Ms., University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Durie, M. (1986). The use of passive-like strategies in Acehnese. In Dardjowidjojo, S. (ed.) Miscellaneous studies in Indonesian and Other languages in Indonesia, part VIII. NUSA Linguistics Studies of Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia. Jakarta: NUSA.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1965). Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. B. (1988a). Antipassive and causatives in Ilokano: evidence for the ergative analysis. In McGinn, R. (ed.) Studies in Austronesian linguistics. Athens, OH: University of Ohio Press. 295–321.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. B. (1988b). Object and absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. B. (1990). Revaluation and inheritance in Korean causative union. In Postal, P. M. & Joseph, B. D. (eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 203–246.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. B. (1991). Case spread in multipredicate domains. Chicago Linguistic Society 27. 196–218.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. B. (1992). Morphologically-mediated relational profiles. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18. 322–337.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. B. (1993a). Mapping Halkomelem grammatical relations. Linguistics 31. 591–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, D. B. (1993b). Mapping transitive voice in Halkomelem. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19S. 22–33.Google Scholar
Green, G. M. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Horne, E. C. (1961). Beginning Javanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D. (1982). On some advancements to subject in Greek. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 26. 49–58.Google Scholar
Junus, U. (1971). Ke- -an constructions in Indonesian. Linguistic 76. 24–44.Google Scholar
Kana, M. (1986). Grammatical relations in Bahasa Indonesia. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, A. (1980). A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. University of California Publications in Linguistics 91. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Legendre, G. (1990). French impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 81–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, P. B. (1978). Toward focus in Austronesian. In Wurm, S. A. & Carrington, L. (eds.) Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: proceedings. Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 61. Canberra: Australian National University. 395–442.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, J. A. (1982). Some passives not characterized by universal rules: subjectless passives. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 26. 59–92.Google Scholar
Nichols, L. (1990). The so-called Javanese passive and lexically based constraints on anaphoric binding. Ms., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Oehrle, R. T. (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Özkaragöz, İ. (1986). The relational structure of Turkish syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. & Postal, P. M. (1984). The I-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In Perlmutter, D. M. & Rosen, C. (eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 81–125.Google Scholar
Poedjosoedarmo, G. R. (1986). Role structure in Javanese. NUSA Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia 24. Jakarta: NUSA.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1977). Antipassive in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes 1. 333–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1986). Studies of passive clauses. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ramelan, (1983). Javanese indicative and imperative passives. In Halim, A., Carrington, L. & Wurm, S. A. (eds.) Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University. 199–214.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (1994). Adpositions and the English pseudo-passive. Ms., Cornell University.Google Scholar
Smith-Hefner, N. J. (1988). Cara Tengger: notes on a non-standard dialect of Javanese. In McGinn, R. (ed.) Studies in Austronesian linguistics. Athens, OH: University of Ohio Press. 203–233.Google Scholar
Suzuki, K. (1984). A relational analysis of Japanese causatives. MA dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. R. (1980). Verb affixes and focus in Bahasa Indonesia. In Naylor, P. B. (ed.) Austronesian studies: papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. 63–70.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A. (1982). Impersonal passives in Lithuanian. Berkeley Linguistics Society 8. 508–524.Google Scholar
Verhaar, J. W. M. (1978). Syntactic (in)alienability in Indonesian. In Wurm, S. A. & Carrington, L. (eds.) Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: proceedings, Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 61. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Verhaar, J. W. M. (1984). The categorial system in contemporary Indonesian: verbs. In Purwo, B. K. (ed.) Towards a description of contemporary Indonesian: preliminary studies, part I. NUSA Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia. Jakarta: NUSA.Google Scholar
Wouk, F. (1986). Transitivity in proto-Malayo-Polynesian and proto-Austronesian. In Geraghty, P., Carrington, L. & Wurm, S. A. (eds.) FOCAL I: papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University. 133–158.Google Scholar