Ten years of synchronic Austronesian linguistics (1991–2002)

Klamer, Marian

doi:10.1016/s0024-3841(02)00056-6

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a couple of challenges to these approaches too, as might be expected. First, the trigger-only restriction must be parametrized, as pointed out by Klamer (2002) citing among others work on Indonesian (Cole and Hermon 1998) and Javanese. Next, there are triggerless constructions, such as the "recent past" construction in Tagalog, which seem to allow extraction of any NP.…”

Section: Unbounded Dependencies and The "Trigger-only" Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages: A Critical Introductory Survey

Gärtner¹,

Law²,

Sabel³

2006

Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syntactic analyses of Austronesian languages have predominantly been concerned with three phenomena. First, and perhaps most widely known, there is the controversy about how to view Philippine-type voice systems. These are typically symmetrical in the sense that what resembles passivization does not lead to demotion, i.e. oblique status of one of the arguments involved. This symmetry is closely related to the difficulty of determining the grammatical function of "subject." Thus, although voice morphology correlates with (the semantic role of) a single designated argument , which we will call "trigger" (argument) henceforth, standard subject properties are distributed between this trigger and an actor argument when the two do not coincide. Secondly, Austronesian languages tend to have head initial word order, which often results in verb initial or predicate initial clause structure. Thirdly, there exists a condition on unbounded dependencies for arguments, disallowing extraction of anything other than the trigger. While questions surrounding these issues are clearly far from settled, the volume we are presenting and discussing here is intended to shift perspectives and reflect on the status of adjuncts in Austronesian languages as well as the repercussions this has on analyzing Austronesian clause structure. The most obvious motivation for this shift is that much less is known about adjuncts in Austronesian languages. Secondly, studying the syntax of adjuncts in other languages has regularly been a catalyst in developing more fine-grained theories of phrase structure and locality. Thirdly, recent controversies about the nature of adverb placement, i.e. whether or not it is governed by a universal hierarchy of functional projections, has made a survey of less well documented language types such as Austronesian languages more urgent, not the least because an initial study of Malagasy adverb order indicated an interesting kind of confirmation of the formalist / universalist hypothesis. We will now proceed as follows. Section 1 provides a rough sketch of the three "big questions" of Austronesian syntax mentioned above. Section 2 will then be devoted to adjuncts and briefly document some of the most

show abstract

Section: Unbounded Dependencies and The "Trigger-only" Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages: A Critical Introductory Survey

Gärtner¹,

Law²,

Sabel³

2006

Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some very early generative discussions of the syntax of Austronesian languages (Chung 1978;Keenan 1972) explored the interaction of subjecthood, voice, and extraction from a comparative perspective. Later research has tended to tackle the issues through the in-depth investigation of just one language (but see Aldridge 2004aAldridge , 2004bCole and Hermon 2008a;Cole et al 2008;Guilfoyle et al 1992;Kikusawa 2002;Klamer 2002;Oda 2005;Otsuka 2005;Sells 2000 for a subset of works that take a comparative approach). We see this research as forming the basis for a more systematic comparison of the grammatical systems of Austronesian languages-a comparison that could vastly enrich the theoretical understanding of the interplay between universal grammar and parametric variation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction

Chung

Polinsky

2009

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This introduction surveys the prospects for developing a systematic comparative approach to Austronesian syntax and outlines the benefits of such an approach for syntactic theory. We begin with a brief overview of Austronesian languages, focusing on some typologically unusual aspects of their grammar, and the theoretical explanations that have been proposed for these features. We then survey the articles in the rest of this volume and the theoretical questions they address. A novel feature of this special issue is that each article is followed by a commentary by another Austronesian linguist which engages the same issues from a different perspective. The pairings of article and commentary should give readers a window into the study of Austronesian syntax and its current contributions to linguistic theory.

show abstract

Ten years of synchronic Austronesian linguistics (1991–2002)

Cited by 2 publications

References 112 publications

Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages: A Critical Introductory Survey

Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages: A Critical Introductory Survey

Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About