<%BANNER%>

Interrogative Constructions in Kavalan and Amis

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045155/00001

Material Information

Title: Interrogative Constructions in Kavalan and Amis
Physical Description: 1 online resource (405 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lin, Dong-Yi
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: amis -- austronesian -- formosan -- interrogatives -- kavalan
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This dissertation investigates the syntactic structures of wh-in-situ questions, wh-initial questions, and interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis, two Austronesian languages in Taiwan, and offers theoretical explanations within the framework of Generative Grammar.  It is argued that the wh-initial construction exhibits a pseudo-cleft structure and is not derived via wh-movement to Spec, CP. In both Kavalan and Amis, this question formation strategy is only available for questions where the absolutive DP is questioned. This constraint results from the predicate-initial derivation of Kavalan and Amis clauses.  An absolutive interrogative phrase in Kavalan cannot stay in-situ. This distributional pattern conforms to the account that analyzes subjects in Austronesian languages as topics and attributes the ban on in-situ subject interrogatives to this property. By contrast, Amis allows all types of interrogative phrases to stay in-situ regardless of their grammatical function or case-marking. We propose an account that relates this distributional pattern to the requirement on the formal marking of subjects based on Law’s (2006) descriptive generalization and Landau’s (2007) analysis of EPP.  Another significant component of this dissertation is concerned with the analysis of interrogative verbs. We argue for a syntactic approach to the derivation of interrogative verbs. Their grammatical properties and constraints follow from the interaction of the following factors: The inherent semantics of interrogative words, the verbal structures and semantic interpretations of the voice markers, and the syntactic principles and constraints that are crosslinguistically valid.  Finally, a syntactic analysis is proposed for the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVSC). It is found that the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in an IVSC is not coordination, but subordination. The interrogative verb serves as the main verb, whereas the lexical verb occurs in a reduced non-finite clause. It is argued that IVSCs encompass two different structural configurations. A ‘do how’-IVSC takes a lexical vP as its complement and features DP movement for Case checking. By contrast, the lexical vP in a ‘where’-or ‘how many’-IVSC is an adjunct and the construction is characterized by adjunct control of the theme DP.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Dong-Yi Lin.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Potsdam, Eric H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045155:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045155/00001

Material Information

Title: Interrogative Constructions in Kavalan and Amis
Physical Description: 1 online resource (405 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lin, Dong-Yi
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: amis -- austronesian -- formosan -- interrogatives -- kavalan
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This dissertation investigates the syntactic structures of wh-in-situ questions, wh-initial questions, and interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis, two Austronesian languages in Taiwan, and offers theoretical explanations within the framework of Generative Grammar.  It is argued that the wh-initial construction exhibits a pseudo-cleft structure and is not derived via wh-movement to Spec, CP. In both Kavalan and Amis, this question formation strategy is only available for questions where the absolutive DP is questioned. This constraint results from the predicate-initial derivation of Kavalan and Amis clauses.  An absolutive interrogative phrase in Kavalan cannot stay in-situ. This distributional pattern conforms to the account that analyzes subjects in Austronesian languages as topics and attributes the ban on in-situ subject interrogatives to this property. By contrast, Amis allows all types of interrogative phrases to stay in-situ regardless of their grammatical function or case-marking. We propose an account that relates this distributional pattern to the requirement on the formal marking of subjects based on Law’s (2006) descriptive generalization and Landau’s (2007) analysis of EPP.  Another significant component of this dissertation is concerned with the analysis of interrogative verbs. We argue for a syntactic approach to the derivation of interrogative verbs. Their grammatical properties and constraints follow from the interaction of the following factors: The inherent semantics of interrogative words, the verbal structures and semantic interpretations of the voice markers, and the syntactic principles and constraints that are crosslinguistically valid.  Finally, a syntactic analysis is proposed for the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVSC). It is found that the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in an IVSC is not coordination, but subordination. The interrogative verb serves as the main verb, whereas the lexical verb occurs in a reduced non-finite clause. It is argued that IVSCs encompass two different structural configurations. A ‘do how’-IVSC takes a lexical vP as its complement and features DP movement for Case checking. By contrast, the lexical vP in a ‘where’-or ‘how many’-IVSC is an adjunct and the construction is characterized by adjunct control of the theme DP.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Dong-Yi Lin.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Potsdam, Eric H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045155:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 INTERROGATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN KAVALAN AND AMIS By DONG YI LIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Dong yi Lin

PAGE 3

3 To my parents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work could not have been completed without the help of many people First and foremost, I thank my advisor, Dr. Eric Potsdam, for giving me valuable comme nts and suggestions on the drafts of the dissertation and for teaching me how to conduct rigorous linguistic research. I am also grateful to Dr. Galia Hatav, Dr. Brent Henderson, and Dr. Felicia Lee for their advice on how to improve the dissertation. I al so want to thank Dr. Li May Sung for her support for my fieldwork in Taiwan. The analyses presented in this wor k could not h ave been developed without my Kavalan consultants ( Abas, Buya, and Ngengi ) and Amis consultants ( Ngaday, Ofad, and Panay ) I owe m any thanks to them for their patience with me while teaching me their language. I am glad that I have made many friends in the Linguistics Department at UF, especially the founding members of the Florida Linguistics Association: Joel, Lee, and Tyler. I ap preciate the time we spent together discussing linguistics and our ambitions for the greater linguistics community. Finally, my parents and my sisters deserve more than just a simple thank you. They have always given me their full support in my academic c areer. Their support has been one of my major motivations to continue my research in linguistics. Without them, I would have never accomplished what I have achieved so far.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 OVERV IEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15 1.1 Question Formation Strategies Across Languages ................................ ........... 15 1.2 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ......................... 19 1.3 Theoretical Background ................................ ................................ .................... 21 1.3.1 Government and Binding ................................ ................................ ......... 22 1.3.2 Minimalist Program ................................ ................................ .................. 24 1.4 A Brief Sketch of Kavalan and Amis ................................ ................................ 26 1.4.1 Background Information of Kavalan and Amis ................................ ......... 26 1.4.2 A Sketch of Kavalan and Amis Grammar ................................ ................ 27 1.4.2.1 Basic word order ................................ ................................ ............ 27 1.4.2.2 Voice system ................................ ................................ .................. 28 1.4.2.3 Case marking system ................................ ................................ .... 32 1.5 Structure of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 34 2 INTERROGATIVE WORDS AND CONSTRUCTIONS IN K AV ALAN AND AMIS: A DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................ 38 2.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 38 2.2 Wh Words in Kavalan and Amis ................................ ................................ ....... 38 2.2.1 Wh Words in Kavalan ................................ ................................ .............. 38 2.2.2 Wh Words in Amis ................................ ................................ ................... 42 2.3 Interrogative Constructions in Kavalan and Amis ................................ ............. 46 2.3.1 Interrogative Constructions in Main Clauses ................................ ........... 46 2.3.1.1 Wh in situ ................................ ................................ ....................... 46 2.3.1.2 Wh initial construction ................................ ................................ .... 48 2.3.1.3 Interrogative words as non verbal predicates and interrogative verbs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 49 2.3.2 Interrogative Constructions in Embedded Clauses ................................ .. 52 2.4 Wh Words and Interrogative Constructions in Kavalan ................................ ..... 55 2.4.1 Wh in Situ and Wh Initial Constructions ................................ .................. 55 2.4.2 Adverbial Interrogatives ................................ ................................ ........... 61 2.5 Wh Words and Interrogative Constructions in Amis ................................ .......... 66

PAGE 6

6 2 .5.1 Wh in Situ and Wh Initial Constructions ................................ .................. 66 2.5.2 Adverbial Interrogatives ................................ ................................ ........... 71 2.6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 73 3 VERBAL INTERROGATIVES IN K AV ALAN AND AMIS ................................ ......... 76 3.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 76 3.2 Diagnostics for Verbs in Kavalan and Amis ................................ ...................... 77 3.3 Verbal Interrogatives in Kavalan and Amis ................................ ....................... 84 3.4 Interrogative Verb Constructions ................................ ................................ ...... 93 3.4.1 Intransitive Interrogative Verbs ................................ ................................ 94 3.4.2 Transitiv e Interrogative Verbs ................................ ................................ .. 95 3.4.3 Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction ................................ ........... 97 3.5 Restrictions on the Use of Interrogative Verbs ................................ .................. 99 3.5.1 Kavalan Tanian and Amis Icuwa ................................ ............................. 99 3.5.2 The Interpr etation of Kavalan Tani and Amis Pina ................................ 107 3.6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 109 4 THE WH INITIAL CONSTRUCTION AS A PSEUDO CLEFT STRUCTURE ........ 112 4.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 112 4.2 Wh Movement, Clefts, and Pseudo Clefts ................................ ...................... 114 4.2.1 Wh Movement ................................ ................................ ....................... 114 4.2.2 Clefts ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 118 4.2.3 Pseudo Clefts ................................ ................................ ........................ 125 4.3 Grammatical Properties of Wh Initial Questions ................................ ............. 130 4.3.1 Sentence Initial Interrogative Phrase as the Predicate .......................... 131 4.3.1.1 Tense and aspect markers ................................ ........................... 131 4.3.1.2 Negation ................................ ................................ ....................... 133 4.3.1.3 Epistemic markers ................................ ................................ ........ 134 4.3.1.4 The common noun mar ker ................................ ........................... 136 4.3.2 The Remainder as a Headless Relative Clause ................................ .... 138 4.3.3 The Remainder as the Subject ................................ .............................. 145 4.3.4 Bi Clausal Structure ................................ ................................ ............... 148 4.3.5 No Movement Properties ................................ ................................ ....... 151 4.3.5.1 Identity effects ................................ ................................ .............. 151 4.3.5.2 Embedded questions ................................ ................................ ... 155 4.3.6 Parallelism with Amis Pseudo Clefts ................................ ..................... 160 4.3.7 Summary ................................ ................................ ............................... 163 4.4 The Structure of Kavalan and Amis P seudo Cleft Questions .......................... 164 4.4.1 The Structure of Predication ................................ ................................ .. 164 4.4.2 Non Verbal Interrogative Clauses ................................ ......................... 166 4.4.3 The Structure of Pseudo Cleft Questions ................................ .............. 172 4.5 Con clusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 178 5 RESTRICTIONS ON WH IN SITU AND PSEUDO CLEFT QUESTIONS ............. 179

PAGE 7

7 5.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 179 5.2 Restrictions on Pseudo Cleft Questions ................................ ......................... 181 5.2.1 Extraction Restriction as Retriction on Subjects ................................ .... 182 5.2.1.1 Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992) ................................ ............... 182 5.2.1.2 Y. L. Chang (1997) ................................ ................................ ....... 183 5.2.1.3 Rackowski and Richards (2005) ................................ .................. 185 5.2.1.4 Discussion ................................ ................................ .................... 187 5.2.2 Extraction Restriction as Ban on Genitive Predicates ............................ 192 5.2.3 Extraction Restriction and Predicate Raising ................................ ......... 199 5.2.4 Restrictions on Pseudo Cleft Questions in Kavalan and Amis .............. 202 5.3 Restrictions on Wh in Situ ................................ ................................ .............. 205 5.3.1 Absolutive DP Sub ject as Topic ................................ ............................ 206 5.3.2 Formal Marking of Subject DP ................................ ............................... 208 5.3.3 Wh in Situ in Amis ................................ ................................ ................. 212 5.3.4 Wh in Situ in Kavalan ................................ ................................ ............ 219 5.4 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 236 6 A S YNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF INTERROGATIVE VERBS ................................ .. 239 6.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 239 6.2 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 241 6.2.1 A Categorial Roots ................................ ................................ ................ 241 6.2.2 Austronesian Voice Mark ers as Verbal Derivation ................................ 242 6.2.3 Austronesian Voice Markers as Verb Creating Heads in Syntax ........... 248 6.3 Syntactic Derivations of Interrogative Verbs ................................ ................... 250 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 250 ............. 265 6.3.3 Syntactic Derivations of Inte ...... 274 6.4 Extension to Non Interrogative Words ................................ ............................ 278 6.4.1 Location Verbs ................................ ................................ ...................... 279 6.4.2 Manner Verbs ................................ ................................ ........................ 285 6.5 Interrogative Words That Cannot Be Verbs ................................ .................... 287 ................................ ................................ .............. 288 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 296 6.6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 301 7 THE INTERROGATIVE VERB SEQUENCING CONST RUCTION ....................... 303 7.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 303 7.2 Grammatical Properties of the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction .. 304 7.2.1 Coordination or Subordination ................................ ............................... 306 7.2.2 The Interrogative Verb as the Main Verb of the IVSC ............................ 313 7.2.3 Serial Verb Constructions in Formosan Languages .............................. 322 7.3 The Syntactic Relationship Between the Two Verbs in the IVSC ................... 326 7.3.1 Double Headed VP Structure ................................ ................................ 327 7.3.2 Complementation or Adjunction ................................ ............................ 334

PAGE 8

8 IVS C ................................ ................................ ................... 338 IVSC ................................ ............ 3 43 7.4 Syntactic Operations in the IVSC ................................ ................................ .... 352 7.4.1 Case Marking of the Theme DP: Raising or Control ............................. 352 7.4.2 DP IVSC ................................ ................................ 353 IVSC ..................... 359 7.4.4 Adjunct Control in IVSC as Sideward Movement ................................ .. 368 7.4.5 Summary ................................ ................................ ............................... 381 7.5 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 381 8 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ ................................ ... 383 8.1 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 383 8.2 Implications and Future Research ................................ ................................ .. 387 8.2.1 Predicative Use of Interrogative Phrases ................................ .............. 387 8.2.2 T .............................. 388 8.2.3 Control Structure in Kavalan and Amis ................................ .................. 389 8.2.4 Argument Structure ................................ ................................ ............... 390 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 391 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 405

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Voice and applicative markers in Amis ................................ ............................... 31 1 2 Kavalan case markers ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 1 3 Amis case markers (Based on Wu 2006) ................................ ........................... 34 1 4 Amis noun classifiers (Based on Wu 2006) ................................ ........................ 34 1 5 Case markers and noun classifiers in Amis ................................ ........................ 34 2 1 Amis case markers (Based on Wu 2006) ................................ ........................... 43 2 2 Amis noun classifiers (Based on Wu 2006) ................................ ........................ 43 2 3 Case marking of wh phrases and interrogative constructions in Kavalan ........... 56 2 4 Case marking of wh phrases and in terrogative constructions in Amis ................ 66 3 1 Interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis ................................ ............................ 93 3 2 Interrogative verb constructions in Kavalan and Amis ................................ ........ 99 3 3 The syntactic distribution of Kavalan tanian and Amis icuwa ........................... 106 4 1 Wh movement, pseudo cleft, and cleft structures ................................ ............. 130 7 1 Two IVSCs in Kavalan and Amis ................................ ................................ ...... 382

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ABS Absolutive ASP Aspect AV Agent Voice BA Beneficiary Applicative CAU Causative CN Common Noun COMP Complementizer COND Conditional CV Circumstantial Voice DAT Dative DEF Definite DEM Demonstrative DET Determiner DM Discourse Marker EMP Emphatic ERG Ergative EXIST Existential FAC Factual FIL Filler FOC Focus FUT Future GEN Genitive I Inclusive IA Instrumental Applicative

PAGE 11

11 IMPV Imperfective INS Instrument INTR Intransitive IRR Irrealis IV Instrumental Voice LA Locative Applicative LNK Linker LOC Locative Case LV Locative Voice NAV Non Agent Voice NCM Non Common Noun Marker NEG Negation NHUM Non Human NMZ Nominalizer NOM Nominative OBL Oblique PART Particle PASS Passive PFV Perfective PL Plural PN Proper Noun POSS Possessive PREP Preposition PST Past PV Patient Voice

PAGE 12

12 Q Question REA Realis RED Reduplication REL Relativizer SG Singular TOP Topic TR Transitive

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INTERROGATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN KAVALAN AND AM IS By Dong yi Lin May 2013 Chair: Eric Potsdam Major: Linguistics This dissertation investigates the syntactic structures of wh in situ questions, wh initial questions, and interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis, two Austronesian languages in Taiwan, and offers theoretical explanations within the framework of Generative Grammar. It is argued that the wh initial construction exhibits a pseudo cleft structure and is not derived via wh movement to Spec, CP. In both Kavalan and Amis, this question formatio n strategy is only available for questions where the absolutive DP is questioned. This constraint results from the predicate initial derivation of Kavalan and Amis clauses. An absolutive interrogative phrase in Kavalan cannot stay in situ. This distributi onal pattern conforms to the account that analyzes subjects in Austronesian languages as topics and attributes the ban on in situ subject interrogatives to this property. By contrast, Amis allows all types of interrogative phrases to stay in situ regardles s of their grammatical function or case marking. We propose an account that relates this distributional pattern to the requirement on the formal marking of subjects

PAGE 14

14 Anot her significant component of this dissertation is concerned with the analysis of interrogative verbs. We argue for a syntactic approach to the derivation of interrogative verbs. Their grammatical properties and constraints follow from the interaction of th e following factors: The inherent semantics of interrogative words, the verbal structures and semantic interpretations of the voice markers, and the syntactic principles and constraints that are crosslinguistically valid. Finally, a syntactic analysis is p roposed for the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVSC). It is found that the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in an IVSC is not coordination, but subordination. The interrogative verb serves as the main verb, whereas the lexical verb occurs in a reduced non finite clause. It is argued that IVSCs encompass two different structural configurations do IVSC takes a lexical vP as its complement and features D P movement for Case checking. By contrast, t he lexical vP IVSC is an adjunct and the construction is characterized by adjunc t control of the theme DP

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 Question Formation Strategies Across Languages Syntactic and typological studies on constituent question formation in languages have led to the generalization that there are two main strategies to form content questions or interrogatives across languages (Cheng 1997; Cheng and Corver 2006; Chomsky 1977; C. T. Huang 1982; Siemund 2001). One is wh move ment, whereby an interrogative word or wh word is displaced from its original position to a sentence initial position. What follows is an English example. (1) What did John eat ___? cf. John ate pizza The second principal strategy is wh in situ, whereby a wh word stays in the same position as its declarative counterpart. That is, it occurs in the same position where the constituent it questions would occur in a declarative sentence. A typical example is Chinese, as illustrated in the following pair of se ntences. (2) Chinese a. ta chi le shenme 3 SG eat PFV what b. ta chi le hanbao 3 SG eat PFV hamburger Recent research on less documented languages however has show n that there is a third structural possibility to form interrogative sentences, i.e., the use of wh phrases as predicates. There are two sub types. The first type utilize s a wh phrase as a nonverbal predicate in a cleft or pseudo cleft structure to form co ntent questions (M.

PAGE 16

16 Chang 2000; Cheng 1997; D. Liu 1999 ; Potsdam 200 6; Potsdam and Polinsky 2011 ) 1 In a pseudo cleft question, the wh word or wh phrase serves as the predicate of the sentence and there is a headless relative clause that serves as the subj ect of the sentence. The following example from Tsou illustrates this question formation strategy. (3) Tsou (zou) [ NP sia] [ NP m i ta eobak o ta e ] EMP who NOM AV REA 3 SG hit AV OBL (M. Chang 2000: 3) The second sub type of wh predicate is verbal. Interrogative words or phrases in some languages behave syntactically as verbal predicates (Cysouw 2004; Hagge 2003, 2008; L. Huang, et al. 1999; Idiatov and van der Auw in Taiwan or Formosan languages, argue for the existence of this typologically unusua l question formation strategy: T he use of in terrogative wo rds as verbs, or interrogative verbs ge 2008: 3). The following examples show that errogative verbs in Cebuano and Sundanese respectively. (4) Cebuano mag unsa=man=ko diha AV do.what= PAR T =1 SG NOM there (Tanangkingsing 2009: 247) (5) Sundanese ku kuring kedah di kumaha keun by 1 must PASS do. how TR (Mller Gotama 2001: 58) 1 The references listed here about cleft or pseudo cleft questions are not meant to be exhaustive. The relevant literature is much larger than this list.

PAGE 17

17 It should be noted that the predicative use of wh words and wh phrases in a language does not exclude wh in situ or wh movement in that language. However, interrogative predicates, including ( ps eudo ) cleft question and interrogative verbs, are still a distinct question formation strategy that is worth more detailed research. Unlike wh in situ, interrogative predicates, both verbal and non verbal, do not occur in the canonical argument or adjunct position. While wh movement involves the movement of a wh phrase to a sentence peripheral position, interrogative predicates remain in the canonical predicate position. 2 With this typology as background, this dissertation explores the possible question for mation strategies utilized by Kavalan and Amis, two Austronesian languages in Taiwan, and analyzes the syntax and semantics of the interrogative constructions in the two languages. As a brief descriptive overview, Kavalan and Amis have both sub types of pr edicative use of interrogative words: Pseudo cleft questions and interrogative verbs, as illustrated in (6) and (7 ). Wh in situ is also a possible strategy to form content questions i n both languages, as shown in (8). A comparison between (6) and (8 ) shows that tiana cima cleft structure or the wh in situ construction. That is, multiple strategies are available in these languages, even for the same wh phrase. (6 ) Pseudo cleft a. Kavalan tiana =ti ya qan(=ay) tu may ku who= PFV ABS < AV >eat= REL OBL rice 1 SG GEN Lit. The one that ate my rice was who?) 2 Theoretically speaking, nothing prevents an interroga tive predicate from undergoing wh movement. Whether this is empirically true requires further investigation.

PAGE 18

18 b. Amis cima ku mi takaw ay tu payci who ABS AV steal FAC OBL money steals t steals money is who?) (7 ) Interrogative Verbs a. Kav a lan quni=isu tangi < AV >do.what=2 SG ABS now b. Amis mi maan ci panay AV do. what NCM PN (8 ) Wh in situ a. Kavalan m qila=ti ya tina su tu tiana AV scold= PFV ABS mother 2 SG GEN OBL who b. Amis ma keter ci lekal tu cima AV scold NCM PN OBL who does Lekal scold The examples in (6 ) are pseudo cleft questions. The wh word tiana a) is the predicate of the sentence and the headless relative clause may ku the subject of the sentence. The inter rogative sentence of Amis in (6 b) exhibits the same structure with a wh word as the predicate followed by a headless relative clause as the subject. The examples in (7) demonstrate the use of wh words as verbs. The in terrogative words quni maan morphologically simple words; they serve as the predicate of the sentence and simultaneously question their own semantic content. T heir morphological and syntactic distribution is the same as other ty pical verbs in the two languages. For example, they

PAGE 19

19 can take the agent voice marker < um > or mi and appear in the sentence initial predicate position. The specific research questions that will be addressed in this dissertation are specified in Section 1.2. Section 1.3 presents the theoretical background of the syntactic framework that this dissertation adopts for analysis: The Generative Grammar. To facilitate the discussion of Kavalan and Amis data, a brief introduction to the grammar of Kavalan and Amis i s offered in Section 1.4. Finally, Section 1.5 outlines the organization of this dissertation. 1.2 Research Questions The possibility of (pseudo ) cleft questions and interrogative verbs in addition to commonly found wh movement and wh in situ strategies ra ises intriguing and important questions regarding the structural analysis of interrogative constructions. They pose problems for current typological and theoretical generalizations that have resulted from in depth research on wh movement and wh in situ str ategies, but which have excluded pseudo cleft questions and interro gative verbs. This dissertation thus aims to fill in this gap by exploring the range of question formation strategies in Kavalan and Amis. There are t wo general goals of the present study. First of all, the dissertation will provide a descriptive analysis on the question formation strategies in Kavalan and Amis. The descriptive analysis will explore the interrogative words and interrogative constructions in the two languages and investigate whether and how different interrogative words or phrases can be used in different interrogative constructions. The similarities and differences between the two languages will also be discussed. The second goal o f the dissertation is to reveal the theoretic al implications of the pseudo

PAGE 20

20 cleft questions and interrogative verbs. To achieve this goal, the dissertation will provide a syntactic analysis for these two question formation strategies. The structural analysis of interrogative verbs is especially import ant, as there is still no work that investigates verbal interrogatives from a theoretical standpoint. Current syntactic generalizations on question formation must be tested against the syntactic analysis of verbal interrogatives to see whether they are tru ly universal principles underlying all human languages. The following research questions from both descriptive and theoretical perspectives will be addressed. (9) Descriptive Research Questions a. What interrogative constructions are utilized to form constitu ent questions in Kavalan and Amis? b. Can different question formation strategies, e.g. wh in situ, pseudo cleft question s and interrogative verbs, apply to all the interrogative phrases in Kavalan and Amis? It is shown in Section 1.1 that Kavalan tiana cima can appear in at least two interrogative constructions, i.e., pseudo cleft and wh in situ. Are multiple strategies also available for other interrogative phrases? c. What interrogative word s in Kavalan and Amis can be used as verb s in a ddition to the examples in (7 )? d. What are the grammatical and semantic properties of Kavalan and Amis interrogative verbs? What verbal constructions can interrogative verbs occur in? Are there any constraints on the use of interrogative verbs? e. What are the similarities and differences between interrogatives in these two languages? (10) Theoretical Research Questions a. What are the syntactic structure s of the interrogative constructions in Kavalan and Amis ? b. Are there any constrain ts on the applicability of the question formation strategies in Kavalan and Amis and how can such constraints be explained from a theoretical point of view? c. How should interrogative verbs be syntactically analyzed based on the findings in Kavalan and Amis? How can we account for the sy ntactic and semantic properties of interrogative verbs?

PAGE 21

21 d. What are the implications of interrogative verbs for the syntactic theory of interrogative constructions and the typology of question formation strategies ? This study on the interrogative construction s in Kavalan and Amis, both of which are verb initial languages, will have both typological and theoretical implications for the syntax of questions. Most generalizations on the structure of question formation are based on well documented languages like En glish, Japanese, and Chinese. It is thus important to investigate typologically unusual languages, including verb initial languages like Kavalan and Amis, to examine whether the current hypotheses hold universally. The answers to the research questions lis ted abo ve will make significant contributions to the theory and typology of interrogatives. 1.3 Theoretical Background The theoretical framework adopted here is a version of Principles and Parameters as developed by Noam Chomsky and his colleagues. This th eory has undergone several major changes since the mid 1950s. The most recent version is the Minimalist Program as outlined in Chomsky (1995b, 2000, 2001b, 2007, 2008). The goal of the Minimalist Program is to overhaul the model of grammar developed so far and eliminate any unnecessary and redundant components, modules, or principles, especially those proposed within the Government and Binding theory as presented in Chomsky (1981, 1986a, 1986b). Section 1.3.1 offers an overview of the model of grammar advoc ated by the Government and Binding theory. Section 1.3.2 introduces the fundamental changes to this theory proposed by the Minimalist Program regarding the overall architecture of grammar. The two sub sections only provide the theoretical background of our analytical approach. Specific syntactic structures, mechanisms, or principles and constraints will be introduced and discussed in more detail in the chapters or sections

PAGE 22

22 where they are relevant. The summary presented below is mostly based on Carnie (2007) Haegeman (1991), and Hornstein, Nunes, and Grohmann (2005). 1.3.1 Government and Binding The model of grammar conceived by the Government and Binding (GB) theory consists of four levels of representation: Deep Structure, Surface Structure, Logical Form ( LF), and Phonological Form (PF). Deep Structure is the base of the computational system where lexical items selected from the Lexicon are inserted into an X bar structure. The insertion of lexical items into a phrase marker is constrained by the Theta Crit erion (11) and the lexical information of these lexical items must be preserved at all levels of representation in accordance with the Projection Principle (12). (11) Theta Criterion (Chomsky 1981) The relationship between arguments and theta roles is bi u nique. Each argument is assigned one and only one theta role and each theta role is assigned to one and only one argument. (12) Projection Principle (Chomsky 1981) Lexical information is represented and preserved at every syntactic level. The representa tion of a sentence at Deep Structure does not necessarily correspond to its surface form due to the application of transformational rules, or simply Relativized Minimality (13). (13) Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990) X x governs Y only if there is no Z such that i. Z is a typic al potential x governor for Y; ii. Z c commands Y and Z does not c command X. To put it in a non technical way, movement must be local. However, how locality is formally defined is a matter of debate and controversy. In addition to locality constraints

PAGE 23

23 t hat restrict movement, there are other constraints that can rule out illicit syntactic representations, e.g., the Extended Projection Principle (14) and Case filter (15). (14) Extended Projection Principle A sentence must have a subject. Spec, TP must be filled. (15) Case filter All DPs must be Case marked. The function of all the various constraints is to ensure that grammar generates all and only grammatical sentences. At Surface Structure, the computational system splits into Phonological Form (PF) a nd Logical Form (LF). PF is an interface level where a phonetic representation can be assigned to the syntactic representation from Surface Structure. As for LF, it is an interface level where the semantics or interpretation of a sentence is determined. In other words, PF is responsible for pronunciation or form, whereas LF deals with meaning. The underlying principle that regulates well formedness of a structure at PF and LF is called Full Interpretation, which requires every element to have an appropriate interpretation. In addition to the levels of representation and various principles and constraints, the Government and Binding Theory is also characterized by modularity. Within this framework, grammar can be divided into several distinct modules, e.g., B inding, Case, Control, and X Bar Theory. An important concept that unifies almost all the modules is the notion of Government, as defined in (16) by Chomsky (1986a). (16) Government (Chomsky 1986a) A governs B if and only if i. A is a governor; and ii. A m commands B; and iii. no barrier intervenes between A and B. Maximal projections are barriers to government. Governors are heads.

PAGE 24

24 However, the idea that Government is a fundamental principle underlying the language faculty has been abandoned with the rise of the Minimalist Program. 1.3.2 Minimalist Program The Minimalist Program (MP) is not a theory per se, but an on going project that aims to overhaul the model of grammar for theoretical parsimony. Based on the criteria like naturalness, simplicity, and economy, many components of grammar, including representations, modules, principles, and constraints, have either been eliminated or revised since the commencement of the Minimalist Program. The goal is to perfect the model of grammar so that it not on ly accounts for the important properties of human language listed in (17) but is also maximally simple at the same time. As stated by Hornstein, Nunes, and Grohmann (2005: 8), the research strategy in the Minimalist ory whose operations have a least effort flavor (17) Big facts of human language (Hornstein, Nunes, and Grohmann 2005: 7) a. Sentences are basic linguistic units. b. Sentences are pairings of form (sound/signs) and m eaning. c. Sentences are composed of smaller expressions (words and morphemes). d. These smaller units are composed into units with hierarchical structure, i.e., phrases, larger than words and smaller than sentences. e. Sentences show displacement properties in the sense that expressions that appear in one position can be interpreted in another. f. in any given natural language. First and foremost, the original four levels of representati on in the GB theory have been reduced to two interface levels: PF and LF. These two interface levels are

PAGE 25

25 necessary components of the language faculty as form and meaning are two fundamental elements that constitute linguistic expressions (17b). By contrast Deep Structure and Surface Structure do not reflect any real properties of the language faculty. The motivation for these two levels of representation is purely theory internal. It is thus desirable to eliminate them and look for primitive operations tha t reflect how the derivation of sentences proceeds. Surface Structure is replaced by Spell Out. Note that Spell Out is not a level of representation. It simply stands for the point where a derivation splits into PF and LF. Deep Structure is also eliminate d from the model of grammar. Instead, a more primitive operation, Merge, is proposed. Merge functions to combine syntactic objects to form a new syntactic unit. Merge is basic and necessary as phrases and clauses must be derived from the combination of wor ds or smaller phrases (17c, 17d). Another indispensible property of language faculty is displacement. Where a linguistic expression is pronounced and where it is interpreted might not always coincide (17e). The model of grammar thus must contain operations that achieve this effect. The operation responsible for this is Movement, which can be decomposed into two more and merged with another syntactic object. Another crucial difference between the GB theory and the Minimalist Program concerns how movement (copy plus merge) is constrained. In the Minimalist Program, movement is motivated or triggered by the need for interpretation. Lexical items contain both interpretable and u ninterpretable features. An uninterpretable feature is not allowed at the interface levels as it cannot receive an appropriate interpretation and thus

PAGE 26

26 violates Full Interpretation. Therefore, if a lexical item contains an uninterpretable feature, it must s earch for a syntactic object that possesses a compatible interpretable feature can be checked off. In other words, movement cannot take place at will, but must be motivated by feature checking. 1.4 A Brief Sketch of Kavalan and Amis 1.4.1 Background Information of Kavalan and Amis Both Kavalan and Amis belong to the Austronesian language family. They are classified as East Formosan languages (in a linguistic, not a geographical sense) along with Basay and Siraya according to the genetic classification proposed by Blust (1999) and P. Li (2001, 2004). Both languages are spoken in eastern Taiwan. There are two dialects of Kavalan: Changyuan and Xinshe. The dialectal variation mainly lies in phonology (Y. L. Chang 1997, 2000). Amis has five dialects: Sakizaya 3 Northern, Tavalong Vataan, Central, and Southern (Tsuchida 1988). The current population of Kavalan is about 1,000. However, the number of fluent speakers of th is language is estimated to be less than 100 (Hsieh and Huang 2007; Y. L. Chang 2000). It is thus one of the most endangered indigenous languages in Taiwan. By contrast, Amis has the largest population (about 170,000) among Formosan languages (Wu 2006), bu t the number of Amis speakers is less than this estimate as young generations do not speak Amis as their mother tongue now. The dialects of Kavalan and Amis analyzed in the dissertation are Xinshe Kavalan, which is spoken in Xinshe Village, Hualien County, and Central Amis, which is spoken 3 Sakizaya was officially recognized as an independent language, not a dialect of Amis, by the Taiwan government in 2007.

PAGE 27

27 in Changpin Village, Taitung County. The linguistic data for analysis were collected during my fieldwork on these two languages in Taiwan. 4 Most data presented in this dissertation are elicited data of my fieldwork notes. Some of the data are taken from the narratives and conversations archived at the NTU Corpus of Formosan Languages (Sung, et al. 2008) 5 To facilitate the discussion of Kavalan and Amis data in this dissertation, the following section briefly introduces th e clause structure of the two languages. 1.4.2 A Sketch of Kavalan and Amis Grammar 1.4.2.1 Basic word order Both Kavalan and Amis are predicate initial languages. Verbal predicates and non verbal predicates both occur in the clause initial position, as i llustrated below. In an agent voice sentence, the absolutive NP can either precede or follow the oblique NP (18b, 18c, 19b, 19c). However, in a patient voice sentence, the ergative NP must immediately follow the verb, while the absolutive NP occurs at the end of the sentence (18d, 18e, 19d, 19e). (18) Kavalan a. ising ya ti utay doctor ABS NCM PN b tanuz=ti [ ya tu l iq a yau ] [ tu wasu ] < AV >chase = PFV ABS wasp L NK that OBL dog That wasp chased a dog. 4 The UFIRB number of thi s study is 2009 U 0324. Fieldwork for this study was sponsored by the research project, The Austronesians: Language, Gene, Culture, and A rchaeology ( 95R0350 05, 96R0502 06), which was granted to Dr. Li May Sung, National Taiwan University 5 http://corpus .linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/

PAGE 28

28 c. tanuz=ti [ tu wasu ] [ ya tu l iq a yau ] < AV >chase = PFV OBL dog ABS wasp L NK that That wasp chased a dog. d. tanuz an na=ti [na tuliq a yau] [ya wasu chase PV 3 ERG = PFV ERG wasp LNK that ABS dog that e. tanuz an na=ti [ya wasu [na tuliq a yau] chase PV 3 ERG = PFV ABS dog that ERG wasp LNK that (19) Amis a. u singsi kaku CN teacher 1 SG ABS b. mi [ku wacu] [tu wawa] AV cha se ABS dog OBL child c. mi [tu wawa] [ku wacu] AV chase OBL child ABS dog d. ala en [ni calaw] [ku paysu] take PV ERG PN ABS money e. ala en [ku pays u] [ni calaw] take PV ABS money ERG PN 1.4.2.2 Voice system One of the prominent grammatical features of Formosan languages is the utilization of the Philippine type voice system, which roughly refer s to the semantic concor d between the verb and the absolutive marked NP in terms of the thematic role

PAGE 29

29 that the absolutive NP plays. 6 This phenomenon is characteristic of Philippine type languages including Formosan languages. 7 Kavalan is an ergative language (Liao 2002, 2004) a nd exhibits a tripartite voice system, encompassing Agent Voice ( AV ), Patient Voice ( PV ), and PV Instrumental /Beneficiary Applicative (IA /BA ) 8 The absolutive marked NP in the AV construction is the agent or experiencer of the sentence, e.g., (20a) and (20 b); the absolutive NP in the PV construction is the patient or theme, e.g., (20c); the absolutive NP in the IA/BA construction is the instrument or the beneficiary, e.g., (20d, 20e). ( 20) Kavalan Agent Voice : m ; mu ; < m >; Word order: V [ ABS agent/expe riencer] a. maynep=ti [ ya sunis ku ] AV .sleep= PFV ABS child 1 SG GEN My child slept. Anti passive Construction (Agent Voi ce Construction with an Oblique theme ) Word order: V [ ABS agent/experiencer] [ OBL theme] b. tanuz=ti [ya tu l iq a yau ] [ tu wasu ] < AV >chase = PFV ABS wasp LNK that OBL dog That wasp chased a dog. 6 exposition. Strictly speaking, there is no one to one correspondence between voice markers and the absolutive arguments in term s of thematic roles. For example, either agent or experiencer can be the absolutive NP in an agent voice construction. There is still much debate on the grammatical functions of the voice markers in Austronesian languages. 7 This phenomenon has sti mulated a huge controversy over its descriptive and theoretical adequacy (Blust 2002; Himmelmann 2002; S. Huang 2002 2005 ; Ross & Teng 2005 ; Starosta 2002 ). and terminology. However, it should be noted that the from the active passive voice distinction in many Indo European languages. 8 Most studies in Formosan linguistics assume a four way distinction of voice, including agent voice, patient voice, locative voice, and instrumental voice. Following the suggestion by S. Huang (2005), Starosta (2002), and Wu markers instead. However, since their case marking pattern is aligned with the patient voice construction in that the agent receives ergative case, they are classified as a sub type of patient voice construction in this dissertation.

PAGE 30

30 Patient Voice : an Word order: V [ ERG agent] [ ABS theme] c. tanu z an na = ti [na tu l iq a yau ] [ ya wasu nay ] chase PV 3 E RG = PFV ERG wasp LNK that ABS dog that That wasp chased that dog. Instrumental/Beneficiary Voice : ti 9 Word order: V [ ERG agent] ([ OBL theme]) [ ABS instrument/beneficiary] d. t i kilas [ ni abas ] [ tu esi ] [ ya saytu ] IA cut ERG PN OBL meat ABS knife Abas cut meat with the knife. e. ti sa may [ na tama ku ] [ ya tina ku ] BA cook ERG father 1 SG GEN ABS mother 1 SG GEN My father cooked for my mother. In both the PV and IA/BA con structions, the agent is marked with the ergative case and must immediately follow the verb. Assuming that the distinction between agent voice and patient voice is correlated with their transitivity (Liao 2002, 2004; Ross and Teng 2005), this dissertation construes the agent voice marker in Kavalan as an intransitive marker and the patient voice marker a transitive marker. Note that although verbs in the agent voice construction can take a patient argument as shown in (20b), this structure is still consider ed to be syntactically intransitive because the patient argument is demoted and receives oblique case (Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011; Liao 2002, 2004). That is, sentences like (20b) are an anti passive construction. By contrast, the patient voice construct ion in (20c) should be analyzed as the canonical transitive construction in Kavalan. Amis is also an ergative language (Wu 2006). There are four voice constructions in Amis: Agent Voice (AV), Patient Voice (PV), PV Locative Applicative (LA), and PV 9 The IA/BA construction seems to have become obsolete among Kavalan speakers under the age of 60. It is mostly found in the speech of speakers over the age of 70.

PAGE 31

31 Instrum ental Applicative (IA). Each voice and applicative marker is associated with a set of allomorphs as shown below. 10 Table 1 1. Voice and applicative m arkers in Amis Voice and Applicative Examples Agent Voice mi ma , Patient Voice ma en PV L ocative Applicative mi an, ka an (Patient) mi an (Goal) pi an, ka um an, ka an (Location) PV Instrumental Applicative sa pi sa ka The examples in (21) illustrate how the use of different voice and applicative markers is correlated with the interpretation of the absolutive NP. 11 (21) Amis Agent Voice Word order: V [ ABS agent/experiencer] a. luwad=tu [cingra] < AV >get.up= PFV 3 SG ABS Anti passive Construction (Agent Voi ce Construction with an Oblique theme ) Word order: V [ ABS agent/experiencer] [ OBL theme] b. mi [ku wacu] [tu wawa] AV chase ABS dog OBL child Patient Voice Word order: V [ ERG agent/experiencer] [ ABS theme] c. en [ nu ya a wawa] [ku ya heci gather PV ERG that LNK child ABS that fruit nu lusay] GEN fruit.tree pear_tamih, NTU corpus) 10 The choice of these allomorphs i s conditioned by the inherent tense and aspect denotation of each allomorph and the Aktionsart and verb class of the roots that they are attached to. For a detailed and in depth discussion, please refer to Wu (2006). 11 All the Amis examples that are cited from Wu (2006) in this dissertation have been reglossed to reflect my analysis of the Amis clause structure.

PAGE 32

32 PV Locative Applicative Word order: V [ ERG agent] ([ OBL theme]) [ ABS location] d. pi adup an [ni mama] [t u fafuy] [ku ni PI hunt LA ERG father OBL pig ABS this a lutuk] LNK mountain (Wu 2006: 112) PV Instrumental Applicative Word order: V [ ERG agent] ([ OBL theme]) [ ABS instrument/cause] e. sa pi adup [ni mama] [tu fafuy nu lutuk] IA PI hunt ERG father OBL pig GEN mountain [ku iduc] ABS spear (Wu 2006: 111) f sa ka raraw [namu] [tu ccay a rara w] IA KA mistake 2 PL ERG OBL one LNK mistake [ku epah] ABS wine (Wu 2006: 111) In the Agent Voice construction, the absolutive argument is interpreted as the agent of the sentence, e.g., cingra in (21a), whereas that in the Patient Voice construction is interpreted as the patient, e.g., kuya haci nu lusay argument in the Locative Applicative construction is the location, e. g., (21d). Finally, the absolutive argument in the Instrumental Applicative construction is construed as the instrument, e.g., (21e), or the cause, e.g., (21f), of the event denoted by the sentence. What unifies the PV, LA, and IA constructions is that the agent argument is consistently marked with the ergative case and immediately follows the verb. 1.4.2.3 C ase marking system Both Kavalan and Amis exhibit Ergative Absolutive case marking pattern. The sole argument in an intransitive clause and the patient in a transitive clause receive

PAGE 33

33 absolutive case, whereas the agent in a transitive sentence takes the ergative case marker. Please see the example sentences in the preceding section. The case markers of Kavalan are listed in the following table. Table 1 2. Kavalan case markers Noun Types Absolutive Ergative/Genitive Oblique Locative Common Nouns ya/a/ na tu ta an Personal Proper Nouns ya/a/ ni tu an The absolutive case marker is optional and is often omitted, especially by younger speakers. The erg ative case and genitive case are identical in form, as illustrated in (22a) and (22b). (22c) and (22d) illustrate the use of the locative case marker. (22) Kavalan a. Rasa an na sunis a yau ya sudad buy PV ERG child LNK that ABS book b. sudad na sunis a yau book GEN child LNK that c. ta paw an ni buya ya ti imuy tangi LOC house LOC GEN PN ABS NCM PN now d. qatiw=pa=iku ci imuy an go= FUT =1 SG ABS NCM PN LOC As illustrated in (21) in the preceding sub section, Amis case markers are ku ABS nu / ni ERG tu OBL decomposed into a case morpheme and a noun classi fier morpheme. The case markers for common nouns all end in u which also occurs before a common noun that is used as a nominal predicate. This is illustrated below. Therefore, u should be identified as the common noun marker.

PAGE 34

34 (23) Amis u singsi cingra CN teacher 3 SG ABS The case markers and noun classifiers in Amis are listed in Table 1 3 and Table 1 4 respectively. However, as this morphological analysis has no direct bearing on our syntactic analysis, we will not separate the two morphemes in our glossing for the sake of simplicity. Please refer to Table 1 5 for the undecomposed forms. Table 1 3. Amis case markers (Based on Wu 2006) Noun Types Absolutive Ergative/Genitive Oblique Common Nouns k n t Personal Proper Nouns an Table 1 4. Amis noun classifiers (Based on Wu 2006) Noun Types Classifiers Common Nouns u Personal Proper Nouns c singular i plural a Table 1 5. Case markers and noun classifiers in Amis Noun Types Absolutive Ergative/Genitive Oblique Com mon Nouns ku nu tu Personal Proper Nouns (singular/plural) ci /ca ni /na ci an/ca an 1.5 Structure of the Study This dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides a descriptive overview of the interrogative constructions in Kavalan a nd Amis. Three distinct interrogative constructions, or question formation strategies, are identified in the two languages: Wh in situ, wh initial construction, and interrogative verbs. The constraints on the use of wh in situ and wh initial constructions are also explored. The findings reveal both similarities and differences between Kavalan and Amis that require theoretical explanations. In both languages, the wh initial construction is limited to

PAGE 35

35 questions that inquire about the absolutive subject NP in a sentence. While absolutive interrogative phrases, except for mayni = ay REL situ, an interrogative sentence with an in situ absolutive interrogative phrase in Amis is fully grammatical. Chapter 3 investigates what interro gative words can be used as interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis and discusses their grammatical properties. It is found that interrogative verbs can be used as intransitive verbs, transitive verbs, and ditransitive verbs. While intransitive interrogati ve verbs take the agent voice marker, transitive and ditransitive interrogative verbs must be suffixed with the patient voice marker. Interrogative verbs can also appear in the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVSC), in which they are followed b y a lexical verb. Constraints on the use of interrogative verbs are also discussed. The structure of the wh initial construction identified in Chapter 2 is the focus of study in Chapter 4. There are three potential structures that can all derive the wh ini tial order in a predicate initial language: Wh movement, Clefts, and Pseudo clefts. After reviewing the syntactic analyses of these three structures, Chapter 4 demonstrates the structural properties of the wh initial construction and compares them to the c haracteristics of the three potential structures. The results indicate that the wh initial construction in Kavalan and Amis should be analyzed as a pseudo cleft structure. The initial interrogative phrase is the predicate and there is a headless relative c lause that serves as the subject. The other two analyses fail to account for all the properties of the wh initial construction.

PAGE 36

36 The goal of Chapter 5 is to offer theoretical explanations for the constraints on the use of wh in situ and pseudo cleft questio ns uncovered in Chapter 2. We review the approaches that have been proposed to explain similar patterns in other Austronesian languages and discuss their (in)adequacy in the context of Kavalan and Amis. We adopt VP raising approach to explain why the pseud o cleft strategy is only available to questions that target the absolutive subject argument. As for the constraints on the wh in situ construction, there is no single approach that can accommodate the patterns in both Kavalan and Amis. The Amis wh in situ observation on the relationship between argument marking and the distribution of in situ wh phrases. By contrast, the Kavalan wh in situ pattern is explained by the conflict between the semantic/pragmatic status of the abso lutive subject position and the inherent semantics of interrogative words. To account for the syntactic properties and semantic constraints of interrogative verbs, Chapter 6 proposes a syntactic analysis for the derivation of interrogative verbs. The verba l status and the interpretation of an interrogative verb are derived from its merger with a verb creating head in Syntax, i.e., the little v The derivation of interrogative verbs is systematic because whether an interrogative word can be used as a ver b ca n be attributed to universal or language specific principles or constraints of syntax and the syntactic r epresentations of voice markers. Chapter 7 examines the syntactic structure of the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVSC). The issues to be addressed include the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in this construction and the syntactic operations that derive its structural properties. We argue that the interrogative verb is

PAGE 37

37 the main verb of the construct ion, whereas the lexical verb is subordinate to the IVSC, the lexical verb phrase is a complement to the interrogative verb. By contrast, the lexical verb phrase IVSC is an adjunct. The two types of IVSC also differ in the syntactic operations that yield the surface distributions of Finally, Chapter 8 summarizes the findings of this dissertation and discusses the implications for the theory and typology of question formation strategies. Suggestions for future research are also proposed.

PAGE 38

38 CHAP TER 2 INTERROGATIVE WORDS AND CONSTRUCTI ONS IN K AV ALAN AND AMIS: A DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW 2.1 Introduction This chapter investigates the syntactic distribution of the interrogative words in Kavalan and Amis from a descriptive perspective and discusses what t ypes of interrogative constructions each interrogative word can occur in. Section 2.2 introduces the inventory of interrogative words in the two languages and offers a brief description of their morphological composition. The interrogative constructions av ailable for question formation is discussed in Section 2.3, which will show that there are at least three distinct interrogative constructions in Kavalan and Amis: Wh in situ questions, wh initial construction, and interrogative verbs. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 then present the distributions of the interrogative words regarding what types of interrogative constructions they can occur in Section 2.6 summarizes the chapter and lists the empirical patterns that will be explained in subsequent chapters. 2.2 Wh W ord s in Kavalan and Amis Before we embark on the introduction of the interrogative constructions in Kavalan and Amis it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the repertoire of interrogative words and their basic morphological composition in the two l anguages. 2.2.1 Wh Words in Kavalan The interrogative words in Kavalan are listed below. (1) Kavalan interrogative words a. tiana b. niana c. zanitiana(=ay) REL d. mayni(=ay) REL e. tani / nani f. qumni

PAGE 39

39 g. mana h. qumuni i. (na)qunian j. quni k. tanian l. pasani m. maqni The interrogative word that denotes person, i.e., tiana common noun marker ti which is prefixed to a personal proper na me, e.g., ti buya NCM PN prefixation of this non common noun marker to tiana is optional. That is, either tiana or ti tiana is acceptable to my Kavalan consultants. As pointed out by Y. L. Chang (2000), tiana and niana have three phonetic variants e ach: tiana tianu and tinu for the former and niana nianu and ninu for the latter Since tiana and niana are more common, only these two forms will appear in the examples in the following discussion to avoid confusion. The possessive interrogative word zanitiana is morphologically composed of the root tiana zani which bears a resemblance to the third person possessive pronoun, zana The affix zani is prefixed to personal proper names to indicate possession, e.g., zani Imuy In the f ollowing discussion, zanitiana will not be The relativizer = ay can be cliticized to zanitiana mayni although this is optional. The non interrogative counterparts of zanitiana i. e., the possessive pronouns, share this same distributional property, and so do demonstratives, as shown in (2) (2) Kavalan a. zaku=ay sudad 1 SG POSS = REL book

PAGE 40

40 b. zanitiana=ay sudad whose= REL book c. zau=ay sudad thi s= REL book d. mayni=ay sudad which= REL book In all these cases, the relativizer = ay functions to delimit the set of entities that are referred to, just like its use in a relative clause, which also serves the same function The interrogative word that questions quantity cannot be used alone, but must take a classifier prefix that indicates whether the following noun is human or non human. This is illustrated by the contrast between (3a) and (3b) (3) Kavalan a. kin tani la zat pukun tu wasu HUM how.many person < AV >hit OBL dog en hit dog s ? b. u tani Ris qaRat tu lima su N HUM how.many mosquito < AV >bite OBL hand 2 SG GEN c. kin tani ya m RaRiw=ay HUM h ow.many ABS AV run= REL As shown in (3 a), when the noun that tani modifies is human, it must take the human classifier kin whereas when it modifies a non human noun, it takes the non human classifier u Even when the head noun is not overt, the classifier prefix is still obligatory to show the humanness of the questioned entity, as illustrated by (3c). The formal

PAGE 41

41 distinction is not limited to this interrogative word. The classifiers are also obligatory on numerals. The interrog same root, quni When this root takes the agent voice marker, < um >, it is interpreted as an it occ interrogative words as interrogative verbs because of the voice markers on them. Chapter 3 will discuss the criteria to identify interrogative verbs in more detail and w ill also offer a descriptive overview of the syntactic and semantic properties of Kavalan and Amis interrogative verbs. Finally, tanian pasani maqni same root ni which also occurs as part of most interr ogative words in this language including niana mayni tani qumni qumuni qunian quni This morpheme also serves as the marker for a yes no question and it occurs at the end of a q uestion, as illustrated below. (4) Kavalan qawtu ti imuy ni come NCM PN Q The morpheme ni can be analyzed as the interrogative morpheme of Kavalan, just like wh in English, which is a morphological constituent of almost all the Eng lish interrogative words. The interrogative word tanian can thus be morphologically decomposed into ni and ta an The other two where related words can also be decomposed into two parts, i.e. pasa and ni for pasani maq and ni for maqn i ni can also show up in non

PAGE 42

42 interrogative words and they all denote a certain aspect of space or direction. The basic function of ta an is the case mar ker for location, as shown in (5 a). The prefix pasa denotes direction towards a location (5 b) and maq indicates direction from a location (5 c). (5) Kavalan a. mai tu betu ta buqan an NEG OBL stone LOC sand LOC (KavCon Earthquake_Abas_Haciang, NTU corpus) b. pasa qazq az u siq toward seashore N HUM one Earthquake_Abas_Haciang, NTU corpus) c. maq lazing=iku mawtu from sea=1 SG ABS AV .come 2.2.2 Wh Words in Amis What follows is a list of the interrog ative words in Amis. (6) Amis interrogative words a. cima/nima/cimaan b. maan c. nima d. icuwaay e. pina / pa pina f. hakuwa g. (i)hakuwa h. naw i. icuwa j. talacuwa The i markers and the noun classifiers are incorporated into the different forms of this and noun classifiers in Amis.

PAGE 43

43 Table 2 1. Amis case markers (Based on Wu 2006) Noun Types Absolutive Ergative/Genitive Oblique Common Nouns k n t Personal Proper Nouns an Table 2 2. Amis noun classifiers (Based on Wu 2006) Noun Types Classifiers Comm on Nouns u Personal Proper Nouns c singular i plural a The form cima can be decomposed into c i and ma It is the absolutive form of the interrogative word that questions a human entity and the case marker is phonetically null. The classifier of singular personal proper nouns ci is inherent in this word. The form nima is the ergative case of this interrogative word with the ergative case marker n The form cimaan is composed of the classifier for personal proper nouns, c the singular marker i and the oblique case marker for personal proper nouns, an The (6) Amis a. cikay cima < AV >run who. ABS b. keter en nima ku wawa scold PV who. ERG ABS child c. mi liso ci ofad cimaan AV visit NCM PN who. OBL In (6a), the agent of an agent voice sentence is questioned, so the absolutive form, cima is used. In (6b), the entity that is questioned is the agent of a patient voice sentence, so the ergative form, nima is used. Finally, in (6c), cimaan the oblique form, is used because the entity that is questioned is the theme of an agent voice sentence.

PAGE 44

44 Note that the ergative form nima is identical to the possessive or genitive general characteristic of the Amis case system. By contrast, maan tion regarding case and noun classification. It takes the same set of case markers as common nouns, i.e., ku for absolutive case, nu for ergative case, and tu for oblique case. What is intriguing about maan is that it can be used as a verb and takes voice maan in more detail. Like Kavalan kin tani and u tani the interrogative word that questions quantity in Amis also distinguishes between human and non human entities. The form pina modifies a non human entity, whereas pa pina with Ca reduplication, modifies a human entity. The interrogative word hakuwa inquires about the quantity of uncountable nouns. The contrast among the th ree forms is exemplified below. (7) Amis a. pina ku mi ala an ni utay a futing how.many ABS MI take LA GEN PN LNK fish how many ?) b. pa pina ku ma kalat ay nu wacu a wawa HUM ho w.many ABS PV bite FAC ERG dog LNK child bit es are how many?) c. hakuwa ku keter ni panay how.much ABS anger GEN PN

PAGE 45

45 In add hakuwa i not allowed to take the preposition. In Amis, three interrogative words are preceded by i i.e., icuwaay ( i ) hakuwa icuwa i in this language, which can mark temporal and locative information, as illustrated below. (8) Amis a. ma alaw aku ti panay i nacila PV see 1 SG ERG NCM PN PREP yesterday b. i rum a na ngaday kaku tu may PREP house GEN PN 1 SG ABS < AV >eat OBL rice The preposition i before hakuwa It is noteworthy that icuwaa y icuwa talacuwa the same root cuwa Since icuwa and talacuwa are both interrogative words that question a location, their difference in meaning can be attributed to the morpheme that precedes them. While i is the pre position that indicates a location, tala denotes direction towards a location. How icuwaay icuwa talacuwa semantically related is unclear and beyond the scope of the present dissertation. It is with a location suffix which also occurs in deictics of space like zh LOC n LOC morpheme obligatory classifier. Moreove r, according to Cysouw (2004), the interrogative word of

PAGE 46

46 Paumari, Huallaga Quechua, and Imbabura Quechua. Therefore, the formal similarity particular coincidence. It is likely that the two words are semantically or conceptually related. In what follows, we will investigate the available question formation strategies in Kavalan and Amis, explore what question formation strategies each interrogative word can utilize, and discuss any relevant restrictions. The following discussion will reveal that a complete analysis of the interrogative words must make reference to the range of their syntactic environme nts. 2.3 Interrogative Constructions in Kavalan and Amis The discussion in this section focuses on the available interrogative constructions in Kavalan and Amis to form content questions. It is divided into two subsections. The first subsection deals with interrogative constructions in main clauses, while the second subsection concerns interrogative constructions in embedded clauses. 2.3.1 Interrogative Constructions in Main Clauses Three main types of interrogative constructions are attested in Kavalan and Amis : W h in situ construction wh initial construction and inter rogative verbs 2.3.1.1 Wh in situ First of all, interrogative words or phrases can stay in situ in bot h Kavalan and Amis. That is, they stay in the same syntactic position as their non inte rrogative counterparts in a declarative sentence. Consider the following two pairs of sentences. (9 ) Kavalan a. m qila=ti ya tina su tu tiana AV scold= PFV ABS mother 2 SG GEN OBL who o does

PAGE 47

47 b. m qila=ti ya tina su tu AV scold= PFV ABS mother 2 SG GEN OBL swani ku younger.sibling 1 SG GEN (10 ) Amis a. ma nima ku titi aku PV eat who. ERG ABS meat 1 SG GEN b. ma ni lekal ku titi aku PV eat ERG PN ABS meat 1 SG GEN Sentence (9 b) is a declara tive sentence with an oblique argument at the end of the sentence. To form a question that asks about this oblique argument, the wh word, tiana is allowed to stay in the same syntactic p osition, as shown in (9 a). The same pattern is observed in the Amis data in (10 ). However, in Kavalan, there is a syntactic restriction on the case marking of the interrogative s that are allowed to stay in situ. Questions targeting absolutive NP argum ents are prohibited from utilizing the wh in situ strategy As shown in the f ollowing ungrammatical sentence if tiana allowed to stay in situ. (11) Kavalan *qan ya tiana tu may ku < AV >eat ABS who OBL ric e 1 SG GEN By contrast, absolutive subject interrogative phrases can stay in si tu in Amis, as exemplified by (12 ) below (12) Amis cima tu titi aku < AV >eat who ABS OBL meat 1 SG GEN

PAGE 48

48 2.3.1.2 Wh initial cons truction To form questions that target absolutive NP arguments, i.e., the agent or experiencer in the agent voice construction or the patient/theme in the patient voice construction, Kavalan must resort to the second type of in terrogative construction in w hich an interrogative phrase is placed at the clause initial position This question formation strategy is also available in Amis. The following sentences are for illustration. (13) Kavalan tiana (ya) qan(=ay) tu may ku who ABS < AV >eat= REL OBL rice 1 SG GEN (14) Amis cima ku ra mi takaw ay tu payci who ABS that AV steal FAC OBL money e Both (13) and (14) exhibit a non canonical word order on the surface. The verb does not occur in the sentence initial position, which is occupied by the interrogative phrase instead. descriptive purposes because it does not denote how the wh initial word order is derived. In a predicate initial language, there are at least three possible ways to derive the wh initial word order: Wh movement, cleft, and pseudo cleft. These strategies of deriving a wh initial question will be elaborated in Chapter 4. We will explore the syntactic properties of Kavalan and A mis wh initial questions and argue that they exhibit the structure of a pseudo cleft sentence in that chapter. The rest of this subsection will only discuss a subset of the empirical properties that characterize the wh initial construction.

PAGE 49

49 As shown in (13 ) and (14) what follows the interrogative phrase in a wh initial question is a DP, which receive s absolutive case, ya or ku In (13) this DP is a headless relative clause, which is formed with the relativizer clitic = ay in Kavalan With the relativiz er, it is not difficult to observe the exis tence of a relative clause in (13 ). Moreover, the verb in this sentence is preceded by the absolutive case marker ya which indicates that what follows it should be analyzed as a nominal constituent. The verb in the A mis sentence in (14) is preceded by an absolutive marked demonstrative kura which also suggests that there is a nominal constituent after it. The occurrence of the case marker or the case marked d emonstrative alone does not constitute a sufficient piece o f evidence for the claim that there is a headless relative clause in (13) and (14 ) that serves as the subject of the sentence. Note that there is no overt relativizer in the Amis example. As for Kavalan, the relativizer clitic, however, is optional, as in d icated by the parenthesis in (13). The absolutive case marker ya is optional as well. When the sentence in (13 ) dispenses with the relativizer and the absolutive case marker does it still exhibit the same structure? I t is likely that the wh phrase occurs in the sentence initial position because it undergoes wh movement Chapter 4 will explore this issue, arguing that even without the relativizer, (13) and (14 ) do not involv e wh movement, but should be analyzed as pseudo cleft questions. The syntactic struc ture of such pseudo cleft questions wil l also be discussed in Chapter 4 2.3.1.3 Interrogative words as non verbal predicates and interrogative verbs Kavalan and Amis can also form wh questions by using interrogative phrases as non verbal predicates direct ly. In this type of wh questions, wh phrases are used as the predicate of the sentence and are followed by a simple DP, which takes the absolutive

PAGE 50

50 case marker. As the predicate of the sentence, wh words occur in the sentence initial position. This structur e is expected to occur in both Kavalan and Amis, where there is no overt copular verb. The following sentences are for illustration. (15) Kavalan a. zan i tiana ya wasu zau whose ABS dog this b. kin tani=ti ya sunis su HUM how.many= PFV ABS child 2 SG GEN (16) Amis a. nima ku ra wacu whose ABS that dog b. pa pina ku wawa isu HUM how.many ABS ch ild 2 SG GEN While the interrogative words in (15) and (16) serve as non verbal predicates some interrogative words in Kavalan and Amis behave syntactically as verbs and are characterized by distinct structural properties Hagge (2008: 3) defines interrogative conte which is devoted to the description of the interrogativ e verbs in the two languages, will discuss the morphosyntactic diagnostics for interrogative verbs in more detail. The following discussion only provides an overview of this particular use of interrogative words. Interrogative words as verbs not only occur in the sentence initial position but can also take voice markers, which is a crucial diagnostic for verbs in the two languages. Consider the following two sentences.

PAGE 51

51 (17) Kavalan tanian an su ya kelisiw su where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 2 SG GEN ere do (18) Amis i cuwa en isu ku payci where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money The syntactic distribution of tanian icuwa criteria for verbs in these two languages. They occur in the sentence initial position. More importantly, they take the patient voice marker an or en as other typical verbs do in the two languages There is no lexical verb in these se ntences that denotes the meaning Instead, the verbal in terrogatives tanian and icuwa play dual roles, functioning as an interrogative word and a verb simultaneously. Therefore, tanian in (17 ) and icuwa in (18 ) are not mere predicates, but should be analyzed as full fledged verbs. In addition to tanian o ther interrogative verbs in Kavalan include pasani where quni qumuni qunian and tani In addition to icuwa maan in Amis can also be used as a verb. Verbal maan is interpreted as take s voice affixes, including the agent voice markers mi and ma the patient voice marker en and the instrumental applicative marker sa Another interrogative verb in Amis is ( pa)pina These interrogative verbs can be used al one or can co occur with a semanticall y compatible lexical verb in an Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVS C), as illustrated below. (19) Kavalan a. tanian an su pizi ya kelisiw ta where(verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV .put ABS money 1 IPL GEN you

PAGE 52

52 b. pasani an su m azas ya kelisiw ta to.where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV take ABS money 1 IPL GEN (20) Amis a. na maan en ni panay mi padang kisu P ST do.how PV ERG PN AV help 2 SG ABS b. i cuwa en isu mi simed ku payci where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money An Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction consists of two verbs: One is a verbal interrogative word and the other is a lexical verb that spe cifies the action involved in the sentence. Note that the term Construction is adopted only for descriptive purposes. The exact syntactic structure of this constructio n will be discussed in Chapter 7 The issue of whether there are any sy ntactic and semantic constraints on the use of wh words as verbs will be addressed in C hapter 3 and a proposal of how Kavalan and Amis interrogative verbs are syntactically derived will be presented in Chapter 6 2.3.2 Interrogative Constructions in Embedd ed Clauses As the syntactic behavior of an interrogative phrase in an embedded clause could provide indirect evidence for the structural analysis of the interrogative constructions in main clauses, this section will explore the structural possibilities of embedded questions in the two languages under investigation. The three question formation strategies introduced above are all available to form an indirect question complement. That is, indirect questions in Kavalan and Amis exhibit the same descriptive op tions as direct questions.

PAGE 53

53 In Kavalan, embedded wh questions are introduced by the complementizer tu which is also utilized to introduce non interrogative complement clauses As for their structure, except for the complementizer, they exhibit the same syn tactic structure as their non embedded counterparts. The following examples demonstrate that the three types of interrogative constructions discussed above are also employed to form embedded questions in Kavalan. (21 ) Kavalan a. Wh in situ Rayngu an ku [t u maytis tu niana ti abas] not.know PV 1 SG ERG COMP AV .afraid OBL what NCM PN b. Wh initial Rayngu a n na ni buya [tu ti tiana m ala=ay not.know PV 3 ERG ERG PN COMP NCM who AV take= REL tu kelisiw] OBL money c. Interrogative verb Rayngu an ku [tu pas ani an na m azas not.know PV 1 SG ERG COMP to.where (verb) PV 3 ERG AV take ya kelisiw] ABS money In example (21 a), the oblique marked wh wor d remains in situ in the embedded clau se. The interrogative word in the embedded question in (21 b) does not occur in its canonical argument position, but precedes the verb Finally, verbal wh words are also allowed in emb edded questions, as shown in (21 c). Note that in all t hese examples, especially in (21b) and (21 c), wh words can never precede the complementizer tu An Amis embedded question is not introduced by an overt complementizer. It exhibits the same description options as a matrix question. That i s, the same question

PAGE 54

54 formation strate gies introduced in Section 2.3.1 are also utilized to form indirect questions. The following sentences are for illustration. (22) Amis a. Wh in situ sa ka fana an kaku [ma alaw ni panay want KA know want 1 SG ABS PV see ERG PN ku maan] ABS what Panay sees b. Wh initial sa ka fana an kaku [cima ku ka ulah an want KA know want 1 SG ABS who ABS KA like LA ni panay] ERG PN c. Interrogative verb ma fukil kaku [ talacuwa en ni panay AV not.know 1 SG ABS to.where (verb) PV ERG PN ku ra wawa] ABS that child The scope of the interrogative phrases in (21) and (22 ) is restricted to t he embedded clause. That is, these ex amples all belong to indirect questions. Nevertheless, even in a direct question where a syntactically embedded interrogative ph rase has semantic wide scope, the interrogative phrase is not allowed to occur in the initial position of the main clause, but m ust remain in the embedded clause. Consider the following examples. (23) Kavalan a. sanu ti imuy [ tu tiana qiRuziq=ay tu < AV >say NCM PN COMP who steal= REL OBL kelisiw ta ] money 1 IPL GEN

PAGE 55

55 b. *tiana i sanu ti imu y [ tu t i qiRuziq=ay tu who < AV >say NCM PN COMP steal= REL OBL kelisiw ta ] money 1 IPL GEN (24) Amis a. ma harateng isu [ cima ku ay tu PV think 2 SG ERG who ABS < AV >eat FAC OBL titi aku ] meat 1 SG GEN b. *cima i ma harateng isu [ t i ku ay tu who PV think 2 SG ERG ABS < AV >eat FAC OBL titi aku ] meat 1 SG GEN Bot h (23a) and (24 a) are direct questions that request the addressee to provide a piece of information. Even though the interrogative phrases tiana cima wide scope over the entire sentence, they must remain in the embedded clause. Regardless of the voice of the matrix verb, a n attempt to move them to the sentence initial position would lead to ungramm aticality, as illustrated in (23b) and (24 b). 2.4 Wh W ords and Interrogative Constructions in Kavalan The previous section has briefly depicted the three primary types of interrogative cons tructions in Kavalan and Ami s: W h in situ construction wh initial construction, and interrogative verbs. However, not all wh words can appear in all the three types of constructions. Diff erent wh words exhibit distinct syntactic patterns in that they allow and disallow different str ategies for question formation. 2.4.1 Wh in S itu and Wh Initial Constructions As discussed in Section 2.3.1.1 there is a syntactic restriction on the case of wh words that are allowed to stay in situ. That is, absolutive wh words in Kavalan cannot

PAGE 56

56 stay in situ. The wh initial construction must be utilized to question an absolutive NP The interrogatives in Kavalan that exhibit variation between wh in situ and wh initial constructions include tiana niana zanitiana (= ay mayni (= ay ) ich and tani Table 2 3 summarizes how these interrogatives interact with the two question formation strategies in terms of case marking. Table 2 3 Case marking of wh phrases and interrogative c onstructions in Kavalan wh phrases Wh in situ construction Wh initial construction x (absolutive) (oblique) (ergative) (locative) (absolutive) x (oblique) x (ergative) x (absolutive) (oblique) (ergative) (absolutive) x (oblique) x (ergative) zanitiana(=ay) x (absolutive) (oblique) (ergative) (absol utive) x (oblique) x (ergative) x (absolutive) (oblique) (ergative) (absolutive) x (oblique) x (ergative) (absolutive) (oblique) (ergative) (absolutive) x (oblique) x (ergative) In this t able, a check means that the wh word with a particular case marker is allowed to occur in that interrogative con struction, whereas the symbol x means that it cannot occur in that construction. Note that for zan i tiana=ay mayni=ay tan i /much the case marking that is indicated in the table refers to the case of the entire DP in which they occur. For example, ergative tani the NP it modifies takes ergative case marker, e.g., na u tani wasu ERG CLF NHUM h Some patterns are worth a more detailed investigation. First of all, regardless of the type of interrogative words, only absolutive case marked interrogatives can occur in

PAGE 57

57 the wh initial construction That is, only questions that target an ab solutive NP argument can utilize the wh initial construction as a strategy. The following sentences are for illustration. In all the grammatical sentences below, the NP argument that the interrogative word replaces should receive absolutive case if it occu rs in a declarative sentence. If not, the use of the wh initial construction as a question formation strategy is prohibited. (25) Kavalan tiana a. tiana i (ya) qan [ ABS ] i tu may ku who ABS < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN e that eats my rice is who?) b. *tiana i ( ya ) pukun=isu [ OBL ] i who ABS < AV >hit=2 SG ABS do c. *tiana i ( ya ) ala an [ ERG ] i ya kelisiw ku who ABS take PV ABS money 1 SG GEN (26) Kavalan niana a. niana i (ya) qaRat [ ABS ] i tu zapan su what ABS < AV >bite OBL leg 2 SG GEN b. *niana i (ya) maytis ti abas [ OBL ] i what ABS AV .afraid NCM PN c. *niana i (ya) qaRat an na [ ERG ] i zapan su what ABS bite PV 3 ERG leg 2 SG GEN es (27) Kavalan zanitiana = ay a. [ zanitiana=ay kelisiw ] i (ya) ala an ni utay [ ABS ] i whose= REL money ABS take PV ERG PN Utay take? What Utay t akes is whose money?) b. [ zanitiana=ay kudus ] i (ya) qibasi ti abas [ OBL ] i whose= REL clothes ABS wash NCM PN

PAGE 58

58 c. [ zanitiana=ay sunis ] i (ya) ala an [ ERG ] i kelisiw whose= REL child ABS take PV money the (28) Kavalan tani a. [u tani Ris ] i (ya) qaRat [ ABS ] i N HUM how.many mosquito ABS < AV >bite tu lima su OBL hand 2 SG GEN ng your hand ng your hand s are how many mosqui toes? or The m osquitoes that sti ng your hand s are how many?) b. [u tani kelisiw ] i (ya) m ala=isu [ OBL ] i N HUM how.many money ABS AV take=2 SG ABS c. [u tani Ris ] i (ya) qaRat an [ ERG ] i N HUM how.many mosquito ABS bite PV lima su hand 2 S G GEN ng your hand s (29) Kavalan mayni=ay a. [ mayni=ay sunis ] i ( ya ) tayta an ni imuy [ ABS ] i which= REL child ABS see PV ERG PN is which child?) b. [ mayni=ay saku ] i ( ya ) qaRat ya wasu nay [ OBL ] i which= REL cat ABS < AV >bite ABS dog that c. [ mayni=ay sunis ] i ( ya ) ala an [ ERG ] i kelisiw which= REL child ABS take PV money Secondly, it is worth noting th at mayni (= ay all the other interrogative words. The sole conditioning factor for the distributions of tiana niana zanitiana=ay and tani occur rence in wh in situ or wh initial questions lies in whether they receive absolutive case or not. If they receive absolutive case, the wh initial construction must be utilized; if

PAGE 59

59 not, they must occur in situ. As exe mplified by the sentences in (30) and (31 ), absolutive tiana niana situ whereas oblique, ergative, and locative tiana niana situ. (30) Kavalan tiana a. *qan ya tiana tu may ku < AV >eat ABS who OBL rice 1 SG GEN b. m qi la ti buya tu tiana AV scold NCM PN OBL who c. ala an na=ti ni tiana ya kelisiw ku take PV 3 ERG = PFV ERG who ABS money 1 SG GEN akes d. qan=isu tu Raq ti tiana an < AV >eat=2 SG ABS OBL wine NCM who LOC e place do (31) Kavalan niana a. *qaRat ya niana tu zapan su < AV >bite ABS what OBL leg 2 SG GEN es b. maytis tu niana ya ti abas AV .afraid OBL what ABS NCM PN c. qaRat an na niana ya za pan su bite PV ERG what ABS leg 2 SG GEN es In situ zanitiana=ay tani exhibit the same pattern, as illustrated in (32) and (33). ( 32) Kavalan zanitiana ( =ay ) a. *qaRat an na wasu nay ya zanitiana saku bite PV ERG dog that ABS whose cat

PAGE 60

60 b. *m ala ya zanitiana sunis tu kelisiw AV take ABS whose child OBL money c. m ala ti utay tu zanitiana kelisiw AV take NCM PN OBL whose money d oes d. qaRat an na zanitiana wasu ti utay bite PV ERG whose dog NCM PN (33) Kavalan tani /much a. *ala an na=ti ni buya ya u tani kelisiw take PV 3 ERG = PFV ERG PN ABS N HUM how.many money es b. *tayta ya kin tani sunis ti buya an < AV >see ABS HUM how.many child NCM PN OBL c. qaRat ya wasu nay tu kin t ani sunis < AV >bite ABS dog that OBL HUM how.many child bog bi d. pukun an na kin tani sunis wasu nay hit PV ERG N HUM how.many child dog that The interrogative word mayni(=ay) stay in situ regardless of i ts case marking, as shown in (34 ) below. While absolutive tiana niana situ, absolutive mayni=ay situ. (34 ) Kavalan mayni=ay a. pukun an ni utay ya mayni=ay wasu hit PV ERG PN ABS which= REL do g b. pukun ti utay tu mayni=ay wasu < AV >hit NCM PN OBL which= REL dog

PAGE 61

61 c. qaRat an na mayni=ay wasu ya ti utay bite PV ERG which= REL dog ABS NCM PN The different pattern ex hibited by mayni (= ay situ absolutive interrogative, supports the validity of making a distinction between D linked and non D linked wh words proposed by Pesetsky (1987) and this will be discussed further in Chapter 5, whic h wi ll explore how this distinction can be implemented to account for the Kavalan data. Chapter 5 will also address the issue of how to explain the constraints on wh in situ and wh initial questions regarding case marking. At least two approaches have been proposed to account for the ban on in situ absolutive wh phrases or in situ subject wh phrases While Richards (1998) and Sabel (2003) relate this prohibition to i nterrogative and non (2003 ) approach can better account for the Kavalan data. It will also be shown that the constraint on the formation of a wh initial question results from the clause struct ure of Kavalan, i.e., how the verb initial word order is derived. 2.4.2 Adverbial Interrogatives word th s quite free word order in that it c an appear in sentence initial, sentence medial, or sentence final position, as demonstrated by the following examples. (35) Kavalan qumni a. qumni tayta an su ti buya when see PV 2 SG ERG NCM PN

PAGE 62

62 b. tayta an su qumni ti buya see PV 2 SG ERG when NCM PN c. tayta an su ti buya qumni see PV 2 SG ERG NCM PN when In these examples, qumni situ as it shares the same syntactic distribution as the temporal adverb that i t inquires about. The following declarative sentences show that temporal expressions in Kavalan also exhibit free word order. (36) Kavalan a. siRab tayta an ku ti buya yesterday see PV 1 SG ERG NCM PN b. tayta an ku siRab ti b uay see PV 1 SG ERG yesterday NCM PN c. tayta an ku ti buya siRab see PV 1 SG ERG NCM PN yesterday The word order fact suggests that qumni and the examples in (35 ) s hould be analyzed as wh in situ sentences. Unlike the interrogative words discussed in the previous section, it does not exhibit variation between in situ and wh initial structures. The position of tense/aspect and pronominal clitics in Kavalan can lend fu rther support for the in situ analysis of qumni is attached to the predicate of the clause, but it can also be cliticized to the first word, e.g., a sentence initial adverbial expression, and it is unsele ctive to its host. However, in

PAGE 63

63 an embedded complement clause, it can never be cliticized to the complementizer tu as illustrated below. (37) Kavlan a. kalingun an ku tu q< m>an=iku tu Raq forget PV 1 SG ERG COMP < AV >eat=1 SG ABS OBL wine b. kalingun an ku tu=iku q< m>an tu Raq forget PV 1 SG ERG COMP =1 SG ABS < AV >eat OBL wine One possible explanation for the ungrammaticality of (37b) is that a clitic in Kavalan cannot be attached to a word in the high est C domain. If this is on the right track, the sentence initial qumni of wh movement, as this interrogative word can attract tense/aspect and pronominal clitics. This is illustrated in (38a ). (38b) illustrates the parallel structure in a declarative sentence where the clitic = iku SG ABS is attached to the sentence initial temporal expression. ( 38) Kavalan a. qumni=pa=isu tung tu babuy when= FUT =2 SG ABS kill OBL pig b. temawaR=iku qatiw sa taipak tomorrow=1 SG ABS go to Taipei An alternative analysis is to treat a qumni initial question like (35a) as a bi clausal structure with qumni functioning as the predicate. That is, th e interpretation of (35a) is qumni initial question is thus different from the structure of a question where qumni occurs in non initial positions. The assumption of this analysis is that tense /aspect clitics and pronominal

PAGE 64

64 clitics uniformly attach to the predicate. They are not second position clitics. This assumption is compatible with the empirical facts shown in (37). The clitics cannot be attached to the complementizer tu because it is not a predicate. By contrast, the fact that they can be attached to qumni in (38a) suggests that this interrogative word functions as the predicate when it occurs in the sentence initial position. That sentence initial qumni might be distinct from sentence med ial or sentence final qumni in terms of their syntactic status is supported by the word order constraint on this interrogative word when it co occurs with si The word order freedom of qumni is constrained by its temporal reference. This interrogative word can be combined with the conditional marker si to enquire about the time in the future. This is exemplified below. (39) Kavalan qumni si qatiw=isu sa taipak when COND go=2 SG ABS to Taipei Without the conditional marker, the wh word alone can still question a future time. There is a semantic distinction though. While qumni alone questions the near future, qumni plus the conditional marker si implies the distant future, as shown below. (40) Kavalan a. qumni qatapun=ita qan when together=1 IPL ABS < AV >eat b. qumni si qatapun=ita qan when COND together=1 IPL ABS < AV >ea t Moreover, when the interrogative word qumni is followed by si it loses the word order freedom. Instead, it must occur in the sentence initial position. As demonstrated in

PAGE 65

65 the following examples, qumni si cannot occur sentence medially or sentence finally and the only grammatical position is sentence initial. (41 ) Kavalan a. qumni si qatiw=isu sa taipak when COND go=2 SG ABS to Taipei b. *qatiw=isu qumni si sa taipak go=2 SG ABS when COND to Taipei c. *qatiw=isu sa taipak qumni si go=2 SG ABS to Taipei w hen COND More detailed analyses are required to shed light on how and why the conditional marker can affect the syntactic distribution of qumni Whether sentence initial qumni functions as the predicate or is just a variant o f a wh in situ position is beyond the scope of this dissertation, which focuses on the structural analysis of argument wh phrases and interrogative verbs. We leave this issue for future research. Unlike qumni exhibit an adverbial nature in terms of word order. Kavalan mana the sentence initial position, as suggested by the grammaticality contrast between (42a) and (42b)/(42c). (42d) further shows that mana can attract pronominal clitics. The grammaticality of (42d) suggests that mana might be a predicate as well. As the rest of the present dissertation will be devoted to the structure of argument wh phrases and interrogative verbs, we have to leave this issue for future research too. (42) Kavalan mana a. mana ala an su kelisiw ku why take PV 2 SG ERG money 1 SG GEN

PAGE 66

66 b. *ala an su kelisiw ku mana take PV 2 SG ERG money 1 SG GEN why c. *ala an su mana kelisiw k u take PV 2 SG ERG why money 1 SG GEN d. mana=isu m ala tu kelisiw ku why=2 SG ABS AV take OBL money 1 SG GEN 2.5 Wh W ords and Interrogative Constructions in Amis This section provides a descripti ve overview of interrogative constructions in relation to wh words in Amis. Similarities and differences between Amis and Kavalan in this regard will also be pointed out. 2.5.1 Wh in Situ and Wh Initial Construction s Like Kavalan, nominal and determiner li ke interrogative words in Amis can either occur in situ or appear in the sentence initial position. Table 2 4 Case marking of wh phrases and i nterr ogative constructions in Amis W h phrases Wh in situ construction Wh initial construction (ab solutive) (oblique ) (ergative) (absolutive ) x (oblique) x (ergative ) (absolutive) (oblique) (ergative) (absolutive) x (oblique) x (ergative) (absolutive) (oblique) (ergative ) (absolutive) x (oblique) x (e rgative) (absolutive) (oblique) (ergative) (absolutive) x (oblique) x (ergative) (absolutive ) (oblique) (ergative) (absolutive ) x (oblique) x (ergative)

PAGE 67

67 The distribution of wh words in Amis is conditioned by their grammatical function or case marking, which might restrict them to only one construction. The results are summarized in Table 2 4. As discussed above, in Kavalan, the wh initial construction is utilized for question formation only when an absolut ive argument is questioned. This similar constraint is also observed in Amis. An interrogative phrase can occur in the wh initial construction only when it inquires about an absolutive argument. Consider the following examples of cima (43) Amis cima a. cima i ku ta tayni [ ABS ] i who ABS IRR come b. *cima an i ku mi liso ci ofad [ OBL ] i who OBL ABS AV visit NCM PN c. *nima i ku keter en [ ERG ] i ku wawa who. ERG ABS scold PV ABS child In (43a), the missing argument should bear absolutive case in a declarative sentence, whereas the missing arguments in (43b) and (43c) bear oblique and ergative case respectively. Only (43a) is grammatical. The follo wing examples illustrate the same constraint on maan nima pina icuwaay (44) Amis maan a. [ u maan ] i ku ma alaw ay ni panay [ ABS ] i CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN Panay see? The thing that Panay sees is what?)

PAGE 68

68 b. [ u maan ] i ku ku [ OBL ] i CN what ABS < AV >eat ABS frog c. [ u maan ] i ku ma [ ERG ] i ku CN what ABS PV eat ABS frog (45) Amis nima a. [ nima wawa ] i ku ra ma ay [ ABS ] i whose child ABS that AV fall FAC b. [nima pusi ] i ku mi kalat ku wacu whose cat ABS AV bite ABS dog ni panay [ OBL ] i GEN PN P c. [nima wacu ] i ku kalat en [ ERG ] i ku whose dog ABS bite PV ABS pusi aku cat 1 SG GEN es (46) Amis pina a. [ pa pina a wawa ] i ku ma kalat ay nu wacu [ ABS ] i HUM how.many LNK child ABS PV bite FAC ER G dog i nacila PREP yesterday yesterday is how many children?) b. [ pina a pusi ] i ku mi kalat how.many LNK cat ABS AV bite ku wacu isu [ OBL ] i ABS dog 2 SG GEN your c. [ pina a wacu ] i ku kalat en [ ERG ] i how.many LNK dog ABS bite PV ku pusi aku ABS cat 1 SG GEN e

PAGE 69

69 (47) Amis icuwaay a. [ icuwaay a wacu ] i ku ka ulah an isu [ ABS ] i which LNK dog ABS KA like LA 2 SG ERG b. [ icuwaay a pusi ] i ku mi kalat ku wacu which LNK cat ABS AV bite ABS dog ni panay [ OBL ] i GEN PN c. [ icuwaay a wacu ] i ku kalat en [ ERG ] i which LNK dog ABS bit e PV ku pusi aku ABS cat 1 SG GEN es The above examples show that Kavalan and Amis share the same constraint on the use of the wh initial construction in terms of the grammatical function or case marking of the questioned NP. However the conditioning factor for the in situ questions as observed in Kavalan does not exist in Amis. Whereas Kavalan does not allow absolutive interrogative phrases to stay in situ, except for mayni=ay situ strategy is available for all nomin al and determiner like interrogative phrases in Amis regardless of their grammatical function or case marking. For example, in (48) below, cima situ no matter what case it takes. (48) Amis cima a. cikay cima < AV >run who ABS b. mi liso ci ofad i cima an AV visit NCM PN PREP who OBL c. keter en nima ku wawa scold PV who. ERG ABS child

PAGE 70

70 The following sets of examples further demonstrate that the other nominal and de terminer like interrogative phrases in Amis can also occur in situ regardless of their grammatical function or case marking. (49) Amis maan a. ma efer ku maan AV fly ABS what b. mi aca ci panay tu maan AV buy NCM PN OBL what t does c. ma nu maan ku PV eat ERG what ABS frog (50) Amis nima a. ma alaw isu ku nima wawa PV see 2 SG ERG ABS whose child b. mi kalat ku wacu ni panay tu nima a pusi AV bite ABS dog GEN PN OBL whose LNK cat c. kalat en nu nima a wacu ku pusi aku bite PV ERG whose LNK dog ABS cat 1 SG GEN es (51) Amis pina a. pa an ni ngaday ku pina a wacu CAU eat LA ERG PN ABS how.many LNK dog b. mi kalat ku wacu isu tu pina a pusi AV bite ABS dog 2 SG GEN OBL how.many LNK cat c. kalat en nu pina a wacu ku pusi aku bite PV ERG how.m any LNK dog ABS cat 1 SG GEN e

PAGE 71

71 (52) Amis icuwaay a. ka ulah an isu ku icuwaay a wacu KA like LA 2 SG ERG ABS which LNK dog b. mi kalat ku wacu ni panay tu icuwaay a pusi AV bite ABS dog GEN PN OBL which LNK cat c. kalat en nu icuwaay a wacu ku pusi aku bite PV ERG which LNK dog ABS cat 1 SG GEN es To summarize, in both Kavalan and Amis, the formation of a wh initial question is conditi oned by the grammatical function or case marking of the argument that is inquired about. A wh initial question is grammatical only when this argument is marked absolutive in the declarative counterpart The discrepancy between the two languages lies in the formation of an in situ question. Kavalan disallows an absolutive interrogative phrase from staying in situ, except for mayni=ay REL while Amis allows all interrogative phrase s to stay in situ regardless of their grammatical function or case mark ing It will be argued in Chapter 5 that the wh in (2006) claim that in situ wh phrases in Austronesian languages are allowed only when they can take the same formal maker, e.g., a determiner, as their non interrogative counterparts. By contrast, the in situ pattern in Kavalan is explained by the discourse constraint on the absolutive argument, which is definite and topical 2.5.2 Adverbial Interrogatives The interrogative word ( i ) hakuwa ression in that its word order is not fixed. It can occur sentence initially (53a), sentence finally (53 b), or sentence mediall y (53c).

PAGE 72

72 (53) Amis ihakuwa a. i hakuwa ma alaw isu ci panay when PV see 2 SG ERG NCM PN b. ma a law isu ci panay i hakuwa PV see 2 SG ERG NCM PN when c. ma alaw isu i hakuwa ci panay PV see 2 SG ERG when NCM PN The following sentences exemplify the distribution of a non interrogative temporal expres sion. Like ( i ) hakuwa it can occur in the sente nce initial position (54 a), the sentence final position (54 b), or the sentence medial position (54 c). (54) Amis a. i nacila ma alaw aku ci panay PREP yesterday PV see 1 SG ERG NCM PN b. ma alaw aku ci panay i nacila PV see 1 SG ERG NCM PN PREP yesterday c. ma alaw aku i nacila ci panay PV see 1 SG ERG PREP yesterday NCM PN Since ( i ) h akuwa stribution with its non interrogative c ounterpart, we assume the questions in (53 ) are in situ questions. Like Kavalan qumni ( i ) hakuwa marker when it inquires about a future time. This is illustrated below. (55) Amis anu hakuwa a tayni ci panay COND when LNK come NCM PN

PAGE 73

73 T he combination with t he conditional marker limits the distribution of hakuwa to the sentence initial position. This suggests that the wh initial position mig ht be distinct from real wh in situ positions structurally. That is, the sentence initial position occupied by ( i ) hakuwa might not be an ordinary adjunct position; (53a) might not be a wh in situ question. However, we will not further pursue this issue in the following discussion of the present dissertation. Finally, the interrogative word naw initial position, as shown below. (56) Amis naw ma ulah ci panay ci lekal an why AV like NCM PN NCM PN OBL A separate study of the structure of adverbial wh words is required. 2.6 Conclusion This chapter has offered a descriptive overview of the interrogative constructions in Kavalan and Amis. There are three primary question formation strategies, i.e., wh in situ construction wh initial construction and the use of interrogative words as verbs. sentence, but does not illuminate the syntactic structure of th is construction. How a wh initial construction is derived syntactically will be addressed in Chapter 4. It will be argued that a Kavalan and Amis wh initial construction exhibits a pseudo cleft structure. The interrogative phrase in a wh initial constructi on does not undergo wh movement to Spec, CP, and nor does it occupy the focus position of a cleft sentence. Only the pseudo cleft analysis can capture all the grammatical properties of this construction.

PAGE 74

74 The use of interrogative words as verbs is typologic ally rare and has not received due attention from linguists. The criteria to identify interrogative verbs and their unique properties thus deserve a more comprehensive description. This will be discussed in Chapter 3, which will further delineate the gramm atical properties of interrogative verbs and explor e the constraints on their use We have also discussed t he constraints on the in situ question and the wh initial construction in relation to the grammatical function or case marking of an interrogative wo rd or phrase. In both Kavalan and Amis, the wh initial construction is only available for questions where an absolutive argument is questioned. In Chapter 5, we will offer a syntactic explanation to account for this pattern. We will show that this constrai nt results from the predicate initial derivation of Kavalan and Amis. As the predicate phrase is moved to the specifier of a higher functional projection, forming a syntactic island, nothing in the predicate phrase can be extracted. As the absolutive DP ha s moved out of the predicate phrase before the raising of the predicate phrase, it is the only DP that is available for further extraction. Another constraint that needs explanation concerns the wh in situ patterns in Kavalan and Amis. While Amis allows al l types of interrogative phrases to stay in situ regardless of their grammatical function or case marking, Kavalan interrogative phrases that receive absolutive case cannot stay in situ, except for mayni = ay REL Chapter 5 will present two analyses that can account for the discrepancies between Kavalan and Amis. The wh in wh in situ construction in other Austronesian languages, which resorts to the formal marking of subjects as an explanation. By contrast, the Kavalan pattern conforms to

PAGE 75

75 languages as topics and attributes the ban on in situ subject interrogatives to this semantic/discourse property.

PAGE 76

76 CHAPTER 3 VERBAL INTERROGATIVE S IN K AV ALAN AND AMIS 3.1 Introduction In addition to nominal, adjectival, and adverbial interrogative words, it has been found that interrogative words in some languages can behave syntactically as verb s (Cysouw 2004; Hagge 2003, 2008 ; L. Huang, et al. 1999; Idiatov and van der Auwera Austronesian languages in Taiwan argue for the existence of this typologically unusua l question formation strategy: T he use of interrogative words as verbs. Though rare, interrogative verbs have been found in many Formosan languages, e.g., Rukai ( C. Chen 1999 ), Atayal dialects ( L. Huang 1996; C. Lin 2005; Shih 2008) Puyuma (Teng 2007), in Australian languages such as Dyir bal (Dixon 1972), an d in American Indian languages such as Jamul Tiipay (Miller 2001). It is also rather common in non Formosan Austronesian languages e.g., Cebuano (Tanangkingsing 2009), Maori (Bauer 1993), Mwotlap ( Franois 2005), and Sundanese (Mller Gotama 2001) The morphologically simple interrogative verb in the two languages. (1) Dyirbal bayi ya a wiyama u NOM man. NOM do.what INTR (Dixon 1972: 55) (2) Jamul Tiipay me ny chaakeet pu mamwi a 2 ALI jacket DEM 2+do.what Q (Miller 2001: 177) Except for l study which details the cross linguistic properties of interrogative verbs, there has been no comprehensive survey of the

PAGE 77

77 syntactic and semantic characteristics of interrogative verbs that provides sufficient details for further theoretical analysis. Th is chapter will show that interrogative verbs exhibit distinct grammatical properties that deserve a systematic theoretical analysis with examples from Kavalan and Amis. Section 3.2 will first establish the diagnostics to identify interrogative verbs in Ka valan and Amis. Based on these diagnostics, Section 3.3 will demonstrate what interrogative concepts can be encoded by interrogative verbs in the two languages. The verbal constructions where the Kavalan and Amis interrogative verbs can occur will be explo red in Section 3.4. While Section 3.4 focuses on the grammatical properties of interrogative verbs, Section 3.5 investigates the constraints on the use of interrogative words as verbs. Section 3.6 concludes the chapter and lists the issues that will be fur ther addressed theoretically in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. 3.2 Diagnostics for Verbs in Kavalan and Amis functions as predicates and questions the semantic content of this predicate Morphologically, they cannot be decomposed into a verbal morpheme and an interrogative morpheme synchronically. Main diagnostics for interrogative verbs lie in their morphological and syntactic distribution. By definition interrogative verbs share the sa me morphological and syntactic distribution as other typical verbs. For example, they can take the same inflectional and derivational morphemes as verbs, e.g., tense, aspect, mood, valency, transitivity or intransitivity morphemes, voice, direction, predic ative, a nd per son markers. The list in ( 3 ) is a summary of their morphosyntactic features.

PAGE 78

78 (3 ) Morphosyntacti c features of interrogative verb s (Hagge 2008: 24 25) a. They behave both as verbs and as question words (this does not mean, however, that they a re the only units that cross cut two or more categories). b. They occur in sentences that normally do not contain a polar question marker. c. They should not be confused with verbs inflected for the interrogative mood, such as found in certain languages. d. They ar e distinct from predicatively used interrogative words. e. Some of them are morphologically and semantically related to indefinite and deictic verbs. f. terms, synchronically unanalyzable lexemes. However, as verbal properties may vary from language to language, there is no single criterion that all interrogative verbs in different languages conf orm to. The morphological and syntactic evidence is mostly language particular. Moreover it is also important to distinguish between interrogative words that are used as verbal predicates and those that are used as non verbal predicates. The criteria for the distinction may also vary from language to language. L. Formosan languages identifies three syntactic categories of interrogative words in these l anguages: N ominal, adverbi al, and verbal. V erbal interrogative wor ds in Formosan languages, but not nominal or adverbial interrogative words, can be affixed with the so called Philippine type voice markers and tense/aspect markers, and host pronominal clitics (L. Huang, et al. 1999 ) take either the agent voice marker (4a) or the patient voice marker (4b). It can also be infixed with the perfective morpheme (4a) and host pronominal clitics (4a, 4b).

PAGE 79

79 (4) Mayrinax Atayal (L. Hu ang, et al. 1999: 676) a. m taypak < AV >< PFV >how=2 SG NOM LNK AV go=2 SG NOM Taipei b. hacuwal ma val qulih hani how PV =2 SG GEN AV take NOM fish LNK this Verbs in Kavalan and Amis share similar morphosyntactic properties as other Formosan languages. I n the two languages, both verbs and non verbal predicates occur in the sentence initial position, as shown by the following examples. (5) K avalan a. k< m > ilim = iku tu iyu kya < AV >look.for=1 SG ABS OBL medicine PART Angry_pilaw_abas, NTU corpus) b. sunis ni utay ya lazat a yau child GEN PN ABS person LNK that c. ta paw an ni b uya aiku tangi LOC house LOC GEN PN 1 SG ABS now (6) Amis a. mi pitpit cingra tu nasi nira AV pluck 3 SG ABS OBL pear 3 SG GEN pear_panay, NTU corpus) b. u amis ci panay CN Amis NCM PN c. i ciwkangan ku ni panay PREP PN ABS house GEN PN (5a) and (6a) demonstrate that verbs in Kavalan and Amis occur in the sentence initial position. As shown in (5b) and (6b), nominal predicates also occup y the sentence initial

PAGE 80

80 position. Finally, (5c) and (6c) exemplify sentence initial locative predicates in the two languages. Both verbs and non verbal predicates in Kavalan and Amis can take tense/aspect markers, as illustrated below. In Kavalan, both type s of predicates can also attract pronominal clitics ( 7) Kavalan a. kala an na =ti a biyat a yau find PV 3 ERG = PFV ABS frog LNK that frog_Haciang, NTU corpus) b. bi bidas an na =iku RED curse PV 3 ERG =1 SG ABS Angry_pilaw_abas, NTU corpus) c. u pitu =ti naqiyan tasaw zin ku yu N HUM seventy= PFV more year say 1 SG GEN PART earthquake_abas_Haciang, NTU corpus) d. sunis=pama =ita m duna sa saRis kya c hild=still=1 IPL ABS AV often < AV > RED hang.out PART (KavCon earthquake_abas_Haciang, NTU corpus) (8) Amis a. luwad =tu cingra < AV >get.up= PFV 3 SG ABS b. u fahinayan =tu kisu CN male= PFV 2 SG ABS You have become a grown up man intro_ofad, NTU corpus ) Both (7a) and (7b) contain a verb that tense/aspect or pronominal markers can be cliticized to. This is also true of Amis verbs in (8a). (7c), (7d), and (8b) furt her show that tense/aspect and pronominal clitics can be attached to non verbal predicates, e.g., nominal predicates.

PAGE 81

81 The sentence initial position and the ability to take tense/aspect markers and pronominal clitics are the properties of all types of predi cates in Kavalan and Amis, but they c annot distinguish between verbs and non verbal predicates. The crucial diagnostic for verb hood in the two languages is the affixation of voice markers ( Y. L. Chang 1997; Wu 2006). Only verb s but not non verbal predica tes, can take voice markers. As i llustrated in (9 ) and (10) below, verb s can take voice markers, e.g., the agent voice marker (9a, 10a) or the patient voice marker (9b, 10b ). If voice markers are affixed to non verbal predicates, this would lead to ungramm aticality, as shown in (11 ) and (12) (9) Kavalan a. sanu=iku ti utay tu lanas < AV >tell=1 SG ABS NCM PN OBL thing I tell Utay some b. kenit an ku ya zapan ku pinch PV 1 SG ERG ABS foot 1 SG GEN (10) Amis a. ma keter ci ofad tu wawa nira AV scold NCM PN OBL child 3 SG GEN b. kecur en nu ya ekung cingra overlook PV ERG that owl 3 SG ABS The owl looked at frog_ofad, NTU corpus) (11) Kavalan a. ( *m )sunis ni utay ya lazat a yau AV child GEN PN ABS person LNK that b. *sunis an na child PV 3 SG ERG

PAGE 82

82 c. sunis aizipna child 3 SG ABS (12) Amis a. ( ma )i ciwkangan ku ni panay AV PREP PN ABS house GEN PN b. u fahinayan en aku CN man PV 1 SG ERG Another morphosyntactic feature shared exclusively by verb s in Kavalan and Amis is that while the main verb in a Serial Verb Construction (SVC) can take either the agent voice mar ker or the non agent voice marker, the secondary verb can only take the agent voice marker ( Y. L. Chang 2006; L. Huang 1997 ). 1 This voice restriction on the sec ondary verb in an SVC is called AV restriction and is illustrated below. (13) Kavalan a. matiw= i ku qan tu qawpiR AV go=1 SG ABS < AV >eat OBL sweet.potato b. *matiw= iku qan an ya qawpiR AV go=1 SG ABS eat PV ABS sweet.potato (14) Amis a. lingatu en=tu ku futing start PV = PFV < AV > eat ABS fish (Wu 2000: 126) b. *lingatu en=tu ka en en ku futing start PV = PFV eat PV ABS fish 1 The term Serial Verb Construction (SVC) is adopted only for descriptive purposes as there is controversy over whether the so called SVC in Formos an linguistics literature is true SVC (Y. Chen 2008).

PAGE 83

83 The difference between (13a) and (13b) lies in the voice marker that the second verb qan an only take the agent voice marker (13a), but not the patient voice marker (13b). This AV restriction on the secondary verb can also be observed in Amis serial verb sentences where the first verb denotes aspect, manner, or emotion (Wu 2000). 2 The sentence s in (14) are for illustration. By contrast, when a non verbal predicate is followed by a verb, the AV restriction is not observed. For example, in the following Kavalan sentence, the verb following the sentence initial predicate takes the patient voice ma rker and this does not result in ungrammaticality. (15) Kavalan kelisiw qiRuziq an ni utay, usa sudad money steal PV ERG PN NEG book What follows is a summary of the morphosyntactic characteristics shared by pre dicates in Kavalan and Amis. Both verbs and non verbal predicates exhibit the morpho syntactic patterns listed in (16a) and (16b), while (16c) and (16 d ) are unique to verbs. (16 ) Morphosyntactic properties of predicates in Kavalan and Amis a. Both verbs and no n verbal predicates occur in the sentence initial position. b. Both verbs and non verbal predicates can take tense/aspect markers and attract pronominal clitics. c. Only verbs can take voice affixes. d. In a Serial Verb Construction, the second verb can only take t he agent voice marker whereas there is no voice restriction on the main verb. A non verbal predicate does not impose voice restriction on the verb that follows it. This list will be used to determine whether an interrogative word in these two languages beh aves as a verb or non verbal predicate in the following section 2 Wu (2000) classifies Amis serial verb sentences into three types based on the morphosyntactic properties of the secondary verb. Only the first type that she identifies exhibits the AV restriction.

PAGE 84

84 3.3 Verbal Interrogatives in Kavalan and Amis The interrogative words in Ka valan and Amis are listed in (17) and (18 ) respectively. Not all of them can be used as verbal interrogatives. (17 ) Interrogative Words in Kavalan a. tiana b. niana c. zan itiana(=ay) d. mayni(=ay) e. tani f. qumni g. mana h. (na)quni ; do how i. quni j. tanian k. pasani l. maqni (18 ) In terrogative Words in Amis a. cima /nima/cimaan b. maan c. nima d. icuwaay e. pina f. hakuwa g. (i)hakuwa h. naw i. icuwa j. talacuwa In Kavalan, tiana niana zan i tiana (= ay and mayni (= ay ) can occur in the sentence initial position and take tense/aspect markers or pronominal clitics. Based on the criteria listed in (16a ) and (16b) this morphosyntactic distribution suggests that they can be use d as predicates, as shown in the following (a) sentences. However, they ca nnot be used as verb s because they cannot take voice markers, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of the (b) sentences below. The affixation of voice markers is a crucial diagnost ic for ver b hood in the two languages (16 c). (19a), (20a), and (22a) are examples of the wh initial construction. Chapter 4 will

PAGE 85

85 demonstrate the morphosyntactic properties of this construction in more detail and argue that it is a pseudo cleft structure wi th the interrogative word as the predicate. For the purpose of this chapter, the contrast between (a) and (b) in the following pairs of sentences is sufficient to show that these interrogative words cannot be used as verbs. (19) Kavalan tiana n verbal predicate a. tiana=ti ya qan=ay tu may ku who= PFV ABS < AV >eat= REL OBL rice 1 SG GEN Lit. The one that ate my rice was who?) b. *tiana an qan ya /tu may ku who PV < AV >eat ABS / OBL rice 1 SG GEN (20) Kav alan niana verbal predicate a. niana=ti ya qaRat=ay tu zapan su what= PFV ABS < AV >bite= REL OBL leg 2 SG GEN The thing that bit your leg was what?) b. *niana an qaRat ya/ tu zapan su what PV < AV >bite ABS / OBL leg 2 SG GEN (21) Kavalan zanitiana (= ay verbal predicate a. zanitiana=ti ya wasu zau whose= PFV ABS dog this whose?) b. *zanitiana an na wasu zau whose PV ERG dog this was (22) Kavalan mayni (= ay verbal predicate a. mayni=ay ya ngid an su wasu which= REL ABS want PV 2 SG ERG dog b. *mayni an ngid an su wasu which PV want PV 2 SG ERG do g

PAGE 86

86 These examples also show that there is no verb serialization when these interrogative words or phrases are used as non verbal predicates as the verbs that follow them do not observe the AV restriction (16d). The interrogative wo rds qumni mana nnot be used as verb s either. As demonstrated below, although they can occur in the sentence initial position, they cannot be affixed with voice markers. The verb that follows them is not restricted to the agent voice, which suggests that no verb serialization is involved in these questions. (23) Kavalan qumni a. qumni tayta an su ya ti buya when see PV 2 SG ERG ABS NCM PN b. *qumni an su tayta ti buya an when PV 2 SG ERG < AV >se e NCM PN LOC (24) Kavalan mana a. mana ala an su ya kelisiw ku why take PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 1 SG GEN c. *mana an su m ala ya kelisiw ku why PV 2 SG ERG AV take ABS money 1 SG GEN you take The interrogative words in Kavalan that behave as verbs include those that denote na ) q uni quni tanian pasani tani sika tani (25) Interrogative Verbs in Kavalan a. quni=isu tangi < AV >do.what=2 SG ABS just.now

PAGE 87

87 b. sa pa quni an na sapaR INS CAU do.what PV 3 ERG wooden.p lank earthquake_abas_Haciang) c. ( na)quni an su m kala ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG AV find ABS child LNK that d. quni=pa=isu go.where= FUT =2 SG ABS e. tanian an su ya kelisiw su where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 2 SG GEN f. pasani an su ya kelisiw su to.where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 2 SG GEN g. u tani an su y a kelisiw NHUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money h. sika tani an su pukun ya sunis times how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG < AV >hit ABS child 3 These interrogative words not only occur in the sentence initial position but can also take voice markers, < um > or an which indicates that they share the same morphosyntactic distribution with verbs in this language. In other words, they are used as full fledged verbs. quni When this root takes the agent voice marker as in (25 the patient voice marker and the instrument causative prefixes, sa pa as in (25 b), it 3 S ika tani sikani

PAGE 88

88 e patient voice marker as in (25 c), it is interpreted overt voice mar kers as in (25 d), quni in (25 d) does not take any overt voic e markers, it is still analyzed as a verb because there is no corresponding lexical item in this sen tence that expresses the It is possible that it takes the non overt variant of the agent voice marker, All the int errogative words in ( 25 ) serve as a verb and question their own semantic content simultaneously. However, it should be noted that tanian pasani tani patient voice marker an to be used a s a verb. For example, without the patient voice marker an tanian if tani ustrated by the following two sentences. (26) Kavalan a. tanian ya kelisiw su where ABS money 2 SG GEN b. u tani ya kelisiw NHUM how.many ABS money Like their Kavalan counterparts, cima nima and icuwa ay Amis can behave morphosyntactically as non verbal predicates, but lack the verbal property of taking voice markers. As shown in the following (a) sentences, they occur in the sentence initial position and can take tense /aspect markers. However, if they are affixed with voice markers, the sentences become ungrammatical, as illustrated in the following (b) sentences.

PAGE 89

89 (27 ) Amis cima verbal predicate a. cima=tu ku tayni ay who= PFV ABS come FAC (Lit. The one that has come wa b. *ma cima=tu ku tayni ay AV who= PFV ABS come FAC (28 ) Amis nima verbal predicate a. nima =tu ku ra wacu whose = PFV ABS that dog s whose?) b. *m a nima ku ra wacu AV whose ABS that dog (29 ) Amis icuwaay verbal predicate a. icuwaay =tu ku ka ulah an isu a wacu which = PFV ABS KA like LA 2 SG ERG LNK dog you like? wh ich?) b. *icuwaay en isu ma ulah ku wacu which PV 2 SG ERG AV like ABS dog The interrogative words ih akuwa naw markers either. In other words, they cannot be used as verb s. This is il lustrated in (30 ) and (31) below. (30) Amis ihakuwa a. ihakuwa ma alaw isu ci panay when PV see 2 SG ERG NCM PN b. *ihakuwa en ma alaw isu ci panay when PV PV see 2 SG ERG NCM PN (31) Amis naw a. naw ma ulah ci panay ci lekal an why AV like NCM PN NCM PN OBL

PAGE 90

90 b. *naw en ma ulah ci panay ci lekal an why PV AV like NCM PN NCM PN OBL denoted by two different words in Kavalan, i.e., niana q uni uses a single lexical item to denote both interrogative concepts: maan The interrogative word maan can be used as a nominal interrogativ e word in that it can occur in a nominal argument position and be preceded by case mar kers. This is illustrated in (32a) and (32 b) below. (32) Amis nominal maan a. ma talaw ci lekal tu maan AV afraid NCM PN OBL what b. ma nu maan ku PV eat ERG what ABS frog It can also be used as a non ve rbal predicate, as shown in (33 ), where it occurs in the sentence initial position. (33) Amis maan verbal predicate maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN t does Panay see? is what?) Finally, maan can take voice markers and be used as a verb. In this case, it can be when it takes the agent voice marker mi or the patient voice marker en when it takes the agent voice marker ma when it takes the instrument applicative marker sa (34d ) or as when it takes the patient voice marker en or han (34e, 3 4f)

PAGE 91

91 (34) Amis maan a. mi maan ci panay AV do.what NCM PN b. na maan en isu ku ra wacu P ST do.what PV 2 SG ERG ABS that dog c. ma maan cingra AV what.happen 3 SG ABS d. sa pi maan kura talalikan IA PI do.what ABS tha t tool.for.pounding.glutinous.rice e. na maan en ni panay mi padang kisu P ST do.how PV ERG PN AV help 2 SG ABS f. na maan han isu tay ni P ST do.how PV 2 SG ERG come In addition to maan be used as verbs, i.e., i cuwa and talacuwa Consider the following examples. (35) Amis icuwa talacuwa a. icuwa en isu ku payci where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money b. talacuwa en ni panay ku ra wawa to.where (verb) PV ERG PN ABS that child The syntactic distribution of i cuwa and tala cuwa conforms to all the diagnostics for verb hood in Amis. It occurs in the sentence initial position. More importantly, it can take the patient voice marker en as other typical verbs do in the language There is no lexical

PAGE 92

92 verb in (35) tha t denotes the meaning Instead, the verbal interrogative s i cuwa and tala cuwa play dual roles, functioning as an interrogative word and a verb simultaneously. Therefore, i cuwa in (35 a) and tala cuwa in (35 b) are not mere predicates, but shoul d be analyzed as full fledged verbs. Another set of interrogative verbs in Amis questions quantity or frequency: pina hakuwa kina pina following examples, they occur in the sentence initial posi tion and take the patient voice marker en (36 ) Amis pina hakuwa kina pina a. pina en ni ofad ku payci how.many PV ERG PN ABS money b. pa pina en isu mi lawup ku wawa HUM how.many PV 2 SG ERG AV chase ABS child c. hakuwa en isu mi falah ku lakaw how.much PV 2 SG ERG AV throw ABS garbage d. kina pina en nu wacu mi kalat ku pusi t imes how.many PV ERG dog AV bite ABS cat Unlike maan and quantity cannot take the agent voice marker, but must be affixed with the pati ent voice marker. The exact same constraint is also observed in Kavalan, as already discussed above. When icuwa pina (37) below.

PAGE 93

93 (37) Amis icuwa ku ni panay where ABS village GEN PN Table 3 1 lists what interrogative words can be used as verb s in Kavalan and Amis. Table 3 1. Interrogative v erbs in Kavalan and Amis Basic Interroga tive Meaning Interrogative Verbs Kavalan Amis WHAT AV sa pa quni ( INS CAU do.what PV mi AV maan PV ma AV sa pi IA PI HOW (na)quni ow PV maan PV maan PV WHERE tanian PV pasani PV icuwa PV PV HOW MANY/MUCH tani PV sika tani how.many PV pina PV hakuw a PV kina pina how.many PV the same root in both languages. The two interrogative notions are conceptually related question ca question. For example, Due to the conceptual affinity, it should not be surprising that languages like Kavalan and Amis can uti lize a single form to express both meanings. 3.4 Interrogative Verb Constructions Interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis can appear in three types of verbal constr uctions: I ntransitive construction, transitive construction, and verb sequencing constructio n What verbal construction an interrogative verb can occur in is correlated

PAGE 94

94 with the voice markers that it is allowed to take. If an interrogative verb takes the agent voice marker, it is u sed as an intransitive verb If it takes the patient voice marker, it sh ows up as a transitive verb, a ditransitive verb or as the main verb of a verb sequencing construction 3.4.1 Intransitive Interrogative Verbs Interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis show up as intransitive verb s when they are affixed with the agent voice marker < um > or in Kavalan and mi or ma in Amis Consider the following examples. (38) Intransitive interrogative verbs in Kavalan a. quni=isu tangi < AV >do.what=2 SG ABS just.now b. quni=pa=isu go.where= FUT = 2 SG ABS (39) Intransitive interrogative verbs in Amis a. mi maan ci panay AV do.what NCM PN b. ma maan cingra AV what.happen 3 SG ABS The interrogative verbs in (38) and (39 ) have onl y on e argument, agent (38a, 38b, 39a) or theme (39b). The contrast between (39a) and (39 b) supports previous findings on how the different agent voice markers in Amis can influence the interpretation of roots. According to Wu (2006), Amis verbs that are pr efixed with mi usually express purposive or progressive meaning, whereas ma is usually associated with states or change of state. When maan takes mi the composite form acquires the progressive

PAGE 95

95 meaning of mi When the same interrogative root is affixed with ma ma 3.4.2 Transitive Interrogative Verbs Interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis can also be used as transitive or ditransitive verb s when the y take non agent voice markers, as shown in (40) and (41) All the transitive interrogative verbs above take non agent voice markers: T he patient voic e marker or the instrument applicative marker. They all involve two argume nts, an agent and a theme. (40) Transitive interrogative verbs in Kavalan a. quni an na wasu ya saku do.what PV ERG dog ABS cat that b. tanian an su ya kelisiw su where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 2 SG GEN c u tani an su ya kelisiw NHUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money (41) Transitive interrogative verbs in Am is a. na maan en isu ku ra wacu P ST do.what PV 2 SG ERG ABS that dog b. sa pi maan ku ra talalikan IA PI do.what ABS that tool.for.pounding.glutinous.rice c. na maan han ni panay ku pi tang tang P ST do.how PV ERG PN ABS PI cook tu na dateng OBL that dish done by Panay?)

PAGE 96

96 d. icuwa en isu ku payci where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money e pina en ni ofad ku paysu how.many PV ERG PN ABS money For example, when Amis maan is suffixed with the patient voice marker en the composite form maan en (41 in stark contrast to the agent voice construction in (39a) and (39 b). When maan is affixed with mi an agent voice marker, the action that is inquired about does not specify any specific theme. When it is affixed with another agent voice marker ma the question concerns the state of a theme argument without the impl ication that an agent is involved. Moreover, some of these transitive interrogative verbs can be analyzed as ditransitive verbs, e.g., tanian (40b) and i cuwa (41d). The basic interrogative meaning of n to functioning as a verb, they question the location of the theme argument of a ditransitive event, e.g., the location of kelisiw su n its location argument simultaneously. A comparison between intransitive and transitive interrogative verbs suggests that t he transitivity of interrogative v erbs in Kavalan and Amis is correlated with t heir voice markers. Agent voice marked interrogative verbs are intransitive verbs while non agent voice marked interrogative verbs are transitive or ditransitive This finding is consistent with the result of previous studies on the transitivity in Formosan languages. It has been argued that the crucial dist inction between agent voice and patient voice (or non agent voice in general) lies in their transitivity (Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011;

PAGE 97

97 Liao 2002, 2004; Ross and Teng 2005). The canonical transitive sentence in Kavalan is the patient voice construction wi th the an suffix on the verb, while the agent voice construction is intransitive or antipassive (Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011; Liao 2002, 2004). Likewise, the patient voice marker en in Amis is correlated with high agentivity or transitivity (Wu 2006). Therefore, it is highly likely that what renders an interrogative word a verb in Kaval an and Amis is the voice marker on it and the choice among different voice markers could further induce differences in transitivity. Chapter 6 will discuss the syntactic derivation of interrogative verbs along this line of analysis. 3.4.3 Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction Some interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis can also appear in a verb sequencing construction where they precede a lexical verb This construct ion is termed following sentences are for illustration. (42 ) Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction in Kavalan a. naquni an su m kala ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG AV find ABS child LNK that b. tanian an su m nubi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN do you hide c. u tani an su m ala ya kelisiw NHUM how.many(verb) PV 2 SG ERG A V take ABS money (43 ) Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction in Amis a. na maan en ni panay (a) mi padang kisu P ST do.how PV ERG PN LNK AV help 2 SG ABS b. icuwa en isu (a) mi simed ku payci where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG LNK AV hide ABS money

PAGE 98

98 c. pina en isu (a) mi pacuk ku fafuy how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG LNK AV kill ABS pig What follows is the general surface pattern of an IVSC. (4 4) IVSC [Interrogative.Verb PV ERG Agent AV Lexical.Verb ABS Theme] The interrogative verb must precede the lexical verb and must be affixed with the patient voice marker. By contrast, the lexical verb can only take the agent voice marker. Note that there is an optional linker before the lexical verb in an Amis IVSC. purposes. It only captures the surface pattern of this construction. Its exact syntactic structure is the focu s of Chapter 7. It will be argued that this construction should not be analyzed as a coordinate structure. Instead, empirical evidence will be presented to show that the interrogative verb is the main verb of the construction. As sentences with a sequence of verbs in Formosan languages tend to be indiscriminately discussed under the rubric of Serial Verb Construction (SVC) in Formosan linguistics literature, whether the structural term SVC can adequately reflect the syntactic properties of Kavalan and Amis IVSCs will be briefly addressed as well. Chapter 7 will also investigate the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb and discuss the syntactic operations that derive this construction. Table 3 2 is a summary of the findin gs on the structures of interrogative verb constructions. It lists the interrogative words that can be used in the different verbal constructions in Kavalan and Amis. There are three verbal constructions in total: Intransitive construction, transitive cons truction, and verb sequencing construction.

PAGE 99

99 Table 3 2. Interrogative verb c onstructions in Kavalan and Amis Interrogative Verb Constructions Kavalan Amis Intransitive Construction (AV marked) AV mi AV ma AV Transitive Construction (Non AV marked) quni (do.what PV sa pa quni what ( INS CAU do.what PV tanian PV pasani PV tani PV maan (do.what PV sa pi ma ( IA PI maan PV icuwa PV talacuwa PV pina PV hakuwa PV Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction naquni PV tanian PV pasani P V tani PV sika tani how.many PV maan PV icuwa PV talacuwa PV pina PV hakuwa PV kina pina how.many PV 3.5 Restrictions on the Use of Interrogative Verbs Section 3.3 has shown that only certain interrogative words can be used as verbs in Kavalan and Amis. Section 3.4 has further discussed the grammatical properties of the interrogative verbs and found that the different verbal uses of the interrogative word s are correlated with the voice markers that they take. However, it is not uncommon for a wh word to belong to more than one syntactic category. T his section will probe into the semantic and syntactic restrictions that condition the categorical properties of interrogative words 3.5.1 Kavalan T anian and Amis I cuwa The interrogative words that inquire about location in Kavalan and Amis, tanian and icuwa can occur in different interrogativ e constructions depending on their

PAGE 100

100 semantics and scope. First of all, they can be used as the non verbal predicate in a question that asks about the location of an individual or an e ntity. This is illustrated in (45 ) and (46) below. (45) Kavalan tanian ya wasu su where ABS dog 2 SG GEN (46) Amis icuwa= tu ku ya c cay a langa aku where= PFV ABS that one LNK basket 1 SG GEN pear_cuomei, NTU corpus) For example, the question in (45 ) inquires about the location of wasu su 2 SG GEN The wh word tanian serves as the non verbal predicate of the sentence, which can be The interrogative word tanian can also be used to ask about the location of an event. There are two strategies to form such questions. The first strategy is to use tanian i n an existential construction with the existential marker yau Consider the following sentence s (47) Kavalan a. yau=isu tanian qan tu babuy EXIST =2 SG ABS where < AV >eat OBL pig b. yau=iku ti buya an qan tu babuy EXIS T =1 SG ABS NCM PN LOC < AV >eat OBL pig The sentence in (47a) questions the location of a n event, i.e., where the addressee eats pork. The existential marker yau occurs in the sentence initial position followed by tanian whic h in turn is followed by the verb phrase. This syntactic distribution is the

PAGE 101

101 same as the declarative counterpart of yau as exemplified in (47b) In example (47b ), the locative expression also occurs after the existential marker like tanian in (47a ). In ad dition, tanian can also be used alone to question the location of an event without resort to the existential marker yau Compare (48a) with (48 b). (48 ) Kavalan a. tanian tanuz an na tuliq ya wasu where chase PV ERG bee ABS dog b. tanuz an na tuliq ya wasu tanian chase PV ERG bee ABS dog where A comparison between the two sentences suggests that tanian is an adverbial expression in this type of question. It does not have a fixed posi tion. Moreover, when it occurs in the sentence initial position, the lexical verb following it can take the patient voice marker, which indicates that (48a) is not an Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction. Regardless of its linear position, its semant ic scope ranges over the whole sentence or event. The examples in (49) below illustrate that Amis icuwa also behaves like an adverbial expression, which does not have a fixed syntactic position, when it is used to question the location of an event. The fac t that the verb following icuwa in (49c) can take the patient voice marker suggests that this sentence is not an Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction. In this type of question concerning the location where an event takes place, icuwa exhibits grammat ical properties of an adverbial expression. (49) Amis a. icuwa kisu tu where 2 SG ABS < AV >eat OBL rice

PAGE 102

102 b. kisu tu icuwa 2 SG ABS < AV >eat OBL rice where c. icuwa ma alaw isu ci lekal where PV see 2 SG ERG NCM PN Finally, as shown in the preceding discussion, the two interrogative words are also able to take the patient voice marker like a verb. However, the use of Kavalan tanian and Amis icuwa a s a verb is restricted to questions that inquire about the location of the theme argument in a ditransitive event (50 ) Kavalan a. tanian an su ya kelisiw su where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 2 SG GEN b. tani an an su m nubi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN (51) Amis a. icuwa en isu ku payci where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money b. icuwa en isu mi simed ku payci where (verb) P V 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money They can be the only verb in this type of question, expressing the meaning of a ditransitive verb and the interrogative notion simultaneously (50a, 51a). They can also occur in an IVSC with a ditr ansitive verb that specifies what type of ditransitive event is involved (50b, 51b). In either case the question is not about where an event takes place, but about where the theme argument is. The question is intended to ask about the location of the them e argument in a ditransitive event like putting something

PAGE 103

103 somewhere or hiding something somewhere. For example, (50b) can be paraphrased Questions about the location where an event takes place can not utilize tanian or icuwa as a verb. In such questions, tanian and icuwa cann ot take the voice markers like an or en This is illustrated by the following ungrammatical sentences which are intended to ask where someone does something (52) Kavalan a. *ta nian an su qan tu/ya babuy where PV 2 SG ERG < AV >eat OBL / ABS pig b. *tanian an su kelawkaway where PV 2 SG ERG work (53) Amis a. *icuwa en isu mi saosi ku cudad where PV 2 SG ERG AV study ABS book b. *icuwa en isu ma tayal where PV 2 SG ERG AV work It is also worth noting that while the existential yau construction in Kavalan is compatible with questions that target the location of an ev ent it is not compatible with ques tions concerning the location of the theme argument in a ditr ansitive sentence. Consider the example s in (54) The i you put our intended to elicit in formation about the location of the theme argument of the ditransitive verb pizi yau ma kes this sentence ungrammatical in contrast to example (54b ) which concerns the location where the addressee eats pork To make (54a) sound m ore acceptable, the only way is

PAGE 104

104 to interpret this sentence as a question about the location where the event takes place. That is, this sentence is mildly acceptable if tanian is conceived of as the semantic adjunct of this sentence instead of the semantic argument of the ditransitive verb conceptually. (54) Kavalan a. */?yau =isu tanian pizi tu kelisiw ta EXIST =2 SG ABS where put OBL money 1 I PL GEN b. yau=isu tanian qan tu babuy EXIST =2 SG ABS where < AV >eat OBL pig Moreover, o nly verbs that require an obligatory location argument or allow an additional location argument can follow verbal tanian or icuwa Such verbs in Kavalan include, but are not limited to, pizi spaw ala nubi talin Rupu buwaq sepez walin subulin siyup tungaw Such verbs in Amis include teli kerir sime d curo rufu pasiket tekul siday paluwad These verbs must or can take a location argument that denotes the location of the theme. The interrogative word s tania n and icuwa can be used as a verb only when the question targets the location argument of this kind of verbs. The sentences in (55 ) and (56) provide some examples for illustration (55) Kavalan a. Rupu an ni abas ya adam nay ta Rupu an shut PV ERG PN ABS bird that LOC cage LOC s

PAGE 105

105 b. tanian an ni abas m Rupu ya adam where (verb) PV ERG PN AV shut ABS bird that c. subulin an ni imuy sunis na ta paw an leave PV ERG PN child 3 GEN LOC home LOC d. tanian an ni imuy subulin ya sunis na where (verb) PV ERG PN < AV >leave ABS child 3 GEN (56) Amis a. ma pasiket aku ku wacu i paputal PV tie 1 SG ERG ABS dog PREP outside tie b. icuwa en isu pasiket ku wacu where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG tie ABS dog c. mi kaku tu i haku AV pack 1 SG ABS OBL clothes PREP box d. icuwa en isu mi na ku where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV pack ABS clothes In (55 a), the expression ta Rupu an LOC cage LOC refers to the location of the theme argument, adam s interrogative counterpart, (55 b), this locat ion argument is questioned and the interrogative word tanian is used as the main verb, occurring in the sentence initial position and taki ng the patient voice marker. (55c) and (55 d) exhibit the same pattern and so do the Amis examples in (56) When Amis i cuwa co occurs with a ditransitive verb, but does not take the patient voice marker, it is conceived of as a location adjunct semantically. This can be manifested by the contrast between the following two sentences.

PAGE 106

106 (57) Amis a. icuwa en isu mi curo ku h aku where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV move ABS box the box and where is it?) b. icuwa mi curo ci ofad tu haku where AV move NCM PN OBL box he do this?) In icuwa takes the patient voice marker. By contrast, icuwa does not take the patient voice marker in (57b) and the question is interpreted in a different way. (57b) is intended to inquire about the location To summarize, there is a correlation between the morphosyntax of tanian and icuwa and their intended semantics in a question, that is, location as an argument in a ditransitive event or location as a n adjunct Table 3 3 The syntactic d istribution of Kavalan tanian and Amis icuwa Syntactic properties Location where an event takes place Location argument of a ditransitive event Being able to occur in an existential construction or in the non predica te position x Being able to take the patient voice marker an or en x As the only verb x As the main verb in IVS C x When utilized to question the location argument of a ditransitive event, they exhibit verbal properties, taking voice markers. By contrast when they question the location where an event takes place, they are not allowed to take voice markers and behave like adverbial expressions. The finding s of this sub section are summarized in T able 3 3

PAGE 107

107 3.5.2 The Interpretation of Kavalan Tani and Amis Pina as a verb observes a similar restriction to verbal tanian and icuwa could question. When tani pina hakuwa in Amis are used as a verb and takes the patient voice marker, the target of the question always concerns the quantity of the theme argument, whi ch is realized as the absolutive argument in the patient voice construction. Consider the following ex amples. (58) Kavalan u tani an na wasu qaRat ya saku NHUM how.many PV ERG dog < AV >take ABS cat (59 ) Amis pina en nu wacu mi kalat ku pusi how.many PV ERG dog AV bite ABS cat absolutive theme argument that the question targets. Likewise, when tanian icuwa question is always the location of the theme argument, which is case marked absolutive in the patient voice construction. When the quantity of an agent argument is questioned, tani and pina can only be utilized as a non verbal predicate, to which the patie nt voice marker cannot be attached, in a pseudo cleft question or stay in situ, as illustrated below. (60) Kavalan a. kin tani ya m lawut=ay tu qenaswani ku HUM how.many ABS AV visit= REL OBL relatives 1 SG GEN he people that visit my relatives are how many?)

PAGE 108

108 b. pukun an na kin tani sunis ya wasu nay hit PV ERG HUM how.many child ABS dog that (61) Amis a. pina ku ra mi awaw ay a wacu how.many ABS that AV bark FAC LN K dog many?) b. kalat en nu pina a wacu ku pusi aku bite PV ERG how.many LNK dog ABS cat 1 SG GEN e None of the sentences in (60) and (61) involves the use of pina that can take voice markers. The second restriction on verbal tani and pina concerns their influence on the interpretation of the question. A question where tani or pina is employed as a verb and takes the patient voice marker as in (58 ) and (59) always implies that the quantity of the affected theme argument will or might change from the perspective of the speaker. F or example, the utterance of (58 ) or (59) is appropriate in a sce nario where the speaker expects the dog to bite fe wer cats but the co ntextual evidence s/he has suggests that it might bite or might have bitten more cats. Thus, a mor e appropriate translation of (58 ) or (59) implication is absent in a p seudo cleft question with tani or pina as a nonverbal predicate, as illustrated in (60a) and (61a ). The questions in (58) and (59 and simultaneously imply a change of state, specifically the change of the quantity of the theme argument that might be affected.

PAGE 109

109 3.6 Conclusion Although the use of interrogative verbs as a question formation strategy is rare in most well documented languages, it is a common phenom enon among Formosan languages. This chapter has investigated the range of meanings that the interrogative ost Formosan languages, Kavalan and Amis are unique in utilizing interrogative verbs to inquire about location and quantity. It has also been found that the interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis can show up as intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive verbs. Some of them can also occur in a verb sequencing construction with a following lexical verb. Moreover, there are restrictions on the type of location and quantity that can be questioned with interrogative verbs. Only when a question concerns the loc ation of the theme argument in a ditransitive event can Kavalan tanian and Amis icuwa affixed with the patient voice marker. By contrast, when a question inquires about the location where an event takes place, these two interr ogative words do not exhibit any verbal properties. When Kavalan tani and Amis pina / hakuwa as verbs, they can only question the quantity of a theme argument, but not an agent argument, and the question where they occur is always as sociated with an implication that the quantity might change. The linguistic patterns and restrictions of interrogative verbs presented in this chapter require further theoretical explanation. What follows is the list of research questions of Kavalan/Amis interrogative verbs that will be discussed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.

PAGE 110

110 (62) Research questions of interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis a. used as verbs, but others cannot? b. Why i s there a correlation between the interrogative verb constructions and the voice markers? c. Why is there a correlation between the choice of voice markers and the interpretation of an interrogative root? d. type of question, or associated with a particular interpretation? e. predicates and at the same time question an argument of another verb? f. What is the synta ctic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in an Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVSC)? g. Is an IVSC parallel to Serial Verb Construction (SVC) or should it be classified as a distinct structure? h. What syntactic operatio ns are involved in the derivation of an IVSC? (62a), (62b), (62c), (62d), and (62e) will be addressed in Chapter 6, which will propose a unified syntactic account for the derivation of interrogative verbs. It will be argued that t he grammatical properties and semantic restrictions of interrogative verbs follow from the interaction of the following factors: The inherent semantics of i nterrogative words, the available interpretation of the question where they occur, the verbal structur es of the voice markers, and universal syntactic principles and constraints. The issues in (62f), (62g), and (62h) will be explored in Chapter 7, which will elaborate on the syntactic structure of an IVSC. We will present more empirical facts of an IVSC to show that the interroga tive verb in this construction, not the lexical verb, is the main verb. A comparison between Kavalan and Amis IVSCs also suggests that the structural term SVC is not adequate for the description of verb sequencing constructions in the two languages. Finall y, it will also be argued that there are two types of IVSCs. One type

PAGE 111

111 features complementation of the lexical verb and NP raising for Case checking, whereas the other is characterized by the adjunction of the lexical verb and adjunct control.

PAGE 112

112 CHAPTER 4 T HE WH INITIAL CONSTRUCTION AS A PSEUDO CLEFT STRUCTURE 4 .1 Introduction Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 have provided a descriptive overview of the available question formation strategies in Kavalan and Amis: Wh in situ, wh initial questions, and interrogative ver bs. This chapter will investigate the structure of wh initial questions in Kavalan and Amis in more detail. A wh initial question is an interrogative sentence with a sentence initial interrogative phrase that is not affixed with any voice markers, as illus trated in (1) and (2) below. (1) Kavalan a. tiana qan tu may ku who < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN b. niana qaRat tu zapan su what < AV >bite OBL leg 2 SG GEN (2) Amis a. cima ku ra mi takaw ay tu payci who ABS t hat AV steal FAC OBL money b. u maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay CN what ABS PV see FAC GEN PN This distributional property of interrogative phrases in Kavalan and Amis conforms to the typological generalization th at a verb initial language tends to have wh initial questions (Greenberg 1966; Hawkins 1983; Keenan 1978). However, the term, wh initial questions, only describes the surface linear order of an interrogative phrase but does not adequately reflect the synta ctic structure of such questions. As summarized in Potsdam and Polinsky (2011), there are three syntactic

PAGE 113

113 strategies that can all derive wh initial questions in predicate initial languages that lack a copula and an expletive: Wh movement, clefts, and pseud o clefts. Kavalan and Amis are both predicate initial languages that do not have a copula. The following impersonal constructions show that the two languages lack an expletive. (3) Kavalan a. uzan=pa tangi rain= FUT today b. m utuz=ti AV earthquake= PFV (4) Amis ma orad anini AV rain now A wh initial question in Kavalan and Amis is thus structurally ambiguous. For example, (1a) might have one of the following three structural representations. (5) a. Wh movement tiana i qan tiana i tu may ku who < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN b. Cleft [ predicate tiana ] qan tu may ku [expletive subject] who < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN Lit. It is w ho that eats my rice c. Pseudo cleft [ preciate tiana ] [ subject qan tu may ku ] who < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN Lit. The one that eats my rice is who The interrogative word in (5a) is base generated in the subject position and is moved to the sente nce initial position. In (5b) and (5c), the interrogative word is used as a non verbal predicate. The crucial difference between (5b) and (5c) is that there is an

PAGE 114

114 expletive subject in (5b), but the subject in (5c) is a headless relative clause. These struc tures are all possible syntactic representations of wh initial questions in Kavalan and Amis because the lack of a copula and an expletive in the two languages results in the same linear order and surface constituency of the three syntactic structures. To elucidate the syntactic structure of the wh initial construction, the present chapter will probe into the grammatical characteristics of this construction. Section 4.2 will first expound the structural properties of wh movement, clefts, and pseudo clefts a s a basis for the argumentation in Section 4.3. Evidence against the wh movement derivation and cleft analysis will be presented in Section 4.3. It will be argued that the sentence initial position of an interrogative phrase in sentences like (1) and (2) r esults from the use of the interrogative phrase as the predicate in a pseudo cleft structure. Section 4.4 will discuss the syntactic derivation of pseudo cleft questions. Finally, the findings of this chapter are summarized in Section 4.5. 4.2 Wh Movement, Clefts, and Pseudo Clefts This section will delineate the distinguishing properties of wh movement, clefts, and pseudo clefts. These properties will serve as the diagnostics to identify the syntactic structure of Kavalan and Amis wh initial questions in S ection 4.3. 4.2.1 Wh Movement The syntactic structure of interrogative constructions derived by wh movement has been extensively studied in Generative Grammar, e.g., Adger and Ramchand (2005), Cable (2008), Cheng and Cover (2006), Chomsky (1977; 2000), Ish ii (2006), and Richards (1997), just to name a few. A typical wh movement language is English, where all types of interrogative phrases must be moved to the sentence initial position to form a non echo constituent question.

PAGE 115

115 (6) a. Who i does your friend lik e who i ? b. What i did your kid eat what i ? c. Whose umbrella i did you take whose umbrella i ? d. Which of these i do you like which of these i ? e. When i will you leave for New York when i ? d. Where i can I see the comet where i ? As illustrated in (6), an inte rrogative phrase in an English content question undergoes movement from its base position to the sentence initial position. This movement is obligatory. The standard analysis of wh movement in the Minimalist framework is that an interrogative phrase is mov ed to Spec, CP in order to check a strong [wh] feature on C 0 The structure can be schematically represented in (7). (7) The syntactic derivation represented in (7) yields the wh initial word order in wh movement languages and provides a feature based explanation for the movement of the interrogative phrase. The strong [wh] feature on C 0 needs to be checked before Spell Out and this need for convergence thus prompts the interrogative phrase to move to Spec, CP. As the linear position of Spec, CP precedes C 0 the structure in (7) also explains why the interrogative phrases in (6) all immediately occur before the auxiliaries (or some forms of dummy do ), which have been raised to C.

PAGE 116

116 As the landing site of an interrogative phrase in a wh movement lang uage is the specifier of CP, which is not a predicate position, the fronted interrogative phrase is not associated with any predicate features. In other words, an interrogative phrase that appears in the sentence initial position due to wh movement to Spec CP does not serve as the predicate of the sentence. An interrogative phrase in a wh movement structure thus does not exhibit predicate properties. The structure in (7) also reveals that the fronted interrogative phrase and the remainder of the wh movemen t structure belong to one single clause. The movement of the interrogative phrase to Spec, CP does not create another clause. An interrogative sentence with a fronted interrogative phrase is thus a mono clausal structure. The remainder of a wh movement str ucture, i.e., the part which an interrogative phrase moves out of, is not a dependent clause. Moreover, wh movement is also characterized by locality effects and island constraints. Since Chomsky (1977), locality effects and island constraints have long be dependency constructions. Wh movement must observe island constraints in that an interrogative phrase cannot move out of a syntactic island, e.g., a clausal adjunct, a relative clause, or a wh island. This is illustrated by the following ungrammatical sentences. (8) a. *What i did Kevin have dinner [before he read what i ]? b. *What i did you see the man [that drank what i ]? c. *Which book i did Amanda wonder [whether Doris liked which book i ]? The bracketed clause in (8a) is an adverbial clause adjunct; that in (8b) is a relative clause; that in (8c) is an embedded interrogative clause. Movement of an interrogative phrase out of any of such clauses leads to ungrammaticality.

PAGE 117

117 Wh movement also features unboundedness, which mean s that it can move cyclically across more than one clause boundary as long as it does not move out of a syntactic island. (9) a. Who i did you say [ CP who i [that Tim hired who i ]]? b. Who i do you think [ CP who i [that John said [ CP who i [that Tim hired who i ]]]]? The interrogative phrase in (9a) is base generated in the object position in the embedded complement clause and moves to Spec, CP of the complement clause first before moving to Spec, CP of the matrix clause. The interrogative phrase in (9b) also un dergoes successive cyclic movement, stopping at Spec, CP of the two complement clauses before moving to the final landing site. Finally, as argued by Adger and Ramchand (2005), movement constructions should exhibit identity effects. If movement consists of Copy and Re merge as proposed by Chomsky (1993), it is expected that the copies of a moved phrase should be identical to each other. When an element is displaced from its original position, the two copies of this element should manifest the same features regarding selection, agreement, and case. Interrogative constructions in English show identity/connectivity effects, e.g., reconstruction (10a) and idiom chunks (10b). (10) a. [Which picture of herself i ] does Sarah i like [ which picture of her self i ] best? b. [How much advantage] was taken [ how much advantage ] of Sarah? In order for Sarah to bind herself in (10a) per Binding Principle A, the wh phrase or the reflexive pronoun must be reconstructed to its base position at LF. On the analysis of movement as C opy and Re merge, Sarah binds the lower copy of the reflexive pronoun and thus Binding Principle A is satisfied. (10b) exhibits a similar effect of reconstruction. On the assumption that the component parts of an idiomatic expression cannot be

PAGE 118

118 separated fr om each other at LF (Chomsky 1993), the idiomatic interpretation of (10b) can be attributed to the reconstruction of the wh phrase to its base position at LF or arises from the integrity of the idiom that contains the lower copy of the wh phrase. In a base generation derivation, since no copies are involved, identity effects may not arise. Identity effects can thus be a reliable test on whether Kavalan and Amis interrogative sentences are derived via wh movement. On the wh movement account, the sentence ini tial interrogative phrase and its copy in the original position are identifical and should exhibit identity effects. If we instead find anti identity effects, this will be a strong piece of evidence against the movement analysis. To summarize, wh movement has the following characteristics. (11) Properties of Wh movement a. It involves the fronting of an interrogative phrase to the sentence initial position. In the structural representation, the landing site is Spec, CP and thus the interrogative phrase immedi ately precedes whatever occupies C 0 b. The interrogative phrase has no predicate properties. c. The rest of the clause is not a dependent clause. That is, the whole sentence is mono clausal. d. It is unbounded, but observes island constraints. e. It exhibits identity effects. The copies of a moved wh phrase should manifest the same features regarding selection, agreement, and case. 4.2.2 Clefts An English cleft sentence has the following surface structure. (12) Cleft Pronoun (Expletive) + Copula + Clefted XP + Cleft C lause It contains two primary semantic and syntactic components: One is the clefted XP that represents the focus, foreground, or the new information of the sentence and the other

PAGE 119

119 is the cleft clause that encodes the presupposition, background, or old info rmation. The following sentences are for illustration. (13) English Cleft Sentences a. It was [Jessica] [that met Ryan last week]. b. It was [Ryan] [that Jessica met last week]. c. It was [last week] [that Jessica met Ryan]. There have been many propos als of the syntactic structure of a cleft sentence, but there is still no consensus on how a cleft sentence is syntactically derived. Part of the disagreement is due to the analysis of the cleft pronoun in this construction. Some linguists treat the cleft pronoun as a real dummy/expletive element (Chomsky 1977; Williams 1980; Delahunty 1982; Kiss 1998), while others argue that the cleft pronoun is non expletive because the cleft clause and the cleft pronoun together function like a discontinuous definite description (Akmajian 1970; Hedberg 2000; Percus 1997; Reeve 2011). Following Reeve (2011), we will call the first proposal the expletive analysis and will refer to the second proposal as the specificational analysis in the following discussion. On the ex pletive analysis, the expletive pronoun and the cleft clause are neither syntactically nor semantically related. The expletive pronoun has no semantic content at all. Instead, the cleft clause and the clefted XP form a syntactic and/or semantic unit. For e xample, Kiss (1998) argues that the clefted XP and the cleft clause form a focus phrase (FP) headed by the copula. As represented by the tree diagram in (14), the cleft clause is the complement of this FP and the clefted XP occupies the specifier positi on of this phrase.

PAGE 120

120 (14) By contrast, the specificational analysis does not treat the cleft pronoun as a dummy element. On this analysis, the cleft pronoun and the cleft clause constitute a definite description. For Akmajian (1970) and Pe rcus (1997), the cleft clause is base generated as the modifier of the surface subject DP and is extraposed to the sentence analysis of clefts. (15) Other proponents of the specificational analysis like Hedberg (2000) and Reeve (2011), however, contend that the cleft clause is base generated in the clause final position as

PAGE 121

121 an adjunct of the clefted XP. On this account, the semantic relationship between the c left pronoun and the cleft clause is established at LF via some kind of interpretative rule. (16) is a schematic representation of the base generation approach to the specificational analysis. (16) Despite their differences in detail, the propos ed syntactic structures of clefts still share three characteristics in common. First of all, unlike a wh movement construction, which is mono clausal, a cleft sentence must be bi clausal in that the cleft clause is a dependent clause (CP) regardless of its base position. In other words, in addition to the matrix predicate, there is also a dependent predicate in the cleft clause. If a Kavalan or Amis wh initial sentence exhibits a bi clausal structure and/or if we can identify two predicates in this construc tion, this can be an indication that a wh initial sentence in Kavalan and Amis is not derived via wh movement but might be a cleft structure. Secondly, whether the cleft clause is base generated in the sentence final position or is extraposed to this posit ion, it does not function as the subject of the sentence. It does not exhibit any morphosyntactic properties of a subject. Therefore, whether the

PAGE 122

122 remainder of a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence, i.e., the part without the interrogative phrase, is associate d with any subject properties is another empirical piece of evidence for or against the cleft analysis of this construction. Thirdly, the clefted XP is base generated in the complement or specifier position of the phrase headed by the copular verb and does not undergo wh movement. The cleft analysis of a Kavalan and Amis wh initial question thus predicts that it will not exhibit movement induced identity effects. Note that the cleft clause might exhibit island constraints, as it shows properties of a relati ve clause, which will be discussed below. The standard analysis of a relative clause assumes that there is an empty operator that undergoes wh movement. Island constraints are thus expected to be observed in the cleft clause. However, if the clefted XP is base generated outside the cleft clause instead of moving out of it, non identity between the clefted XP and the empty operator is still expected to occur. Moreover, in spite of the semantic relationship between the cleft clause and the cleft pronoun, the cleft clause is a syntactic modifier of the clefted XP. According to Reeve (2011), the cleft clause is a restrictive relative clause whose antecedent is the clefted XP. The cleft clause is parallel to a restrictive relative clause in the following ways. Fi rst of all, both types of clauses can be introduced by an overt relative pronoun, an overt complementizer, or a null complementizer. This alternation is not observed in movement to Spec, CP. This is illustrated by the fo llowing examples. (17) Reeve (2011: 152) a. It was the vodka which/that/0 Boris drank. b. I bought the vodka which/that/0 Boris drank. c. What/*that/*0 did Boris drank? d. I drank what/*that/*0 Boris drank. e. The vodka, *what/*that/0 Boris drank.

PAGE 123

123 Sec ondly, while the complementizer that cannot be followed by a trace in complement CPs in English (18c), neither cleft clauses nor restrictive relative clauses exhibit this that trace effect (18a, 18b). (18) (Reeve 2011: 153) a. It was Boris that t bought th e vodka. b. I know the man that t bought the vodka. c. *Boris, you said that t bought the vodka. Finally, just like a relative clause, the cleft clause in an English cleft sentence constitutes a strong syntactic island, which disallows argument and adju nct extraction, as illustrated below. 1 (19) (Reeve 2011: 153) a. ?*Which drink i was it Boris [that bought t i ]? b. *How i was it Boris [that bought the drink t i ]? Reeve (2011) also argues that the clefted XP is the antecedent of the cleft clause. The cleft ed XP must correspond to the gap in the cleft clause, as shown by the contrast between (20a) and (20b). This is in stark contrast to an equational sentence, which can be either specificational (20c) or predicational (20d). (20) Reeve (2011: 157 158) a. It is the cat that I am pointing at. (I am pointing at the cat.) b. *It is feline that I am pointing at. (*I am pointing at feline.) c. The thing that I am pointing at is the cat. d. The thing that I am pointing at is feline. Moreover, like a restrictive relative clause, the choice of the relative pronoun that can introduce the cleft clause is also conditioned solely by the features of its antecedent, the clefted XP, as illustrated below. 1 Potsdam (p.c.) points out that the cleft clause is not identical to a restrictive relative clause in every way. Personal proper names and prepositional phrases can be clefted, but they cannot be modifie d by a restrictive relative clause. Moreover, the cleft clause does not receive the same interpretation as a restrictive relative clause.

PAGE 124

124 (21) Reeve (2011: 158) a. It is the teachers who/*which are/*is ti red. b. The teachers who/*which are/*is tired will not be coming in. To summarize, in a cleft sentence, the cleft clause is a restrictive relative clause and the clefted XP is the head noun of this relative clause. As the cleft clause is not a headless r elative clause, it is impossible for it to have another dummy head in addition to the clefted XP that it modifies. The (im)possibility of a dummy head in the remainder of a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence can thus serve as another indicator of whether thi s construction is a cleft structure or not. Finally, the cleft pronoun does not need to be spelled out as it ; other determiners like this and that can also serve as the subject of an English cleft sentence. According to Hedberg (2000), the choice of which determiner to use as the subject is governed by the same discourse constraints, the givenness hierarchy, that determine the selection of the definite determiners of other definite descriptions. The use of propositional anaphors as the surface subject of cl eft sentences is also observed in German, French, and Russian. This is illustrated by the following French examples. (22) French (Hedberg 2000: 893) a. Il/?ce/?cela me semble que tu as tort. it/this to.me seems that you have wrong b. Il/*ce/?ca neige it/this snows c. John que vu it/this is John that I have seen d. *Il/ce pas vrai it/this NEG is not true

PAGE 125

125 (22a) and (22b) shows that propositional anaphors cannot be the subject of an impersonal construction. Only il can serve as the subject of an impersonal construction. (22d) further shows that il cannot be used as a propositional anaphor. Il cannot be the subject of a cle ft sentence either, as illustrated in (22c). The subject of a French cleft sentence must be a propositional anaphor. Although the possibility of replacing it with other determiners or propositional anaphors in a cleft sentence might be unique to languages like English, German, and French, it can at least serve as a test to see whether a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence is similar to English it clefts or not. In summary, a cleft sentence features the following structural properties, which can serve as the di agnostics to determine whether a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence is a cleft structure. (23) Structural properties of a cleft sentence a. A cleft sentence is bi clausal. The cleft clause is a dependent clause. b. The cleft clause does not function as the subject of the sentence. It has no nominal properties. c. The clefted XP is base generated in the complement or specifier position of the phrase headed by the copula and does not exhibit movement induced identity effects. d. The cleft clause is a restrictive relative c lause whose antecedent is the clefted XP. Thus, it is impossible for it to have another dummy head. e. The cleft pronoun (in an English it cleft) can be replaced by other determiners like this and that 4.2.3 Pseudo Clefts A pseudo cleft sentence is similar t o a cleft sentence in that both constructions involve two semantic and syntactic components. One is the clefted XP that represents the focus, foreground, or the new information of the sentence and the other is the cleft

PAGE 126

126 clause that encodes the presuppositi on, background, or old information. An English pseudo cleft sentence has the following general surface structure. (24) Cleft Clause + Copula + Clefted XP One conspicuous difference between a pseudo cleft sentence and a cleft sentence is that the former la cks a cleft pronoun. They also differ in what serves as the subject on the surface. In a pseudo cleft sentence, the subject is the cleft clause, not a cleft pronoun. The following examples illustrate the pseudo cleft structure in English. (25) English pseu do cleft sentences a. [What Robert ate yesterday] was [pork]. b. [What Ken talked about last night] was [his career]. There have been quite a few proposals of the syntactic derivation of the pseudo cleft construction. These proposals can be roughly clas sified into two types of analysis: Nonmovement analysis and movement analysis. On the nonmovement analysis, the cleft clause is a headless relative clause that is base generated in the subject position ge nerated in Spec, IP, or moved there from a VP internal subject position. (26) is a simplified schematic representation of the nonmovement analysis of the pseudo cleft construction. (26) By contrast, the proponents of the movement analysis, e.g., Williams (1983), den Dikken (2006), and Paul (2008), argue that the cleft clause is base generated as the

PAGE 127

127 predicate of a small clause and that the clefted XP is the subject of this small clause. The cleft clause has to undergo movement to the matrix clause subject position and/or the topic position. The tree in (27) represents the syntactic structure of the pseudo cleft construction proposed by the movement analysis. (27) The structures of (26) and (27) share several common properties. The clefted XP stays in the Predicate Phrase throughout the derivation. It is thus expected that in a language without a copular verb, predicate properties will be realized on the clefted XP instead. Moreover, the clefted XP is base generated in the Predicate Phrase and does not undergo wh movement. A pseudo cleft analysis of the Kavalan and Amis wh initial construction thus predicts that the sentence initial wh phrase acts like a predicate syntactically and does not exhibit movement induced identity effects. The head less RC might show island constraints, but non identity between the wh phrase and the gap in the headless RC might still occur if the wh phrase is base generated as a predicate instead of undergoing movement out of the headless RC. Based on the structures in (26) and (27), a pseudo cleft sentence is also bi clausal, just like a cleft sentence. There

PAGE 128

128 is a headless relative clause that serves as the dependent clause inside the matrix clause. A bi clausal structure can distinguish a pseudo cleft or cleft quest ion from a wh movement sentence. Specifically, there must be two predicates in a pseudo cleft sentence. One is the predicate of the matrix clause, i.e., the clefted XP, and the other is the predicate of the headless relative clause. Therefore, if we can id entify two obligatory predicates in the Kavalan and Amis wh initial construction, this means that it is either a pseudo cleft or cleft structure instead of a wh movement sentence. On both the nonmovement analysis and the movement analysis of the pseudo cle ft construction, the headless RC DP occupies the final subject position, although they advocate different ways to derive its subject status: Base generation vs. movement. This means that the cleft clause in a pseudo cleft sentence is associated with both n ominal and subject properties. This feature is unique to a pseudo cleft construction and is not observed in a cleft sentence or a wh movement sentence. Therefore, whether the remainder of the Kavalan and Amis wh initial construction, i.e., the part of the construction following the wh phrase, has nominal properties and behaves as the subject is crucial to the pseudo cleft analysis of this construction. Another distinguishing property of the pseudo cleft construction concerns the syntactic relationship betwe en the clefted XP and the cleft clause. While the cleft clause in a cleft sentence is a restrictive relative clause whose head noun is the clefted XP (Reeve 2011), the cleft clause in a pseudo cleft sentence is a headless relative clause that is not a clau sal adjunct of the clefted XP. The structures in (26) and (27) show that the clefted XP in the pseudo cleft construction is not the head noun of the cleft clause. The clefted XP and the cleft clause syntactically constitute a predicational structure, not

PAGE 129

129 a modificational adjunction structure. As the cleft clause is a headless RC and the clefted XP is not its head noun, it should be possible for the cleft clause to modify a dummy head noun like person and thing This structural property can distinguish a pse udo cleft sentence from a cleft sentence and a wh movement sentence. It thus constitutes another reliable criterion to identify the structure of the Kavalan and Amis wh initial construction. The following list is a summary of the structural properties of t he pseudo cleft construction. (28) Structural properties of a pseudo cleft sentence a. The clefted XP is the predicate of the matrix clause. It does not undergo wh movement and thus there are no movement induced identity effects. b. A pseudo cleft sentence is bi clausal. The cleft clause is a dependent clause. c. The cleft clause is associated with both nominal and subject properties. d. The cleft clause is a headless relative clause and the clefted XP is not its head noun. It is thus possible for the cleft clause to m odify a dummy head noun like person and thing To determine the syntactic structure of a Kavalan/Amis wh initial question, the following section will investigate the grammatical properties of this construction in relation to the structural properties of wh movement, cleft, and pseudo cleft constructions listed in (11), (23), and (28). The distinguishing properties of the three constructions are summarized in Table 4 1 for ease of comparison. These three constructions can all yield the wh initial word order in a predicate initial language without an expletive and a copula like Kavalan and Amis. The following three structures in (29) are all potential analyses of a Kavalan/Amis wh initial question. The term, remainder, refers to the part of an interrogative cl ause that follows the sentence initial

PAGE 130

130 wh phrase. Which of the three analyses can account for the grammatical properties of the Kavalan/Amis wh initial construction is the focus of the following section. (29) a. Wh movement [ CP Wh phrase [ IP Remainder Wh phrase ]] b. Cleft [ predicate Wh phrase] [Remainder Cleft clause] [expletive subject] c. Pseudo cleft [ preciate Wh phrase] [ subject Remainder Headless RC] Table 4 1. Wh movement, pseudo cleft, and cleft structures Properties WH MOVEMENT CLEFT PSEUDO CLEFT clausal organization mono clausal bi clausal bi clausal syn t actic status of the remainder matrix clause dependent clause dependent clause wh phrase has predicate properties no yes yes identity effects yes no no remainder has nominal properties n o no yes remainder has subject properties no no yes expletive or propositional anaphors as the subject NA yes no parallels between remainder and headless relative clauses ( head possible in remainder ) no no yes 4.3 Grammatical Properties of Wh Initial Questions This section explores the structural properties of wh initial questions in Kavalan and Amis and compares them with the characteristics of wh movement, cleft, and pseudo cleft constructions. The findings suggest that a Kavalan/Amis wh init ial question exhibits a pseudo cleft structure with a headless relative clause as the subject. The sentence initial interrogative phrase is the predicate of the sentence, while the

PAGE 131

131 remainder of the clause is a headless relative clause, which serves as the subject of the sentence. 4.3.1 Sentence Initial Interrogative Phrase as the Predicate One of the properties that can distinguish the wh movement construction from the cleft or pseudo cleft construction concerns whether the sentence initial interrogative ph rase is the predicate of the sentence. A fronted interrogative phrase in a wh movement sentence does not serve as the predicate of the sentence, whereas the sentence initial interrogative phrase in a cleft or pseudo cleft question functions as the predicat e and is thus associated with the morphosyntactic properties of a predicate. The following discussion in this sub section will demonstrate that the interrogative phrase in a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence has the same morphosyntactic distribution of a no n verbal predicate. This structural property is a piece of evidence against the wh movement analysis of a wh initial sentence in the two languages. 4.3.1.1 Tense and aspect markers First of all, predicates in Kavalan and Amis can take tense and aspect mark ers. Kavalan has one perfective aspect marker, = t i and two future tense markers, qa = and = pa The difference between qa = and = pa is that the former describes a future event that the speaker is unsure of. The sentences in (30) are for illustration. There a re two aspectual markers in Amis: = tu and = ho The former marks perfective aspect and the latter signals imperfective aspect. Both of them are attached to the predicate in a sentence, as shown below in (31a) and (31b). Amis also has a tense marker, na It denotes past tense and always appears in the sentence initial position before the predicate, as illustrated in (31c).

PAGE 132

132 (30) Kavalan a. qan=ti=iku tu esi na babuy < AV >eat= PFV =1 SG ABS OBL meat GEN pig b. qa=uzan temawaR FUT =rain to morrow c. qatiw=pa=iku timaisuan go= FUT =1 SG ABS 2 SG LOC (31) Amis a. ci ofad tu pawli < AV >eat= PFV NCM PN OBL banana b. mi nanum=ho ci ofad AV d rink= IPFV NCM PN c. na ci ofad tu pawli PST < AV >eat NCM PN OBL banana Like predicates, the interrogative phrase in a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence can also take the tense and aspect mark ers. In (32a) and (32b), tiana in the sentence initial position but also takes the future tense marker = pa or qa =. (32c) shows that an interrogative phrase in the sentence initial position can also take the perfective aspect marker = t i (32) Kavalan a. tiana=pa ya paRaRiw who= FUT ABS run runs is going to be who?) b. qa=tiana ya paRaRiw FUT =who ABS run

PAGE 133

133 c. niana=t i ya tayta an ni buya what= PFV ABS see PV ERG PN The following Amis wh initial sentences illustrate the same pattern. In (33a), the perfective aspect marker is attached to the interrogative phr ase cima past tense marker immediately precedes the interrogative phrase maan (33) Amis a. cima=tu ku tayni ay who= PFV ABS come FAC b. na maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay P ST what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN (Lit. The thing that Panay saw was what?) 4.3.1.2 Negation The position of a negation marker is another distributional test to identify predicates in Kavalan and Amis. In both languages, a sentential negation ma rker must immediately precede the predicate. Moreover, t he choice of the negation markers in Kavalan is contingent on the type of predicate to be negated. To negate a nominal predicate, usa is utilized, whereas the negation of a verbal predicate is achieve d through the negation marker mai The contrast is illustrated by the following sentences. Note that the negation markers must appear immediately before the predicate to denote sentential negation. (34 ) Kavalan a. usa sunis ya ti buya NEG child ABS NCM P N b. mai = pa m kalingu timaita NEG = FUT AV forget 1 IPL OBL

PAGE 134

134 The sentence initial interrogative words in Kavalan can be negated via usa th e negation marker for nominal pred icates but they cannot be negated via mai the negation marker for non nominal predicates. This is illustrated below. (35 ) Kavalan a. usa /*mai ti tiana ya mawtu siRab NEG NCM who ABS AV .come yesterday Lit. b. usa /*mai niana ya tanbaseR ta dedan an NEG what ABS < AV >fly LOC sky LOC Lit. Although sentences with a negated interrogative predicate like (35 ) tend to be interpreted as echo questions and it is also likely for the interrogative words to be interpreted as indefinites under this situation, 2 the grammaticality of such sentences where the interrogative words can be preceded by the negation marker, usa suggests that the sentence initial interrogative words should be structurally analyzed as the predicates. 3 4.3.1.3 Epistemic markers Anoth er piece of evidence for the predicate analysis of the interrogative phrase in a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence concerns the distribution of the epistemic marker s, 2 We will further discuss the implication of this property, i.e., interrogatives as indefinites, for the structural an alysis of pseudo cleft questions in 4.4. 3 When a nominal predicate in an equational sentence is negated by in Amis, the negation marker occurs in the sentence initial position and the original declarative sentence is preceded by the absolutive case marker ku This is illustrated below. It seems that the syntactic status of the nominal predicate in a negative equational sentence is distinct from its declarative counterpart. Moreover, when a wh word in Amis is negated, it is no longer interpreted as a question word, but must be treated as an indefinite. Therefore, the negation test is not a reliable criterion to identify whether a sentence initial wh word in Amis is a predicate or not. a. u singsi kaku CN teacher 1 SG ABS b. ku singsi kaku NEG ABS teacher 1 SG ABS

PAGE 135

135 e.g., pasi in Kavalan and latek epistemic marker immediately precedes the predicate of a sentence. I f there is a circumstantial adverb, e.g., a sentential temporal adverb, the epistemic marker must follow the adverb and prece de the predicate In other words, the order of these phrases is fixed: Adverbial + pasi + Predicate. The following Kavalan sentences illustrate the distribution of pasi (36 ) Kavalan a. temawaR pasi Riwawa tu sunis ti imuy tomorrow possible t ake.care.of OBL child NCM PN b. pasi temawaR Riwawa tu sunis ti imuy possible tomorrow take.care.of OBL child NCM PN c. t emawaR Riwawa pasi tu sunis ti imuy tomorrow take.care.of possible OBL child NCM PN d. temawaR Riwawa tu sunis pasi ti imuy tomorrow take.care.of OBL child possible NCM PN e. temawaR Riwawa tu sunis ti imuy pasi tomorrow take.care.of OBL child NCM PN possible Among the sentences in (36), only (36a), where pasi the predicate Riwawa (37 ) Kavalan a. temawaR pasi ti tiana Riwawa tu sunis tomorrow possible NCM who take.care.of OBL child It is possible that the one that will take care of children tomorrow is who?) b. pasi temawaR ti tiana Riwawa tu sunis possible tomorrow NCM who take.care.of OBL child

PAGE 136

136 c. temawaR ti tiana Riwawa tu sunis pasi tomorrow NCM who take.care.of OBL child possible The interrogative phrase in a Kavalan wh initial sentence share s the same syntactic distribution with predicates when the epistemic marker pasi is present. It must immediately follow pasi, as illustrated by the examples in (37) The epistemic marker latek of Kavalan pasi follo wing sentences are for illustration. (38) Amis a. latek ma lipahak ci panay maybe AV happy NCM PN b. latek ma ulah ci ofad ci sawmah an maybe AV like NCM PN NCM PN OBL The interrogative phras e in an Amis wh initial sentence can also be preceded by latek (39 ) Amis a. latek cima=tu ku tayni ay maybe who= PFV ABS come FAC b. latek maan ku ma alaw ay ni pana y maybe what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN 4.3.1.4 The common noun marker The final empirical evidence that suggests sentence initial wh phrases are predicates is that Amis maan preceded by the common noun marker u When a common noun phrase functions as an argument in a sentence, it must take a

PAGE 137

137 composite marker that consists of a case morpheme, k ABS n ERG t OBL the common noun morpheme, u However, when a comm on noun phrase is used as a nominal predicate, it cannot take any case morphemes, but it can be optionally preceded by the common noun marker u The Amis sentence in (40a) contains a nominal predicate with the common noun marker u The sentence in (40b), w here the nominal predicate takes a case marker, is ungrammatical. (40) Amis a. u fafahian kaku CN woman 1 SG ABS b. *ku/*nu/*tu fafahian kaku ABS / ERG / OBL woman 1 SG ABS When Amis maan initial sentence, it can also take the common noun marker u However, it cannot take any case morphemes, as indicated by the ungrammaticality of (41b). (41 ) Amis a. u maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN that Panay saw is what?) b. *ku/*nu/*tu maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay ABS / ERG / OBL what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN The contrast between (41a) and (41b) suggests that maan in a wh initial sentence doe s not function as an argument. Instead, it serves as the nominal predicate of the sentence. The morpho syntactic distri butions of the interrogative phrase in a Kavalan/ Amis wh initial sentence suggest that it should be analyzed as the predicate of the

PAGE 138

138 const ruction It occurs in the same morphosyntactic position where a predicate normally occurs. It takes tense and aspect markers and immediately follows a negation marker or an epistemic marker. Moreover, like a nominal predicate, Amis maan by the common noun marker without any case morpheme. The fact that the interrogative phrase in a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence exhibits predicate properties indicates that this construction is not derived via wh movement. The fronted interrogative phras e in a wh movement sentence does not function as the predicate and thus should not exhibit any predicate properties. Instead, a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence might involve either a pseudo cleft or cleft structure. The following section will present empi rical evidence to show that the remainder of a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence is a headless relative clause, which suggests that this construction is a pseudo cleft structure. 4.3. 2 The Remainder as a Headless Relative Clause This subsection will argue t hat what follows the interrogative phrase in a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence is a dependent clause. Specifically, it is a headless relative clause. A relative clause in Kavalan is marked by an optional relativizer, = ay on the verb or the end of the cla use. The bracketed clauses in the following sentences are examples of Kavalan relative clauses. (42) Kavalan a. Rubatang tazungan [qan(=ay) ___ tu qawpiR] beautiful girl < AV >eat= REL OBL yam b. qan= iku tu tamun [Ramaz an na(=ay) ni abas ___ ] < AV >eat=1 SG ABS OBL dish cook PV 3 ERG = REL ERG PN

PAGE 139

139 In both examples above, there is a gap inside the clause. In the bracketed clause in (42a), the absolutive subject o f the verb qan underline. This missing element is co referential with the head noun of the relative clause, i.e., tazungan patient argument of the verb Ramaz underlined position if the clause were not a relative clause. The missing element in (42b) is co referential with the head noun, tamun modifies. In both sentences, t he relative clause follows the head noun. However, it can also precede the head noun, as illustrated below. (43) Kavalan a. Rubatang [qan(=ay) ___ tu qawpiR] tazungan beautiful < AV >eat= REL OBL yam girl b. qan=iku tu [Ramaz an na(=ay) ni abas ___ ] < AV >eat=1 SG ABS OBL cook PV 3 ERG = REL ERG PN tamun dish The relativizer = ay can also be attached to the verb in a Kavalan wh initial sentence, as illustrated below. (44 ) Kavalan a. tiana qan (=ay) tu may ku who < AV >eat = REL OBL rice 1 SG GEN (Lit. The one that eats my rice is who?) b. niana qaRat (=ay) tu zapan su what < AV >bite = REL OBL leg 2 SG GEN (Lit. The stuf f that bites your leg is what?) The remainder of the wh initial sentence in (44a) and (44b) takes the relativizer = ay This grammatical property suggests that it is a dependent relative clause. On the wh

PAGE 140

140 movement account of a Kavalan wh initial sentence, the possibility of a relativizer on the verb is surprising and is difficult to explain. This grammatical feature is only compatible with a cleft or pseudo cleft analysis. On the cleft account, the remainder of a wh initial sentence is a restrictive relativ e clause whose head is the sentence initial interrogative phrase; on the pseudo cleft account, the remainder of a wh initial sentence is a headless relative clause. Both accounts predict that the remainder of a Kavalan wh initial sentence is able to take t he relativizer = ay However, the cleft account and the pseudo cleft account differ in their predictions about the possibility of a dummy head in the remainder. The cleft account predicts that it is not possible to insert a dummy head in the remainder becau se the sentence initial interrogative phrase is the head noun. The pseudo cleft account predicts that the insertion of a dummy head in the remainder is possible because the remainder is a headless relative clause. As illustrated in (45a) and (45b) below, t he insertion of a dummy head, e.g., lazat Ribang Kavalan. (45 ) Kavalan a. tiana lazat m ala=ay tu kelisiw ku who person AV take= REL OBL money 1 SG GEN my money is who?) b. niana Ribang qaRat=ay tu zapan su what thing < AV >bite= REL OBL leg 2 SG GEN The grammaticality of (45a) and (45b) suggests that the sentence initial interrogati ve phrase is not the head noun of the remainder and that the remainder is a headless relative clause.

PAGE 141

141 Amis does not have an overt relativizer that introduces a relative clause. 4 An Amis restrictive relative clause precedes the head noun it modifies and the two elements are connected by the linker a (46 ) Amis a. ma kera nira ku ya [mi pitpit ay ____ PV encounter 3 SG ERG ABS that AV pluck FAC tu heci nu lusay] a faki OBL fruit GEN fruit.tree LNK uncle Nr_pear ofad, NTU corpus) b. tayra ci panay mi ladum i [pi ladum an ni go NCM PN AV fetch.water PREP PI fetch.water LA ERG aki ___ ] a tefun PN LNK well 363) The relat ive clauses in (46a) and (46b) are bracketed. They precede the head noun that they modify respectively, i.e., faki tefun The gapped NP in (46a) is the absolutive agent argument of the AV marked verb. In ( 46b), the gapped NP is the absolutive location argument of the LA marked verb. A dummy head can also appear in the remainder of an Amis wh initial sentence. In (47a), the dummy head tamdaw question; in (47b), which question, the dummy head demak 4 The marker ay in (46a) is treated as a relativizer or nominalizer by some Amis linguists (M. Lin 1995; D. Liu 1999). However, as demonstrated in (46b), not all relative clauses take this marker Moreover, this marker can also appear in non relative clauses. It functions to emphasize that something does happen or that ay is a mood marker that i ndicates factuality. a. mi kilim ay kaku ci panay an AV search FAC 1 SG ABS NCM PN OBL b. kimulmul *(ay) ku cidal round FAC ABS sun

PAGE 142

142 grammaticality of the two sentences indicates that the sentence initial interrogative phrase in an Amis wh initial question is not the head noun of the remainder. (47 ) Amis a. cima ku keat FAC OBL meat 1 SG GEN LNK tamdaw person \ a. u maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay a demak CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN LNK thing e thing that Panay saw is what?) In other words, an Amis wh initial question does not exhibit the structure of a cleft sentence where the cleft clause is a restrictive relative clause and the clefted XP is its head noun. Instead, the possibility of the in sertion of a dummy head with the optional linker a suggests that the remainder in this construction is a headless relative clause. Like Kavalan, an Amis wh initial question also exhibits a pseudo cleft structure. 5 The analysis of the remainder as a headles s relative clause is corroborated by the same grammatical restrictions shared by both wh initial questions and relative clauses. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, only questions that target an absolutive case marked DP argum ent can utilize the wh initial const ruction The relevant examples are repeated below for ease of reference. In the gramma tical sentences below, i.e., (48a), and (49 a), the DP argument that the interrogative phrase inquires about should receive absolutive case if it occurs in a corresponding declarative sentence. If not, the use of the wh initial construction as a question formation s trategy is prohibited, e.g., (48b), (48c), (49b), and (49c), where an oblique or ergative nominal argument is questioned. 5 We cannot rule out the possibility that the wh initial questions with a dummy head have a different structure than those without a dummy head. How to verify or disprove this requires further investigation.

PAGE 143

1 43 (48 ) Kavalan a. ti tiana i ya qan [ AB S ] i tu may ku NCM who ABS < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN my rice is who?) b. *ti tiana i ya pukun=isu [ OBL ] i NCM who ABS < AV >hit=2 SG ABS c. *ni tiana i ya ala an [ ERG ] i ya kelisiw ku ERG who ABS take PV ABS money 1 SG GEN (49 ) Amis a. cima i ku mi takaw ay [ ABS ] i tu payci who ABS AV steal FAC OBL money (Lit. The one that steals money is who?) b. *cima i ku mi ay ku wacu [ OBL ] i who ABS AV chase FAC ABS dog c. n ima i ku ma tawal ay [ ERG ] i ci panay who ABS PV forget FAC NCM PN Relative clauses in the two languages have the same grammatical restriction in that only an absolutive DP can be relat ivized. This is illustrated in (50) and (51). In these examples, the head noun is underlined and the gapped DP argument in the relative clause is represented by its grammatical case in square brackets, e.g., [ ABS ]. This same grammatical restriction on the formation of relative clauses has been found in many other Austronesian languages (Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis 1992; Keenan and Comrie 1977). (50 ) Kavalan a. qatapung an ku siRab ya sunis nay i meet PV 1 SG ERG yesterday ABS child that [qiRuziq=ay [ ABS ] i tu kelisiw ku] steal= REL OBL money 1 SG GEN

PAGE 144

144 b. *pakala an ku ya kelisiw i [qiRuziq=ay ya find PV 1 SG ERG ABS money steal= REL ABS sunis nay [ OBL ] i ] child that c. *qatapung an ku ya sunis nay i [qiRuziq an=ay [ ERG ] i meet PV 1 SG ERG ABS child that steal PV = REL ya kelisiw ku] ABS money 1 SG GEN (51 ) Amis a. ma kera nira ku ya [mi pitpit ay [ ABS ] i PV encounter 3 SG ERG ABS that AV pluck FAC tu heci nu lusay] a faki i OBL fruit GEN fruit.tree LNK uncle Nr_pear ofad, NTU corpus) b. ku ya [mi pitpit ay ci panay [ OBL ] i ] bad ABS that AV pluck FAC NCM PN a heci nu lusay i LNK fruit GEN fruit.tree c. ma nengneng nira ku ya [ma ay [ ERG ] i PV see 3 SG ERG ABS that PV eat FAC ku heci nu lusay] a wawa i ABS fruit GEN fruit.tree LNK child In (50a), the relative clause with the = ay marker follows the head noun nay referential with the gapped absolutive argument in the embedded relative clause. If it is an oblique or ergative argument that is gapped in a relative clause, the sentence is considered ungrammatical, as in (50b) and (50c). In Amis, a relative clause precedes the head noun that it modifies. There is a linker a between the relative clause and the head noun. In (51a), the head noun faki refe rential with the gapped absolutive argument in the embedded relative clause. (51b) and (51c)

PAGE 145

145 are ungrammatical because the head noun is co referential with a gapped oblique argument or a gapped ergative argument. Therefore, wh initial questions and relativ e clauses in Kavalan and Amis have the same grammatical restriction in that only an absolutive argument could be questioned or gapped. This lends further support to the analysis that wh initial questions in the two languages contain a dependent relative cl ause. What follows the interrogative phrase in a wh initial question is a dependent clause. This dependent clause is a headless relative clause. This explains in a straightforward way why only absolutive arguments can be questioned in (48) and (49). 4.3.3 The Remainder as the Subject The predicate properties of the interrogative phrase and the headless RC structure of the remainder in a Kavalan and Amis wh initial question together suggest that this syntactic construction is characterized by a pseudo cleft structure. These two grammatical characteristics are only compatible with the pseudo cleft analysis. This subsection will provide more empirical evidence for this analysis. First of all, the remainder in a Kavalan/Amis wh initial question exhibits nominal properties. The sentences in (52) and (53) show that it has the same distribution as other noun phrases. (52a) and (53 a) are interrogative sentences. What follows the wh phrase in the two sentences can replace a noun phrase in a declarative sentence. For e xample, m ala tu kelisiw ku replace nay c). Sentences li ke (52c) and (53 c) should be ungrammatical on the wh movement account and the cleft account of wh initial quest ions in Ka valan and Amis. If (52a) and (53 a) were it cleft questions, the remainder of the clause would be expected not to have the same syntactic distribution as a noun

PAGE 146

146 phrase, contrary to fact. The wh movement analysis also predicts (52c) and (53c) to be ungrammat ical as the remainder of a wh movement sentence is a finite IP and does not exhibit nominal properties. On the pseudo cleft analysis, the remainder is a headless relative clause, which functions like a nominal element and this prediction is borne out. (52 ) Kavalan a. tiana ya m ala tu kelisiw ku who ABS AV take OBL money 1 SG GEN my my money is who?) b. tayta an ni buya ya sunis nay see PV ERG PN ABS child that c. tayta an ni buya ya m a la tu kelisiw ku see PV ERG PN ABS AV take OBL money 1 SG GEN (53 ) Amis a. cima ku ay tu titi aku who ABS < AV >eat FAC OBL meat 1 SG GEN my meat is who?) b. ma puling ku ra wawa AV fall ABS that child c. ma puling ku r a ay tu titi aku AV fall ABS that < AV >eat FAC OBL meat 1 SG GEN Moreover, the remainder of a Kavalan/Amis wh initial question, which is a headless relative clause, serves as the subject of the interrogative sentence. Its subject status is morphologically marked by the preceding absolutive case marker ya in Kavalan or ku in Amis, as illustrated in (54) and (55). In both K avalan and Amis, case markers precede the noun phrase that they are associated with. The fact that the absolutive case marker can precede the remainder of a Kavalan/Amis wh initial

PAGE 147

147 question also shows that the remainder functions like a nominal element. Mo reover, it serves as the subject of the sentence. That the remainder is a headless RC functioning as the subject conforms to the structure of a pseudo cleft sentence, the subject of which is also a headless relative clause. Neither the wh movement account nor the cleft account can accommodate this empirical fact. A headless RC serving as the subject is not a defining property of a wh movement sentence. A cleft sentence contains a relative clause, but this relative clause does not function as the subject. (5 4 ) Kavalan a. tiana ya qan tu may ku who ABS < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN (Lit. The one that eats my rice is who?) b. niana ya qaRat tu zapan su what ABS < AV >bite OBL leg 2 SG GEN (Lit. The thing that bites you r leg is what?) (55 ) Amis a. cima ku mi takaw ay tu payci who ABS AV steal FAC OBL money (Lit. The one that steals money is who?) b. u maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN (Lit. The thing t hat Panay sees is what?) What serves as the subject in a cleft sentence is an expletive pronoun instead. According to Hedberg (2000), the so called expletive subject in a cleft sentence has propositional content and can be replaced with demonstratives lik e this or that Although Kavalan and Amis do not have an expletive pronoun, they do have demonstrative pronouns. Unlike English it cleft sentences, the demonstrative pronouns cannot function as the subject of a Kavalan and Amis wh initial question. The sen tences in (56) and (57) are ungrammatical due to the presence of a demonstrative pronoun at the sentence

PAGE 148

148 final subject position. Although the ungrammaticality of these sentences does not decisively rule out the cleft analysis, it still suggests that a Kava lan/Amis wh initial question is different from an English it cleft structure. (56) Kavalan a. *tiana qan tu may ku who < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN this/that b. niana qaRat tu zapan su what < AV >b ite OBL leg 2 SG GEN this/that (57 ) Amis a. *cima ku mi takaw ay tu payci ku ni/ku ya who ABS AV steal FAC OBL money ABS this/ ABS that b. u maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay ku ni/ ku ya CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN ABS this/ ABS that 4.3.4 Bi Clausal Structure Section 4.3.1 has shown that the interrogative phrase in a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence exhibits properties of a predicate. Then it i s argued in Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3 that the remainder of this construction is a headless relative clause that functions as the subject. The two findings suggest that a wh initial sentence in Kavalan and Amis is a bi clausal structure. In addition to the matrix wh predicate, there should be another predicate inside the remainder, a headless RC. What follows in this subsection will offer more evidence for the bi clausal structure of the Kavalan/Amis wh initial construction. As there are two predicate s in a Kavalan/Amis wh initial sentence, it is predicted that each predicate can host its own TAM and negation markers. This prediction is borne out.

PAGE 149

149 (58) Kavalan a. tiana=pa ya paRaRiw who= FUT ABS run runs is goin g to be who?) b tiana ya paRaRiw=pa who ABS run= FUT is going to run is who?) c. niana=ti ya tayta an ni buya what= PFV ABS see PV ERG PN d. niana ya tayta an=ti ni buya what ABS see PV = PFV ERG PN Lit. The thing that Buya saw is what?) (59) Amis a. cima=tu ku tayni ay who= PFV ABS come FAC b. cima ku ta tayni who ABS IRR come In (58a) and (58c), the tense/aspect markers = pa and = ti are attached to the sentence initial interrogative phrase, which serves as the matrix predicate. As the remainder also contains a predicate, it is possible to attach tense/aspect markers to the embedded predicate too. This is illustrated by (58b) and (58d). This is also true of Amis. In (59a), the interrogative phrase, cima embedded predicate takes a separate factual mood marker ay In (59b), the embedded predicate is marked irrealis through Ca reduplication. The empirical pattern presented in (58) and (59) supports the bi clausal analysis of a Kavalan/Amis wh initial question. A mono clausal analy sis like the wh movement account cannot provide a straightforward

PAGE 150

150 explanation for the fact that both the interrogative phrase and the predicate of the remainder are able to host tense and aspect markers. The interrogative phrase and the remainder in a wh i nitial construction can also take their own respective negation marker, as illustrated below. (60 ) Kavalan a. usa ti tiana ya mai mawtu siRab NEG NCM who ABS NEG AV .come yesterday b. usa niana mai tan baseR ta dedan an NEG what NEG < AV >fly LOC sky LOC The interrogative phrases in (60) are preceded by the negation marker for nominal predicates, usa whereas the remainder is negated by the negatio n marker for non nominal predicates, mai Finally, the epistemic markers that must immediately precede a predicate can occur either right before the interrogative phrase or immediately before the embedded predicate. (61 ) Kavalan a. pasi ti tiana ya Riwawa tu sunis possible NCM who ABS take.care.of OBL child children might be who?) b. ti tiana ya pasi Riwawa tu sunis NCM who ABS possible take.care.of OBL child care of children is who?) (62 ) Amis a. latek maan ku ka talaw an ni utay maybe what ABS KA afraid LA ERG PN be what?)

PAGE 151

151 b. maa n ku latek ka talaw an ni utay what ABS maybe KA afraid LA ERG PN In (61a) and (62a), the epistemic marker immediately precedes the interrogative phrase, whereas it a ppears right before the embedded predicate in (61b) and (62b). The bi clausal analysis can explain this pattern in a straightforward manner. As there are two predicates in a wh initial sentence, it is expected that the epistemic markers pasi and latek can immediately precede either predicate. This pattern is elusive on a mono clausal account like the wh movement analysis. 4.3.5 No Movement Properties This section will provide two more pieces of evidence against the wh movement account of a Kavalan and Amis wh initial question. Unlike a wh movement question, the wh initial construction in Kavalan and Amis does not exhibit identity effects of the supposedly moved element. The structure of embedded questions also constitutes indirect evidence for a non movement analysis of this construction. 4.3.5.1 Identity effects As discussed in Section 4.2.1, under the assumption that movement should be decomposed into Copy and Re merge (Chomsky 1993), copies of a moved element should exhibit identity effects (Adger and Ramc hand 2005). When an element is displaced from its original position, the two copies of this element should manifest the same features regarding selection, agreement, and case. In a base generation derivation, since no copies are involved, identity effects may not arise. Identity effects can thus be a reliable test on whether Kavalan and Amis wh initial sentences are derived via wh movement. On the wh movement account, the sentence initial

PAGE 152

152 interrogative phrase and its copy in the original position are identi cal and should exhibit identity effects. If we instead find anti identity effects, this will be a strong piece of evidence against the movement analysis. Consider the following two interrogative sentences. (63 ) Kavalan niana qaRat tu zapan su what < AV >b ite OBL leg 2 SG GEN (64 ) Amis u maan ku ma alaw ay ni panay CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN Panay see? is what?) If the sentence initial order of the interrogative phrases in (63) and (64) is derived via movement, they should have a copy in their base generated position. On this account, niana marked verb and should thus have checked absolutive case before mo vement to Spec, CP; maan argument of the PV marked verb and should thus have checked absolutive case before movement. In other words, on the wh movement account, both niana maan ec, CP and have a copy that is marked absolutive case in Spec, TP, as represented by (65) and (66) respectively. (65 ) Wh movement analysis of (63) [ CP niana [ TP qaRat tu zapan su ya niana ]] what < AV >bite OBL leg 2 SG GEN ABS what (66) Wh movement analysis of (64) [ CP u maan [ TP ku ma alaw ay ni panay ku maan ]] CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN ABS what

PAGE 153

153 The problem is that the higher copy of the interrogative phrase and its lower copy do not exhibit any identity effect regarding case. The sentence initial interrogative phrase in Kavalan cannot take the absolutive case marker. Although the Amis sentence initial interrogative phrase can take the common noun marker, it cannot be case marked as absolutive. This is ill ustrated by the ungrammaticality of the following two sentences. (67 ) Kavalan *[ CP ya niana [ TP qaRat tu zapan su ya niana ]] ABS what < AV >bite OBL leg 2 SG GEN ABS what (68 ) Amis *[ CP ku maan [ TP ku ma alaw ay ni panay ku maan ]] ABS what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN ABS what The ungrammaticality of (67) and (68) is unexpected on the movement account of Kavalan and Amis wh initial sentences. Since the movement is from a case marked position to a non case marked that as already shown in Chapter 2, the interrogative phrases in Kavalan and Amis are able to take case markers when they occur in situ. There is thus no language specific constraint that forbids an interrogative phrase from taking case markers in the two languages. The movement account has to provide extra stipulations to explain why the copies of an interrogative phrase do not exhibit identity effects regarding case. The anti identity effect of cas e marking thus corroborates the pseudo cleft analysis of Kavalan and Amis interrogative sentences. As the sentence initial interrogative phrase is a predicate, it occurs in its default form without any overt case markers. In fact, the anti identity effect illustrated above disproves not only the wh movement analysis but also any account that posits movement of the interrogative

PAGE 154

154 phrase from a case marked position to a non case marked position. Law (2007) argues against the pseudo cleft analysis of the Malag asy cleft construction and proposes a clausal complement analysis, which is schematically represented by the structure in (69) below. (69) According to Law (2007), the clefted XP in the Malagasy cleft construction is base generated in the IP complement of a functional head, F, and undergoes movement to the specifier of the matrix VP. V is a null copula and F is realized as the focus particle no Suppose the Kavalan and Amis wh initial construction manifests the same structure as the Malagasy c left construction. On this assumption, the sentence initial interrogative phrase is base generated in the IP complement of FP and is moved to Spec, VP in the matrix clause. It is thus expected that the copies of the interrogative phrase will show identity effects. The interrogative phrase can check case in the embedded IP, so when it is moved to Spec, VP, it should retain its case. The empirical facts presented in (67) and (68) contradict this prediction. The sentence initial interrogative phrase in the

PAGE 155

155 Kav alan/Amis wh initial construction cannot take case markers; there is no movement induced identity effect. 4.3.5.2 Embedded questions The syntactic structure of embedded questions provides further evidence against the claim that the wh initial questions in Kavalan and Amis are derived via wh movement. Consider the examples in (70). (70 ) Kavalan a. Rayngu an na ni buya tu ti tiana m ala not.know PV 3 SG ERG ERG PN COMP NCM who AV take tu kelisiw OBL money a d one that takes the money is who.) b. Rayngu an na ni buya ti tiana tu m ala not.know PV 3 SG ERG ERG PN NCM who COMP AV take tu kelisiw OBL money c Rayngu an ku tu niana=ti ya ni tayta an not.know PV 1 SG ERG COMP what= PFV ABS PFV see P V ni buya ERG PN is what.) d. Rayngu an ku niana=ti tu ya ni tayta an not.know PV 1 SG ERG what= PFV COMP ABS PFV see PV ni buya ERG PN In Kavalan, embedded wh questions are intro duced by the complementizer tu Section 2.3.2 has shown that except for the complementizer, they exhibit the same d escription options and surface structure as their non embedded counterparts. They also conform to the same grammatical restriction that only an absolu tive argument can be questioned In the examples in (70) the wh phrase s can never precede the

PAGE 156

156 complementizer tu which indicates that interrogative phrases in Kavalan do not involve movement to Spec CP, the landing site of a wh phrase on the sta ndard account. If they do, we would expect them to move to a position before the complementizer. 6 The scope of the interrogative phrase in (70a) or (70c) is restricted to the embedded clause. As already demonstrated in Section 2.3.2, even if an interrogati ve phrase has wide scope, it still must occur in the embedded clause and after the complementizer. It cannot move overtly to the sentence initial position. This is illustrated by the contrast between the sentences in (71). The interrogative phrase, tiana (71a) receives a wide scope interpretation even though it occurs in the embedded clause. As indicated by the ungrammaticality of (71b) and (71c), it cannot occupy the position right before the complementizer tu and neither can it overtly move to t he sentence initial position. (71 ) Kavalan a. sanu ti imuy tu tiana qiRuziq tu kelisiw < AV >say NCM PN COMP who steal OBL money steals money is who?) b. sanu ti imuy tiana tu qiR uziq tu kelisiw < AV >say NCM PN who COMP steal OBL money c tiana i sanu ti imuy tu t i qiRuziq tu who < AV >say NCM PN COMP steal OBL kelisiw money 6 phrase following a complementizer can still be derived from wh movement. It is possible that the complementizer is in the Force head, whereas the wh phrase is in a lower specifier.

PAGE 157

157 Note that the inability of a K avalan interrogative phrase to precede the complementizer cannot be attributed to the Doubly Filled COMP Filter, which prohibits the simultaneous phonetic realization of the specifier of CP and the head C. This is a language specific filter and is found in languages like standard English and German, as illustrated below. (72) I wonder who (* that ) he saw. (73) Standard German Ich weiss nicht wieviel (* dass ) er fr das Auto I know not how.much that he for the car bezahlt hat paid has Both (72) and (73) become ungrammatical if C, that in standard English and dass in standard German, is overtly pronounced. However, there are dialects of the two languages that do not observe the Dou bly Filled COMP Filter. For example, an embedded interrogative phrase can co occur with an overt complementizer in Belfast English and Alemannic German. This is illustrated by the examples in (74) and (75). The doubly filled COMP filter is not a universal constraint that every language has to obey. (74) Belfast English which model that they discussed. (Baltin 2010: 331) (75) Alemannic German I woass it wieviel dass er fr des Auto zahlt ht I k now not how.much that he for the car paid has (Bayer and Brandner 2008: 87) Like Kavalan, an Amis embedded wh question has the same structural properties of a matrix wh question. In other words, it also contai ns a headless relative clause as its

PAGE 158

158 subject, as illustrated below. Note that there is no overt complementizer in the following Amis sentences. (76 ) Amis a. sa ka fana an kaku cima ku ka ulah an ni panay want KA know want 1 SG ABS who ABS KA like LA ERG PN likes is who.) b. sa ka fana an kaku maan ku ni aca an ni lekal want KA know want 1 SG ABS what ABS PFV buy LA ERG PN I want to know what Lekal buys know the thi ng that Lekal buys is what.) Embedded interrogative phrases that have a wider s cope over the main clause do not move overtly to the sentence initial position either. They must stay within the embedded clause, as illustrated below. (77 ) Amis a. ma harateng isu cima ku ay tu PV think 2 SG ERG who ABS < AV >eat FAC OBL titi aku meat 1 SG GEN (Lit. You think the one that eats my meat is who?) b. cima i ma harateng isu t i ku ay tu who PV think 2 SG ERG ABS < A V >eat FAC OBL titi aku meat 1 SG GEN ink eats Sentences like (71a) and (77a), where an interrogative phrase has a wide scope interpretation but occurs inside an embedded clause, suggest that the interrogative phrase in a Kavalan/Am is wh initial question does not exhibit one property of movement dependencies: unboundedness, i.e., a wh phrase can move cyclically across more than one clause boundary. The ungrammaticality of (71c) and

PAGE 159

159 (77b) is unexpected on the wh movement ac count of Kavalan and Amis wh initial sentences. The following sentences seem to be counterexamples to the non movement analysis of embedded questions in Amis. The wh phrases do not stay in the embedded clause but occur in the sentence initial position. The y thus seem to exhibit unboundedness. (78) Amis a. cima ku ma alaw ay isu mi tu ra wawa who ABS PV see FAC 2 SG ERG AV beat OBL that child you see beat that ch beat that child is who?) b. u maan ku ma alaw ay isu tu ni aca an CN what ABS PV see FAC 2 SG ERG OBL PFV buy LA ni lekal ERG PN you see Lekal bu Lekal buy is what?) A closer inspection reveals otherwise. In the two sentences, the wh phrase still functions as th e predicate. What follows the interrogative phrase is a complex DP subject marked by the absolutive case marker ku This complex DP is a headless relative clause where the verb takes another verb phrase as its complement. Moreover, maan es the common noun marker without any case morpheme. This is a morphosyntactic property of a nominal predicate. Therefore, the examples in (78 ) in fact lend further support for the pseudo cleft analysis of Amis wh questions. What actually exhibits unbounde dness is the phonetically null operator inside the relative clause subject, not the wh phrase itself, on the standard account of how a relative clause is derived. In other words, the null relative operator in the RC subject of a wh

PAGE 160

160 initial question does un movement and thus shows unboundedness, but the interrogative phrase in this construction does not. 4.3.6 Parallelism with Amis Pseudo Clefts In addition to the cross linguistic differences between a pseudo cleft structure and a cl eft structure as discussed in Section 4.2 D. Liu (1999) has revealed other syntactic differences that are specific to the Amis cleft and pseudo cleft constructions. While the remainder clause of a n Amis pseudo cleft construction i s preceded by the absolutive case marker k u the remainder in a cleft construction can only be marked by the common noun marker u This is illustrated below. Accordi (79 a) is a ps eudo cleft sentence and (79 b) is a cleft sentence. 7 (79 ) Amis a. u ya wacu ku ckay ay i lalan CN that dog ABS < AV >run FAC PREP road ( D. Liu 1999 : 101) b. u ya wacu u ckay ay i lalan CN that dog CN < AV >run FAC PREP road ( D. Liu 1999 : 108) The st ructure of an Amis interrogative sentence is consistent with the pseu do cleft construction in that the remainder can be marked by the absolutive case marker ku but not the common noun marker u as exemplified below. (80 ) Amis a. cima ku ay tu ti ti aku who ABS < AV >eat FAC OBL meat 1 SG GEN The one that eats my meat is who?) b. cima u ay tu titi aku who CN < AV >eat FAC OBL meat 1 SG GEN my 7 The examples from D. Liu (1999) have been reglossed to reflect my analysis of the Amis clause structure.

PAGE 161

161 Another discrepancy between the pseudo cleft structure and the cleft structure in Amis concerns the voice alternation of the remainder clause. All four types of voice and applicative constructions can be utilized as the remainder clause of a pseudo cleft sentence, as demonstrated below. (81 ) Amis a. u ya kay in ku [ citangar ay ] CN that lady ABS AV .clever FAC ( D. Liu 1999 : 103) b. u ni dateng ku [ma cirah ay aku ] CN this vegetable ABS PV pickle FAC 1 SG ERG ( D. Liu 1999 : 1 04) c. u ra lutuk ku [pi eli an ni rekar ] CN that mountain ABS PI weed LA ERG PN ( D. Liu 1999 : 104) d. u ra pitaw ku [ sa pi ara aku tu ni CN that hoe ABS IA PI dig.out 1 SG ERG OBL this sayta w ] turnip ( D. Liu 1999 : 104) (81 a) illustrates the use of the agent voice construct ion as the remainder clause. The verb in the remainder clause of (81b) takes the patient voice marker. In (81 c) and (81d), the headless RC subject is a locative applicative construction and an instrumental applicative construction respectively. By contrast, the verb in the remainder of a cleft structure can only take the agent or patient voice marker. LA marked and IA marked verbs are not allowed to be the predicates of the remainder in a cleft sentence, as illustrate d by the ungrammaticality of (82c) and (82 d). (82 ) Amis a. ci utay u mi takaw ay tu payci aku NCM PN CN AV steal FAC OBL money 1 SG GEN

PAGE 162

162 b. ci panay u ma alaw ay aku NCM PN CN PV see FAC 1 SG ERG c. *u lutuk u pi eli an ni rekar CN mountain CN PI weed LA ERG PN ( D. Liu 1999 : 113) d. *u pitaw u sa pi ara aku tu saytaw CN hoe CN IA PI dig.out 1 SG ERG OBL turnip ( D. Liu 1999 : 113) The structure of an Amis wh initial sentence is parallel to the pseudo cleft construction in this respe ct. An Amis interrogati ve sentence allows not only the agent voice and patient voice constructio ns to be the remainder clause (83a, 83 b), but als o the locative applicative and instrumental applicative constructions (83c, 83 d). (83 ) Amis a. cima ku ra [ mi takaw ay tu payci ] who ABS that AV steal FAC OBL money money is who?) b. u maan ku [ ma alaw ay ni panay ] CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN Panay see? is what?) c. cima ku ra [ pi aca an isu tu ra futing ] who ABS that PI buy LA 2 SG ERG OBL that fish you buy fish from fish from is who?) d. u maan ku [ sa ka ka en ni aki tu futing ] CN what ABS IA KA < AV >eat ERG PN OBL fish Aki eat fish wi fish with is what?) The grammatical properties of an Amis wh initial sentence regarding the case marking of the remainder and the voice alternation corroborate our analysis that it involves a pse udo cleft structure, not a cleft structure.

PAGE 163

163 4.3.7 Summary To sum up, a wh initial question in Kavalan and Amis exhibits the following properties. (84 ) Properties of Kavalan and Amis wh initial sentences a. The interrogative phrase has predicate properties. b. It is possible to have a dummy head in the remainder. The remainder is a headless relative clause, has nominal properties, and functions as the subject of the sentence. c. Propositional anaphors cannot serve as the subject. d. They exhibit a bi clausal structure. e. They do not exhibit movement induced identity effects. f. The interrogative phrase in an embedded wh question cannot precede the complementizer tu in Kavalan. g. The interrogative phrase in an embedded wh question cannot move to the sentence initial position, ev en if it takes wide scope. h. An Amis wh initial question shows morphosyntactic parallelism with an Amis pseudo cleft sentence regarding the case marking of the remainder and the voice alternation These properties are incompatible with the predictions of the wh movement analysis. The cleft analysis captures the fact that a Kavalan/Amis wh initial question is a bi clausal structure with the interrogative phrase as the predicate. However, it fails to account for the possibility of a dummy head in the remainder and the subject status of the remainder. All the properties listed in (84) conform to the predictions made by the pseudo cleft analysis. A Kavalan/Amis wh initial question exhibits syntactic characteristics of a pseudo cleft sentence, with the wh phrase as the predicate and a headless relative clause as the subject.

PAGE 164

164 4.4 The Structure of Kavalan and Amis Pseudo Cleft Questions Having shown that Kavalan and Amis interrogative sentences with a sentence initial interrogative phrase involve a pseudo cleft struct ure, we will further explore their structural representation in this section. Since the wh initial construction contains a non verbal predicate, w e will first discuss the syntactic structure of predication in Section 4.4.1 and then extend this analysis to non verbal interrogative clauses in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 4.4 .1 The Structure of Predication Neither Kavalan nor Amis has an overt copula that introduces a non verbal predicate. Non case marked nominal phrases and locative phrases can function as predi cates directly when they occur in the clause initial position, as illustrated below. (85 ) Kavalan a. [ ti utay ] ya sunis nay NCM PN ABS child that b. [ qanas ] ya Ribang nay basket ABS thing that c. [ ta pa w an ni buya ] ya ti imuy tangi LOC house LOC GEN PN ABS NCM PN now (86 ) Amis a. [ ci lekal ] ku ra tamdaw NCM PN ABS that person b. [ ci ofad ] ku nangan nira NCM PN ABS name 3 SG GEN c. [ i ciwkangan ] ku ni panay PREP PN ABS house GEN PN

PAGE 165

165 The examples above also demonstrate that the subject of a non verbal sentence takes the absolutive case marker, ya or ku Adopti ng the analysis of predication by Adger & Ramchand (2003) and Bowers (1993), we assume that a predicate is licensed by a Predicate head. The subject of a non verbal sentence is introduced in the specifier of the Predicate Phrase and the non verbal predicat e is merged as the complement of this phrase. (87) is a schematic representation of the structure of non verbal predication. (87) The XP complement of the null predicate head can be DP, AP, or PP. The structure in (87) does not reflect the pr edicate initial word order of Kavalan and Amis. More derivational steps are involved. The subject DP needs to move to Spec, TP to check absolutive case. We further analysis of verb initial word order derivation and assume that the subject DP has to move to a topic position. 8 This is followed by the movement of the remnant TP to a focus position, which is higher than the topic position. The predicate initial word order is thus derived. This derivation is schematic ally represented in (88) 8 We adopt this analysis fo r concreteness, but there are other equally plausible analyses that can derive the predicate initial word order.

PAGE 166

166 (88 ) 4.4.2 Non Verbal Interrogative Clauses Interrogative words can also be used as non verbal predicates in Kavalan and Amis. The interrogative words that can occur in the predicate position of a non verbal sentence a re listed below. (89) Interrogative words that could be used as non verbal predicates a. Kavalan: tiana niana zanitiana tani tanian b. Amis: cima maan nima papina icuwa They question notions like person, object, possession, quantity, and location. As illustrated by the following examples, they occur in the sentence initial position and are followed by a simple DP subject. (90 ) Kavalan a. tiana ya sunis nay who ABS c hild that b. niana ya Ribang nay what ABS thing that

PAGE 167

167 c. zanitiana ya wasu zau whose ABS dog this d. kin tani=ti ya sunis su HUM how.many= PFV ABS child 2 SG GEN e. tanian ya wasu su where ABS dog 2 SG GEN (91 ) Amis a. cima ku ra tamdaw who ABS that person b. maan ku ra fao what ABS that worm c. nima ku ra wacu whose ABS that dog d. pa pina ku wawa isu HUM how.many ABS child 2 SG GEN e. icuwa kisu anini where 2 SG ABS now Note that the nomina l phrases following the interrogative words in these examples are all preceded by the absolutive case marker, ya or ku There is no overt copula in these sentences. Instead, what appears in the sentence initial predicate position is an interrogative phrase Simple interrogative clauses and their corresponding declarative clauses thus have the same surface structure in (92). (92) [[ BE Predicate] [Subject DP]]

PAGE 168

168 Both types of clauses also manifest the same syntactic structure of predication as in (87) and (8 8). Despite the structural similarities outlined above, there are crucial differences between a non verbal interrogative clause and its corresponding declarative clause in terms of their semantics and interpretation. First of all, in a declarative non verb al sentence like the examples in (85) and (86), the predicate phrase is of type . When this function is applied to the subject DP, the truth conditions of the sentence can be specified and the truth value can thus be evaluated. By contrast, an interro gative clause does not have any truth values. Hamblin (1973) and Karttunen (1977) claim that the intension of questions is a set of answers. For Kartunnen (1977), only true answers to a question are contained in its denotation. For example, the question in (93a) can be interpreted as (93b) in an informal way. (93) Kavalan a. tiana ya sunis who ABS child that b. {P|( x)(person (x) & P =^(x is that child) & true(P))} c. { ti nay The interpretat ion in (93b) refers to the set of propositions that can be true answers to the question, e.g., (93c). To account for the semantics of non verbal interrogative clauses in Kavalan and e dominated by an interrogative Force Phrase (ForceP Q ). The tree in (94) represents the complete clause structure for a non verbal interrogative sentence in Kavalan and Amis. It is this interrogative Force Phrase in a wh question that distinguishes an inte rrogative

PAGE 169

169 clause like the examples in (90) and (91) from a declarative clause like the examples in (85) and (86). T he interrogative Force head functions to map a proposition into the set of propositions <, t> that can be true answers to a ques tion. (94 ) The postulation of the interrogative Force Phrase is crucial for the interpretation of an interrogative phrase as a true interrogative because Kavalan and Amis interrogative phrases can also function as indefinites. This phenomenon is quite common in Formosan languages (Chen and Sung 2005; Tsai 1997b ; Wei 2009). The following examples demonstrate the use of Kavalan and Amis interrogatives as indefinites. (95 ) Kavalan a. ti tiana mawtu=ay, m lizaq=iku NCM who AV .come= REL AV happy =1 SG ABS b. anu bula an na ni buya tu niana ya ti abas, if give PV 3 SG ERG ERG PN OBL what ABS NCM PN m lizaq ti abas AV happy NCM PN

PAGE 170

170 c. niana Ramaz an na tina ku si, what cook PV ERG mother 1 SG GEN COND nay qan an ku that eat PV 1 SG ERG d. mai maytis ti utay tu niana NEG AV .afraid NCM PN OBL what (96 ) Amis a. cima =tu ku mi takaw ay tu payci, who= PFV ABS AV steal FAC OBL money ma keter ku ina AV angry ABS mother b. anu ma ira ku cima cima i, if PV hit 3 SG ERG ABS RED who TOP awa cingra NEG 3 SG ABS (Wei 2009: 358) c. cima ku ka tayni, ma pasti cingra who ABS NEG KA come PV hit 3 SG ABS d. aka pi ala tu maa maan NEG PI take OBL RED what (Wei 2009: 356) An interrogative phrase in Kavalan and Amis can be interpreted as an indefinite in c ertain syntactic environments: Concessive clauses (95a, 96a), conditional clauses (95b, 96b), donkey sentences (95c, 96c), and negation (95d, 96 d). These examples suggest that Kavalan and Amis interrogatives are polarity items without any quantificational force. Their interpretation is determined by an Operator through unselective binding (Aoun and Li 1993). The existence of the ForceP Q in (94 ) can th us ensure that the interrogative predicate will be interpreted as an interrogative element.

PAGE 171

171 However, we leave the semantics of Kavalan and Amis interrogatives and wh indefinites for future research. Another difference related to the interrogative Force Phr ase concerns the syntactic distribution of smani in Kavalan and hakia in Amis. These two words denote lack of knowledge or a desire or curiosity to know something, roughly corresponding to English ntent question, as illustrated in (97) and (98). As shown in (97a), (97b), (98a), and (98 b), smani and hakia can occur at the end of the sentence or immediately after the interrogative predicate. They however cannot occur in a declarative sentence without an interrogative phrase, as sho wn by the ungrammaticality of (97c), (97d), (98c), and (98 d). Their inherent semantics is compatible with the interrogative Force of a question, but not with a non c knowledge of the answer to a question, we assume that they must select for an interrogative Force Phrase i.e., ForceP Q A declarative sentence cannot be the complement of smani and hakia for lack of an interrogative Force Phrase, hence the ungrammatical ity of (97c), (97d), (98c), and (98 d). How the two different word orders, i.e., at the end of the sentence or immediately after the interrogative predicate, are derived will be discussed in the following section on the structure of pseudo cleft questions. (97 ) Kavalan a. tanian ya wasu su smani where ABS dog 2 SG GEN I.wonder b. tanian smani ya wasu su where I.wonder ABS dog 2 SG GEN

PAGE 172

172 c. ta paw an ni buya ya ti imuy smani LOC house LOC GEN PN ABS NCM PN I.wonder d. ta paw an ni buya smani ya ti imuy LOC house LOC GEN PN I.wonder ABS NCM PN (98 ) Amis a. icu wa ku ra wacu hakia where ABS that dog I.wonder b. icuwa hakia ku ra wacu where I.wonder ABS that dog c. *i ciwkangan ku ni panay hakia PREP PN ABS house GEN PN I.wonder d *i ciwkangan hakia ku ni panay PREP PN I.wonder ABS house GEN PN 4.4.3 The Structure of Pseudo Cleft Que stions The structural analysis of simple non verbal interrogative clauses can be extended to the wh initial construction, or pseudo cleft questions As argued in Section 4.3, t he interrogative phrase in the wh initial construction is the predicate of the s entence and there is a complex DP that functions as the subject argument. This complex DP is a headless relative clause. In other words, the wh initial construction manifests the following simplified surface structure of a pseudo cleft question. (99) [ prec iate Wh phrase] [ subject DP (Headless RC)] As reviewed in Section 4.2.3, there are two approaches to the syntactic analysis of a pseudo cleft. One approach considers the headless relative clause, or the free relative, to be base generated in the subject po sition ( 1997; Higgins 1979;

PAGE 173

173 Schlenker 2003), while the other argues that the headless relative clause is base generated as the predicate of a small clause and then moves to the subject position of the matrix clause (den Dikken 2006; Paul 2008; Williams 19 83). Due to the semantic parallelism between a pseudo cleft question and a specificational clause, Potsdam movement analysis for Malagasy pseudo cleft questions. We will h owever adopt the non movement analysis of a pseudo cleft for the Kavalan/Amis wh initial construction as there is no decisive evidence that shows the headless relative clause in a Kavalan or Amis pseudo cleft sentence undergoes movement from the predicate position of a small clause to the matrix subject position. Which analysis can better account for the pseudo cleft structure in Kavalan and Amis remains to be seen though. On the non movement account, Kavalan/Amis pseudo cleft questions share the same basic clause structure with simple non verbal interrogative clauses presented in Section 4.4.2. Both involve the use of an interrogative word or phrase as the predicate of the sentence. They only differ in the structural complexity of the subject DP. (100)

PAGE 174

174 The subject DP of a simple non verbal interrogative clause is a simple nominal phrase, whereas that in a pseudo cleft question is a complex DP, a headless relative clause. (100) is the basic clause structure for a pseudo cleft question. The subject DP moves to Spec, TP to check case and then raises to the Topic Phrase The remnant TP undergoes further movement to a higher Focus position. This way, the predicate initial word order is derived. Moreover, as discussed in the previous section, the Focus Phrase is dominated by an interrogative Force Phrase to ensure the correct interpretation of the sentence as a constituent question. The structure in (101) is a schematic representation of a pseudo cleft question in Kavalan and Amis. (101 ) Ther efore, the wh initial construction, or the pseudo cleft question, is just a structural variant of the non verbal interrogative construction, which involves the use of an interrogative phrase as a non verbal predicate. What differentiates interrogative cla uses like pseudo cleft questions from declarative pseudo cleft sentences is the projection of an interrogative Force head.

PAGE 175

175 Particles like smani in Kavalan or hakia pseudo cleft question, as shown below. Note that these two particles must occur at the end of the sentence, i.e., after the headless relative clause, as in (102a) and (103a), or immediately after the interrogative phrase, as in (102b) and (103b). They can never occur in the sentence initial position, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (102c) and (103c). (102 ) Kavalan a. tiana ya m ala(=ay) tu kelisiw ku smani who ABS AV take= REL OBL money 1 SG GEN I.wonder b. tiana smani ya m ala(=ay) tu kelisiw ku who I.wonder ABS AV take= REL OBL money 1 SG GEN c. smani tiana ya m ala=ay tu kelisiw ku I.wonder who ABS AV take= REL OBL money 1 SG GEN (103 ) Amis a. cima ku mi takaw ay tu payci hakia who ABS AV steal FAC OBL money I.wonder b. cima hakia ku mi takaw ay tu payci who I.wonder ABS AV steal FAC OBL money c. hakia cima ku mi takaw ay tu payci I.wonder who ABS AV steal FAC OBL money a question, we assume that they select for an int errogative ForceP when entering the derivation, as schematically represented in (104). In (104), smani or hakia heads the epistemic phrase, or EpisP, and selects for an interrogative sentence. Their surface

PAGE 176

176 word order can be derived via further movement if we assume that they have an uninterpretable feature to be valued. As they express the lack of knowledge on the content of the focused interrogative phrase, we further assume that the uninterpretable feature they possess is related to focus. The feature va luation can thus be achieved by either moving the focused TP or the entire focus phrase to the specifier to EpisP. The reason why FocP has a focus feature might be due to the percolation from TP in its specifier position. (104) If we further as sume that the percolation of the relevant feature in this case is optional, we can account for the two different word orders of smani or hakia If there is no percolation, TP is attracted to the specifier of EpisP; if there is percolation, FocP is attracte d instead. Either T P or FocP can move to Spec EpisP to check the uninterpretable feature without violating relativized minimality. The two convergent d erivations are represented in (105) and (106)

PAGE 177

177 (105 ) (106) If it is T P that moves to Spec EpisP, smani or hakia immediately follows the interrogative predicate and precedes the subject DP, as shown in (105 ). If what moves to Spec, EpisP is FocP, smani or hakia ends up being in the sentence final position, as shown in (106 ). The two possi ble convergent derivations thus lead to the word order variation of the two particles.

PAGE 178

178 4.5 Conclusion This chapter has argued that the wh initial construction in Kavalan and Amis should be analyzed as a pseudo cleft structure instead of a wh movement or cl eft structure. The grammatical properties of this construction can be explained by the pseudo cleft analysis in a straightforward manner. The sentence initial interrogative phrase exhibits predicate properties, whereas the remainder has the same distributi on as a nominal phrase and behaves as the subject. Moreover, the remainder is a headless relative clause and is able to modify a dummy head noun. The interrogative phrase does not exhibit identity effects regarding case marking. Finally, the Amis wh initia l construction is characterized by the same language specific grammatical properties as the pseudo cleft structure and manifests distinct characteristics from the cleft structure. All of these empirical facts point to the conclusion that the wh initial con struction is parallel to a pseudo cleft structure. However, as a pseudo cleft question only minimally differs from a non verbal equative interrogative clause in the complexity of the subject DP, it is suggested that both constructions are just variants of the same question formation strategy: The use of interrogative phrases as non verbal predicates.

PAGE 179

179 CHAPTER 5 RESTRICTIONS ON WH IN SITU AND PSEUDO CLEFT QUESTIONS 5.1 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 the wh initial construction, or the pseudo cleft structure is one of the strategies for question formation in both Kavalan and Amis. However, it is not available to all types of interrog ative phrases or all cases of interrogative phrases. A pseudo cleft question can be formed only when the question targets the absolutive DP. Questions that target ergative and oblique DPs cannot appeal to the pseudo cleft structure. questions illustrate this pattern. (1 ) Kavalan tiana a. tiana i (ya) qan [ ABS ] i tu may ku who ABS < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN b. *tiana i ( ya ) pukun=isu [ OBL ] i who ABS < AV >hit=2 SG ABS do c. *tiana i ( ya ) ala an [ ERG ] i ya kelisiw ku who ABS take PV ABS mon ey 1 SG GEN As the Kavalan and Amis wh initial construction involve s a pseudo cleft structure that has a headless RC as the subject, the case restriction might be related to the formation of relative clauses in the two languages, wher e only absolutive arguments or subjects can be relativized (Y. L. Chang 1997; Wu 2006). This extraction issue movement, especially interrogative constructions and relative clauses, has been document ed by many Austronesian linguists ( Aldridge 2002, 2006; Chang 1997; Chung 2006; Cole and Hermon 2008; Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis 1992; Rackowski and Travis 2000 ). The

PAGE 180

180 following examples illustrate the same phenomenon in Tagalog and Seediq, where the only movement is the argument whose thematic role corresponds to the voice marker on the verb. For example, to form a wh question on the agent argument, the verb must take the agent voice marker. That is, the agent must bear the absolutive case or be the subject in the corresponding declarative sentence. ( 2 ) Tagalog (Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis 1992: 385) a. sino ang bumili ng damit para sa who ABS AV bought OBL dress for OBL child b. *sino ang binili para sa ang damit who ABS PV bought for OBL child ABS dress c. *sino ang ibinili ng damit ang who ABS BV bought OBL dress ABS child ( 3 ) Seediq (Aldridge 2002:394) a. ima ka wada m ari patis ni who ABS PFV AV buy bo ok DEF b. *ima ka wada burig un patis ni who ABS PFV buy PV book DEF Several solutions have been proposed to account for the extraction issue. We will review these proposals in Section 5.2 and discuss their (in)adequacy in re lation to Kavalan and Amis interrogative sentences. The empirical patterns of the wh in situ construction also require an explanation. As shown in Chapter 2, except for mayni =ay = REL marked interrogative phrases in Kavalan cannot stay in situ to form content questions, while ergative and oblique interrogative phrases can. questions and questions are for illustration.

PAGE 181

181 (4 ) Kavalan niana a. *qaRat ya niana tu zapan su < AV >bite ABS what OBL leg 2 SG GEN es b. maytis tu niana ya ti abas AV .afraid OBL what ABS NCM PN c. qaRat an na niana ya zapan su bite PV ERG what ABS leg 2 SG GEN es (5 ) Kavalan mayni=ay = REL a. pukun an ni utay y a mayni=ay wasu hit PV ERG PN ABS which= REL dog b. pukun ti utay tu mayni=ay wasu < AV >hit NCM PN OBL which= REL dog c. qaRat an na mayni=ay wasu ya ti utay bite PV ERG which= REL dog ABS NCM PN ich dog bites Amis exhibits a different pattern from Kavalan in that interrogative phrases can occur in situ regardless of their case marking or grammatical function This issue will be addressed in Section 5.3. 5.2 Restrictions on Pseudo Cleft Qu estions The goal of this section is to provide a theoretical account to explain why only absolutive cleft question in Kavalan and Amis. Several analyses have been proposed to account for the simil ar pattern in other Austronesian languages. Section 5.2.1 reviews the proposals of Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992), Y. L. Chang (1997), and Rackowski and Richards syn

PAGE 182

182 Austronesian clause structure, which views the extraction restriction as a consequence of the ban on genitive predicates. Section 5.2.3 explores the predicate raising approach to th e derivation of the Austronesian predicate initial word order (Aldridge 2002; Chung 2006 ; Cole and Hermon 2008; Holmer 2005; Pearson 2001) On this account, it is because non subjects are contained in a syntactic island due to predicate raising that they c annot be extracted. After the discussion of these approaches in relation to Kavalan and Amis pseudo cleft questions, Section 5.2.4 adopts the predicate raising approach and offers an explanation for the extraction restriction in Kavalan and Amis. 5.2.1 Ext raction Restriction as Retriction on Subjects Despite their differences in details, Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992), Y. L. Chang (1997) and Rackowski and Richards (2005) all relate the extraction restriction to the syntactic derivation of subjects Austronesian languages. 5.2.1.1 Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992) The structure in (6) below is adopted by Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992) to derive the verb initial word order in Austronesian languages. (6) Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992) Under the assumption that the directionality of specifiers can be parameterized, verb initial and subject final word order can be derived by simply projecting the specifier of IP

PAGE 183

183 to the right. This results in a structure where the verb occurs in the sen tence initial position and the subject always appears at the end. In (6), the subject is base generated in the specifier of VP per VP Internal Subject Hypothesis and undergoes movement to the right specifier of IP, deriving VOS. It is argued that this stru cture can account for the split of subject properties in Austronesian languages, showing that while extraction facts and floating quantifiers are associated with Spec, IP, reflexivization and Equi NP deletion are properties of Spec, VP. For Guilfoyle, Hung and Travis (1992), the subject position in Spec, IP plays an important syntactic role in extraction in that only arguments that move to this position movement. As for the theoretical motivation for movement to Spec, IP, they suggest that this movement is Case driven. In an agent voice construction, the agent voice marker is base generated in V and V can assign Case to the theme. The Case less agent thus has to move to Spec, IP for Case. In a patient voice construction, t he patient voice marker is base generated in INFL and assigns Case to the agent. The theme is Case less and thus moves to Spec, IP to receive Case. Finally, in a circumstantial voice construction, where the verb takes a circumfix composed of both AV and PV the agent can receive Case from PV and the theme can receive Case from AV; a third NP argument, e.g., instrument, which does not have Case, thus moves to Spec, IP for Case. 5.2.1.2 Y. L. Chang (1997) The right specifier analysis is also adopted by Y. L. Chang (1997) to explain the word order of two Formosan languages: Seediq and Kavalan. Unlike Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992), however, he argues that the movement to Spec, IP is not Case

PAGE 184

184 driven, but is motivated by the Obligatory Voice Checking Constrai nt as formulated below. (7) The Obligatory Voice Checking Constraint Sentence subjects are required to move through Spec VoiceP to voice check their thematic features with the voice head before they reach Spec, IP. (Y. L. Chang 1997: 172) Y. L. Chan g (1997) assumes that voice markers head their own projections, i.e., Voice Phrase. Due to the Extended Projection Principle, a sentence must have a subject. Before the subject DP can move to the right specifier of IP, it must raise to an intermediate posi tion, i.e., the specifier of VoiceP in order to check its thematic features against the head of the VoiceP. This can be shown schematically in (8). (8 ) The Obligatory Voice Checking Constraint (Y. L. Chang 1997) Y. L. Chang (1997) further argue s that the Obligatory Voice checking Constraint can account for the celebrated extraction facts by showing that syntactic operations that movement are voice sensitive in that the moved DP, like the subject in (8), must agree with the voice marke r on the verb in terms of its thematic role. In other words, if the verb takes the agent voice marker, the moved DP must be the agent; if the verb takes the patient voice marker, the moved DP must be the theme. The structure in

PAGE 185

185 (8) can thus explain not onl y the verb initial word order but also the fact that only the movement. The following examples are Seediq relative clauses and they demonstrate that only nominative subjects can be relativized. (9) Seediq (Chang 1997: 142) a. egu (ka) seediq i [m ari patis Nominative i ] many NOM person AV buy book b. *egu (ka) patis i [m ari Accusative i seediq] many NOM book AV buy person c. egu (ka) patis i [burig un na seediq Nominative i ] many NOM book buy PV GEN person d. *egu (ka) seediq i [burig un Genitive i patis] many NOM person buy PV book As shown in (9), relative clauses in Seediq follow the head noun they modify. In (9a) and (9c), the gapped DPs, or the empty operators, serve as the subject. In (9b) and (9d), the gapped DPs are not subjects. Only (9a) and (9c) are grammatical. This can be explaine d by the Obligatory Voice Checking Constraint according to Chang (1997). When the empty operator in a relative clause moves out of VP, it must land in the specifier of VoiceP to check its thematic features. If there is a clash, e.g., the patient theta role against the agent voice marker (9b) or the agent theta role against the patient voice marker (9d), the Obligatory Voice Checking Constraint would be violated and the derivation would crash. 5.2.1.3 Rackowski and Richards (2005) Rackowski and Richards (200 5) argue that specific arguments must undergo

PAGE 186

186 way to object shift in Germanic languages. Crucial to their analysis is the assumption that the so called voice affix es in Tagalog are Case morphological agreement on the verb with the shifted argument. Consider the following examples. (10) Tagalog (Rackowski and Richards 2005: 566) a. bili ang bata ng tela sa palengke para < NOM >buy ANG child OBL cloth DAT market for sa nanay DAT Mother The child b. bili ng bata ang tela sa palengke para < ASP >buy ACC OBL child ANG cloth DAT market for sa nanay DAT Mother the cloth c. bilh an ng bata ng tela ang palengke para < ASP >buy DAT OBL child OBL cloth A NG market for sa nanay DAT Mother at the market d. i bili ng bata ng tela sa palengke OBL < ASP >buy OBL child OBL cloth DAT market ang nanay ANG Mother ket for Mother ang and they must be interpreted as edge of vP due to the EPP feature on v and is assigned a specific int erpretation. (11) is When a specific argument is shifted to the edge of vP, it triggers the Case agreement morphology on the verb. For example, in (10b), the shifted argument is the direct object, so the accusative Case affix is realized. Likewise, when the shifted argument denotes location, as in (10c), the dative Case agreement is triggered. Therefore, the so called

PAGE 187

187 voice markers in Philippine type languages are viewed as grammatical affixes that indicate Case agreement with a specific shifted argument. (11) As vP is a phase and only phrases that occupy the edge of a phase can be extracted (Chomsky 2000, 2001b), it follows that only shifted argument s in the edge of vP can undergo wh extracted in Tagalog is thus derived. Please refer to (2) for examples. 5.2.1.4 Discussion The proposals reviewed above are all able to account for the case restriction on the formation of pseudo cleft questions in Kavalan and Amis. Consider the examples in (12) and (13) from Kavalan and Amis. (12) Kavalan a. niana ya [Op i ala an ni utay ABS i ] what ABS take P V ERG PN that Utay takes is what?) b. *niana ya [Op i maytis ti abas OBL i ] what ABS AV .afraid NCM PN

PAGE 188

188 c. *niana ya [Op i qaRat an na ERG i zapan su] what ABS bite PV 3 SG ERG leg 2 SG GEN es (13) Amis a. u maan i ku [Op i ma alaw ay ni panay ABS i ] CN what ABS PV see FAC ERG PN Panay see? is what?) b. *u maan i ku [Op i ku OBL i ] CN what ABS < AV >eat ABS frog c. *u maan i ku [Op i ma ERG i ku CN what ABS PV eat ABS frog As a Kavalan and Amis pseudo cleft question takes a headless relative clause as the subject, the case marking restriction on its formation can be reduced to the extraction re striction on the operator movement in the headless relative clause. On the standard analysis movement of an empty operato r to the specifier of CP. In (12 a) the empty operator is the t heme argument of the verb in a p atient voice construction. On (1992) account, the patient voice marker can only assign Case to the agent argument, so the empty operator, which bears the theme theta role, must move to Spec, IP for Case. It can further move to the C domain as Spec, IP is a legitimate position for extraction. On Y. can pass the Obligatory Voice Checking Constraint because it can move to the specifier of VoiceP to voice check the thematic feature against the patient voice marker. It can thus undergo further movement to Spec, IP and then to Spec, CP. For Rackowski and Richards (2005), the empty operator is attracted to the edge of vP by the EPP feature

PAGE 189

189 on v and triggers accusative Case agreement on the verb (the patient voice marker in our terminology). The derivation of the headless relative clause in (13a) works in a similar fashion. The derivations of both (12a) and (13a) are thus convergent as no constraints regarding Case, voic e checking, or Phase Impenetrability Condition are violated. By contrast, the empty operators in (12b), (12c), (13b), and (13c) cannot be extracted to Spec, CP. In both (12b) and (13b), the empty operator corresponds to the oblique theme argument of the ve rb in an agent voice construction. It is not allowed to move to Spec, IP either because it is already assigned Case by the agent voice marker per Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992) or because its thematic feature contradicts the agent voice marker in viola tion of the Obligatory Voice Checking Constraint formulated by Y. L. Chang (1997). Not being able to move to Spec, IP, the only legitimate position (2005) account, they do not occupy the edge of the vP phase and thus are not eligible for extraction. This is also true of the empty operators in (12c) and (13c). Their derivations thus crash. Despite the ostensible explanation for the constraints on Kavalan and Amis pseudo clef t questions, these approaches are faced with either empirical or theoretical challenges. The first issue concerns the generalization on the legitimate position for extraction. Irrespective of the theoretical motivation for movement, what is crucial to Guil foyle, Hung, and Travis (1992) and Y. L. Chang (1997) is that only subject extracted. This

PAGE 190

190 Hierarchy. Subject is the highest on this hierarchy and is most accessible to extraction across languages. The theoretical reason for the contrast between subjects and non subjects concerning extraction to Spec, CP is not directly dealt with in Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992 ). The lack of a theoretical explanation does not mean that their approach is wrong, but this is an important issue that must be addressed. Y. L. Chang (2007) and Rackowski and Richards (2005) do provide their own respective explanation, but their approach es are inadequate in the context of Kavalan and Amis. The Obligatory Voice Checking Constraint proposed by Y. L. Chang (2007) stipulates that the argument that moves out of VP should first raise to Spec, VoiceP to check its thematic feature against the voi ce marker. This explains the contrast between subjects and non subjects concerning extraction to Spec, CP as non subjects fail to pass this constraint and thus can never raise to Spec, IP and Spec, CP. However, this semantic agreement approach is problemat ic in that there is no one to one correspondence between the voice marker and the thematic role of the absolutive subject argument. For example, the absolutive argument of an agent voice sentence in Kavalan and Amis can be an agent (14a, 15a), an experienc er (14b, 15b), or the theme of an unaccusative verb (14c, 15c). (14) Kavalan a. tanuz=ti ya tu l iq a yau tu wasu < AV >chase = PFV ABS wasp LNK that OBL dog That wasp chased a dog. b. m u Retut= iku taita ti abas an AV surprised=1 SG ABS < AV >see NCM P N LOC I am surprised to see Abas. c. tibuq=ti ya qubu na < AV >fall= PFV ABS hat 3 SG GEN pear_ipay, NTU corpus)

PAGE 191

191 (15) Amis a. mi pitpit cingra tu nasi nira AV pluck 3 SG ABS OBL pear 3 SG GEN pe ar_panay, NTU corpus) b. ma furaw kaku tu pi takaw nira tu AV angry 1 SG ABS OBL PI steal 3 SG GEN OBL paysu aku money 1 SG GEN c. ma pulin cingra AV fall 3 SG ABS The Obligatory Voice Checking Constraint, which relies on the agreement between a voice marker and the thematic role of an NP, does not adequately reflect the function of voice markers. It is thus highly improbable that it is the underlying mecha nism for the derivation of Kavalan and Amis clauses. It is not a satisfactory explanation for the constraint that only absolutive subjects can be extracted to Spec, CP. based theory of synta x, especially the Phase Impenetrability Condition. The most crucial assumption of their explanation is that the so called voice markers are Case agreement affixes on verbs. When a specific argument is shifted to the specifier of vP for correct semantic int erpretation, it triggers a corresponding Case agreement affix on the verb. Such agreement affixes are viewed as overt morphological evidence for the movement of a DP to the edge of vP. However, this explanation cannot apply to Kavalan and Amis. As will be demonstrated in Section 6.2, voice markers in Kavalan and Amis are not inflectional affixes that agree with a specific DP in Case. They should be analyzed as

PAGE 192

192 the vP edge in Kavalan and Amis. Whether the phase based approach can better explain the extraction restriction in Kavalan and Amis remains unclear. 5.2.2 Extraction Restriction as Ban on Genitive Predicates While the proposals discussed in the preceding secti on all resort to the derivation of subjects in their attempt to explain the extraction restriction, Kaufman (2009) advocates a radical approach to the clause structure of Austronesian languages and suggests that the extraction restriction be reformulated a s the restriction on the types of the extraction restriction, a brief introduction to the motivation for his proposal is necessary. It has long been observed that voice ma rkers in Austronesian languages can participate in both the verbal and nominal derivations (Ferrell 1982; P. Li 2002; Starosta 2002). This is illustrated by the following examples from Pazih, a Formosan language. (16) Pazih ( P. Li 2002 : 233) a. saa IV tie b. saa nuang ki kahuy IV tie cow NOM tree c. pu an pave stone LV d. pu an lia k i babaw daran pave stone LV ASP NOM above road The instrumental voice marker saa is a verbal prefix in (16b), but it functions to derive a noun in (16a). The locative voice mark er an also has dual functions, as illustrated by

PAGE 193

193 (16c) and (16d). The following examples demonstrate that voice affixed forms can also be interpreted as nouns in Tagalog. Each voice marker derives a specific type of nouns. The agent voice marker derives a n agent (17a) and the patient voice marker derives a patient (17b). Likewise, the locative voice marker derives a location (17c) and the circumstantial voice marker derives an instrument or a beneficiary (17d). (17) Tagalog (Kaufman 2009: 5) a. ang=bi li NOM =< AV >buy b. ang=bili NOM =< ASP >buy PV c. ang=bil han NOM =< ASP >buy LV d. ang=i bili NOM = CV < ASP >buy In order to account fo r the syncretism of voice markers and nominalization markers in Austronesian languages, Kaufman (2009) proposes a nominalist analysis of Austronesian clause structure. He argues that t here is no v the category deter mining head of verbs, in these languages Instead, l exical roots have to merge with n What is most crucial to his analysis is that the so called v oice markers in Austronesian languages are similar to English er / ee nominalizations. In other words, voice markers derive nouns, not verbs. The str ucture of a voice marked nominal clause is represented in (18). As shown in this structure, lexical roots must be merged with n This explains why lexical roots always denote entities when they occur alone. The phrase that is

PAGE 194

194 merged in Spec, n P receives ge nitive case and is interpreted as a possessor by default. The phrases in (19) are examples of n P in Tagalog. (18) (19) Tagalog (Kaufman 2009: 33) a. slat ni=Juan b. patay ni=Juan write GEN =Juan kill GEN =Juan When an n P is merged with Voice, the head where the so called voice markers are inserted, the root moves to Voice and the voice marker restricts the denotation of the root to a particular type of participant, i.e., agent, patient, location, and instrument or beneficiary. This results in the forms exemplified in (17), where each voice marker derives a corresponding type of noun. If the phrase in Spec, n P moves to Spec, VoiceP, it will acquire the theta role of an agent. On this account, as the re are no verbs, a full finite clause must be derived via predication, as shown in (20). In (20), t he subject DP is base generated as the

PAGE 195

195 complement of T, whereas the predicate DP is contained in PredP, which is merged in Spec, TP. (20) On this nominalist analysis, a more literal translation of the following Tagalog sentence this sentence, i.e., ang=psa NOM generated as the complement of T in (20). The predicate is also a DP, kin nang=dag AV >eat GEN derived via the affixation of the agent voice marker and thus denotes the agent (21) Tagalog a. kin nang=dag ang=psa < AV >eat GEN =rat NOM =cat b. so ang=nag ngay dog NOM = AV noise Moreover, what used to be analyzed as a headless relative clause, e.g., the nominative marked clause in (21b), is in fact a DP that is derived by attaching the voice marker to the root, as in the structure represented in (18). A concomitant consequence of the nominalist analysis that is pertinent to Kavalan and Amis interrogat ive sentences is that what we consider to be a pseudo cleft question

PAGE 196

196 would not have a headless relative clause as the subject. Instead, the subject is a DP that takes the nominal deriving marker, i.e., the voice marker, without the syntactic operation of r (22) Kavalan niana ya [qaRat tu zapan su] what ABS < AV >bite OBL leg 2 SG GEN es ng that bit es your leg is what?) (23) Amis u maan ku [ma alaw ay ni panay] CN what ABS PV see FAC GEN PN nay sees is what?) On this interpretation, the celebrated extraction condition in Austronesian languages cannot result from the syntactic constraints on wh movement, whatever they may be, as there is no such movement at all. Kaufman (20 09) instead argues that the extraction restriction observed in Austronesian languages should be re formulated as the restriction on the types of predicates that are allowed. The contrast between the following two sentences illustrates that Tagalog does not allow a genitive phrase to be utilized as a predicate. (24) Tagalog (Kaufman 2009: 28) a. *ni=juan ang=koponan GEN = PN NOM =team b. kay=juan ang=koponan OBL = PN NOM =team The possessor predicate must tak e the oblique case marker (24b), but not the genitive case marker (24a). Therefore, the ungrammaticality of (25a) is not due to any restriction

PAGE 197

197 on what DPs can be extracted, but arises from the general ban on genitive predicates in the language. (25) Tagal og a. *nino ang=binili who. GEN NOM =buy. PV (Kaufman 2009: 31) b. sino ang=bili nang=tla who. NOM NOM =< AV >buy GEN =cloth (Kaufman 2009: 4) iction in Austronesian languages should be re conceived of as the general ban on genitive predicates cannot apply to Kavalan and Amis interrogative sentences. 1 First of all, unlike Tagalog, genitive predicates in Kavalan and Amis are allowed whether they a re interrogative or non interrogative. In Kavalan, the genitive/possessive pronominal form of a proper name is formed via the affixation of zani to the proper name. The genitive/possessive form of the person interrogative word, i.e., zanitiana n be decomposed into zani and tiana (26). The examples in (27) illustrate that genitive/possessive forms of personal pronouns and interrogative phrases in Amis can also occu r in the predicate position. Therefore, there is no ban on genitive predicates in the two languages and the restriction on the formation of a pseudo cleft question cannot be attributed to this factor. That is, the fact that a genitive/ergative argument can not be questioned via the pseudo 1 There are other problems of the nominalist analysis when it is applied to Kavalan and Amis clause structure. We will limit our dicussion here to the problems that are relevant to the formation of interrogative sentences. Interested readers can refer to D. Lin (2010) for a more detailed discussion on why the nominalist analysis cannot account for the clause structure derivation in Kavalan.

PAGE 198

198 cleft strategy does not arise from the condition that governs what types of phrases can be used as predicates in the two languages. (26) Kavalan a. zani imuy ya wasu zau POSS PN ABS dog this b. zaniti ana=ay kelisiw ya ala an=ay ni utay whose= REL money ABS take PV = REL ERG PN Utay take? is whose money?) (27) Amis a. maku ku ra wacu 1 SG POSS ABS that dog b. nima wawa ku ra ma tu ay whose child ABS that AV fall FAC genitive arguments as predicates in a pseudo cleft structure, but does not o ffer an explanation for why oblique arguments cannot be questioned via this strategy either. In Chapter 2, we have shown that a question that targets the genitive or oblique argument cannot be formed via the pseudo there is a ban on genitive predicates cannot be extended to resolve the same issue regarding oblique arguments because oblique predicates are possible in Tagalog, as already shown in (24b). The explanation offered by Kaufman is not general enough to captu re the same restriction on the extraction of genitive and oblique arguments and is thus dispreferred.

PAGE 199

199 5.2.3 Extraction Restriction and Predicate Raising The final approach to the explanatio n of the extraction restriction that we will discuss attributes the restric tion to how the verb initial word order in Austronesian languages is derived. Despite variations in technical details, the proponents of this appro ach all argue that the Austrone s i an verb initial word order results from the movement of the predicat e phrase to the specifier position of some functional head that is structurally higher than the nominative/absolutive argument. Setting aside the exact theoretical mechanisms, the basic argument is that since the predicate phrase occurs in a specifier posi tion, a syntactic island for extraction, nothing in the predicate phrase can be extracted, whereas the nominative/absolutive argument is exempt from this restriction due to its position outside the predic ate phrase island. We adopt this approach and show t hat it can successfu lly account for the restriction on the formation of pseudo cleft questions in Kavalan and Amis in Section 5.2.4. verb initial languages to re examine the right specifier analysis and provide alternative ways to derive verb initial word order from the underlying SVO order. One recent popular view is that verb initial word order, especially VOS, is derived by Predicate Raising, which involves the fronting of VP, TP or even higher functional projections (Aldridge 2002; Chung 2006 ; Cole and Hermon 2008; Holmer 2005; Pearson 2001). This approach claims that after the subject DP moves out of VP/PredP/TP, the remnant VP/PredP/TP, along with the complement and the trace of the subject, undergoes phrasal movement to the specifier of a functional projection that is higher than the landing site of the subject. The tree in (28) is a schematic representation of this analysis.

PAGE 200

200 (28) This derivation for verb initial word order does not need to resort to right specifiers and In addition to the theoretical concern of Antisymmetry, it is also argued that the predicate raising approach to verb initial word order can pr ovide a natural account for a number of empirical facts in these languages. It makes a strong prediction about extraction or movement. Since the predicate phrase, VP or TP, moves to the specifier position of a functional projection, it becomes a syntactic island out of which nothing can be extracted. This prediction is borne out in many verb initial languages where only subjects, but not other arguments in VP, can be extracted for movement (Aldridge 2002, 2006; Chung 2006; Cole and Hermon 2008; Rackowski an d Travis 2000). As shown in (28), since the subject has moved out of the predicate phrase, it is not contained in the predicate phrase island and can thus be extracted and undergo further movement. By contrast, the object moves along with the predicate phr ase to the specifier and remains inside the island. It thus cannot be extracted. Consider the following wh questions of Seediq. (29) Seediq (Aldridge 2002: 394 395) a. ima ka [Op i [wada m ari patis ni] ABS i ] who ABS PFV AV buy book DEF

PAGE 201

201 b. *ima ka [Op i [wada burig un ERG i ] patis ni] who ABS PFV buy PV book DEF c. [m n ari inu patis] Ape AV PFV buy where book Ape d. *inu i [m n ari t i patis] Ape where AV PFV buy book Ape Argument wh questions in Seediq are pseudo clefts with an interrogative predicate followed by a headless relative clause, e.g., (29a). In this headless relative clause, only the absolutive operator can be extracted, as shown in (29a ). If the operator is not the absolutive subject, the extraction is ungrammatical, as shown in (29b). Unlike argument wh questions, adverbial wh questions in Seediq are in situ, e.g., (29c). Extraction of the interrogative adverbial, inu ntence initial position in (29d) results in ungrammaticality. These facts about extraction can be explained in a straightforward way under the predicate raising analysis. The absolutive subject in Seediq has moved out of the predicate phrase before the pre dicate phrase is fronted to the specifier of a higher functional projection. It is not within the PredP island and thus its extraction is legitimate. By contrast, ergative arguments and adverbial interrogative phrases remain inside the predicate phrase whe n the predicate phrase moves. Any attempt to extract them out of PredP would incur a violation of the island constraint. Extraction facts thus provide a strong empirical argument for the predicate raising approach to verb initial word order.

PAGE 202

202 5.2.4 Restrict ions on Pseudo Cleft Questions in Kavalan and Amis With this background on predicate raising, we can now elucidate how this approach can account for the case restrictions on the formation of pseudo cleft questions in Kavalan and Amis. In order to formalize the derivation of the headless RC subject in a pseudo cleft question, we adopt the standard analysis of the derivation of RCs That is, a relative clause is a CP that is adjoined to an NP. The relative clause CP contains a null operator that corresponds t o the gap of the relative clause and undergoes wh movement to Spec, CP. We further assume with Aldridge (2002, 2006) and Pearson (2001) that the absolutive subject argument must move to the Topic Phrase (TopP) and this is followed by the movement of TP to the Focus Phrase (FocP) or the outer specifier of the Topic Phrase. The empirical evidence for the movement of the absolutive subject to TopP in Kavalan will be discussed in Section 5.3.4. The movement of the absolutive subject to Spec, TP is triggered by the need for feature checking. Top has uninterpretable [op] and [D] features that need to be checked against compatible features before spell out. The absolutive DP argument is eligible to check both features because it not only possesses the inherent [D] feature but is also assigned an interpretable [op] feature, which is responsible for the scope property of topics. We will use the pseudo cleft questions in (30) and (31) for illustration. (30) Kavalan a. ti tiana ya [Op i qan tu may ku ABS i ] NCM who AB S < AV >eat OBL rice 1 SG GEN at eats my rice is who?) b. *ti tiana ya [Op i pukun=isu OBL i ] NCM who ABS < AV >hit=2 SG ABS

PAGE 203

203 c. *ni tiana ya [Op i ala an ERG i ya kelisiw ku ] ERG who ABS take PV ABS mon ey 1 SG GEN (31) Amis a. cima ku [Op i mi takaw ay tu payci ABS i ] who ABS AV steal FAC OBL money money is who?) b. *cima ku [Op i mi ay ku wacu OBL i ] who ABS AV chase FAC ABS dog c. *cima ku [Op i ma tawal ay ERG i ci panay ] who ABS PV forget FAC NCM PN (32) Take (30a) as an example. The sentence contains a headless relative clause as the subject. The gapped DP argument i n the relative clause is the agent argument of the AV marked verb and is syntactically represented by a null operator. The null operator can value the uninterpretable absolutive Case feature on the finite T of this relative clause. Next, it moves to Spec, TopP to check the uninterpretable [op] and [D] features

PAGE 204

204 on Top. This movement is followed by the movement of the remnant TP to Spec, FocP. As the null operator has moved out of TP to Spec, TopP, it is not trapped inside a syntactic island. It can thus be e xtracted to Spec, CP. The tree in (32) represents the derivation. By contrast, if the null operator in the headless RC subject is not the absolutive argument, it will appear in a syntactic island after TP moves to Spec, FocP. We will use (30c) for illustra tion. In the headless RC subject of this sentence, the null operator, or the gapped argument, is the agent argument of the PV marked verb and can thus receive the inherent ergative case from the patient voice marker. It is the absolutive theme argument, ya kelisiw ku ABS money 1 SG GEN absolutive case feature on the finite T and check the uninterpretable [op] and [D] features on Top. After TP moves to FocP, the empty operator cannot be extracted to Spec, CP because TP occ upies a specifier position and constitutes a syntactic island. If it is extracted out of TP, as in (30c), the derivation cannot converge. The derivation of the headless RC subject in (30c) can be schematically represented by the tree in (33). (33)

PAGE 205

205 To summarize, the reason why a pseudo cleft question can only inquire about the absolutive argument is because only the null absolutive operator in the headless RC subject can be extracted to Spec, CP. It moves to Spec, TopP before TP raises to Spec, F ocP. It is not inside a syntactic island and is thus eligible for extraction. By contrast, if the null operator stands for an ergative or oblique argument, it will move to Spec, FocP together with TP. As it appears in a syntactic island, no extraction is a llowed. Therefore, the predicate raising approach not only derives the predicate initial word order of Kavalan and Amis in a Kaynian system of phrase structure but also accounts for the extraction restriction in a straightforward way without invoking any s pecial mechanisms. The only problem is that it does not easily explain why the predicate or TP is fronted to a position higher than the subject. One plausible explanation concerns the information structure of verb initial Austronesian languages. According to Aldridge (2006), in verb initial Austronesian languages, the phrase in the clause initial position tends to be interpreted as focus, whereas the DP that follows it denotes presupposed information. When a DP moves to the CP domain, e.g., Spec, TopP, a no n DP must subsequently move to a higher position and precede the DP. Aldridge (2006) thus makes the descriptive generalization that movement of an absolutive DP to Spec, TopP triggers the projection of FocP and the movement of a predicate phrase to Spec, F ocP. How this idea can be implemented in a more formal way is beyond the scope of this dissertation. 5.3 Restrictions on Wh in Situ After the discussion of the restriction on the formation of pseudo cleft questions, this section turns to the issue of the wh in situ construction in Kavalan and Amis. The

PAGE 206

206 two languages exhibit distinct patterns of grammatical wh in situ sentences. All types of interrogative phrases in Amis, regardless of their case or grammatical function, can stay in situ to form a constitue nt question. By contrast, a Kavalan constituent question is ungrammatical if it contains an in situ interrogative phrase that receives absolutive case and functions as a subject. However, mayni = ay REL constraint. The noun ph rase that it modifies can stay in situ regardless of its case or grammatical function. The issue of what types of interrogative phrases can stay in situ in a non cleft construction does not receive as much attention as the issue of cleft or pseudo cleft qu estions in Austronesian linguistics. The primary view invokes the semantic/pragmatic status of the absolutive DP subject as an explanation (Cole, et al. 2003; Richards 1998; Sabel 2003), which will be reviewed in Section 5.3.1. Law (2006), however, present s different empirical facts of the wh in situ construction and ascribes the grammaticality of a wh in situ sentence to the formal marking of the in situ wh proposal will be reviewed in Section 5.3.2. The applicability of the two views to the analysis of the Kavalan and Amis wh in situ construction will be explored in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. The findings suggest that no single approach is able to accommodate 06) generalization, the wh in situ pattern in Kavalan can be explained by the primary view. 5.3.1 Absolutive DP Subject as Topic According to Cole, et al. (2003), Richards (1998), and Sabel (2003), a wh phrase cannot appear in the structural subject positi on in Javanese, Tagalog, and Malagasy. That is, a constituent question that contains an in situ wh phrase in the subject position is ungrammatical in these Austronesian languages. This constraint is illustrated by the

PAGE 207

207 contrast between (a) and (b) in the fo llowing pairs of sentences from Tagalog and Malagasy. (34) Tagalog (Richards 1998: 266) a. bili ang lalaki ng ano sa tindahan < AV >buy ANG man OBL what DAT store b. *bili ng lalaki ang ano sa tindahan < ASP >buy. PV OBL man ANG what DAT store (35) Malagasy (Sabel 2003) a. nividy inona Rabe buy. PST AV what Rabe b. *novidin dRabe inona buy. PST PV Rabe what In (34a), which is an agent voice sentence, ano by ng and the sentence is grammatical. However, (34b), which is a patient voice sentence with ano ang is ungrammatical. The Malagasy examples in (35) show the same pattern. In situ inona the object position in (35a), but it cannot appear in the sentence final subject position, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (35b). Cole, et al. (2003), Richards (1998), and Sabel (2003) all suggest that the ban on in situ interrogative subjects is due to the semantic or pragmatic status of the subject position. On their account, the so called subjects in Austronesian languages are topics and they must be definite or specific. For example, in the following patient voice sentence from Tagalog, the subject, or the topic, must be interpreted as a specific entity, whereas the non subject argument can be either specific or non specific.

PAGE 208

208 (36) Tagalog (Richards 1998: 265) bili ng lala ki ang kalabaw < ASP >buy OBL man ANG water.buffalo Likewise, subjects in Malagasy cannot be indefinite, as illustrated below. (37) Malagasy (Sabel 2003) a. *matory zaza sleeps child b. matory ny zaza sleeps the child As the use of a wh knowledge of a referent, it is difficult to interpret it as specific or definite without a special con text. Therefore, these Austronesian linguists conclude that the wh in situ restriction in Austronesian languages results from the incompatibility between the semantics/pragmatics of a wh phrase and the subject position, which is always associated with topi c features. 5.3.2 Formal Marking of Subject DP Law (2006) investigates the distribution of in situ interrogative phrases in Malagasy, Tagalog, and Tsou, and argues that the ban on in situ interrogative phrases in the subject position does not result from t he definiteness/specificity requirement on the subject. He claims that as long as an interrogative phrase in the subject position can be formally marked in the same way as its non interrogative counterpart, it can stay in situ. In other words, if its forma l marking fails to conform to the requirement on how a subject DP should be marked, it is forbidden from staying in situ. Law, the nominative DP subject in sentence final argumen t position cannot be a bare N,

PAGE 209

209 but must be headed by an overt D. If it is a common noun, it must be preceded by the determiner ny or a demonstrative, as illustrated in (38a), (38b), and (38c). Pronouns belong to the category of D, so they can occur in the nominative subject position alone, as shown in (38d). Proper names often take the prefix ra or i which is assumed to be of the category D, so they can also occupy the nominative argument position without the determiner ny as shown in (38e). (38) Malagasy (Law 2006: 169) a. novidin dRabe *(ny) trondro bought. PV PN DET fish b. nividy (ny) trondro *(ny) vehivavy bought. AV DET fish DET woman c. nividy (ny) trondro (*ny) ity vehivavy ity bought. AV DET fish DET this woman this d. nividy (ny) trondro (*ny) izy bought. AV DET fish DET 3. SG e. nividy (ny) trondro (*ny) Rasoa bought. AV DET fish DET PN Paul (2009) argues that the determiner ny in the subject position is not associated with definiteness or familiarity. This suggests that the obligatory presence of ny in the subject position is a formal requirement on the Malagasy subject, not a semantic or discourse requirement. shows that if an interrogative phrase in the subject position can be headed by the overt D, ny it can stay in situ in the sentence final subj ect position. This is illustrated by the

PAGE 210

210 following grammatical sentences, where the interrogative phrase is preceded by ny and occurs in situ. (39) Malagasy (Law 2006: 177) a. hitan dRabe ny iza see. PV PN DET picture who b. hitan dRabe ny inona see. PV PN DET what c. vakin dRabe ny fiara iza buy. PV PN DET car what In other words, as long as a nominative interrogative phrase obeys the requirement that a nom inative DP subject be headed by an overt D, it can stay in situ. This requirement is independently needed for non interrogative nominative arguments too. By contrast, this requirement of formal marking does not apply to non nominative or non subject argume nts, whether they are interrogative or not. Therefore, if an interrogative phrase is not the nominative argument in the subject position, there is no constraint on its formal marking and thus it can stay in situ without an overt D. This is illustrated by t he following sentences with an in situ non nominative interrogative phrase. (40) Malagasy (Law 2006: 179) a. nahita inona/iza i Rabe saw. AV picture what/who PN b. mandihy miaraka inona/iza ianao dance. AV together PREP what/who 2 SG c. mipetraka eo inona/iza i Rasoa sit. AV here next what/who PN

PAGE 211

211 It is worth noting that the interrogative phrase iza in situ when it serves as the nominative subject, whether it takes the determiner ny or not. The following two sentences are both ungrammatical. (41) Malagasy (Law 2006: 178, 180) a. *nividy trondro iza bought. AV fish who b. *n ividy trondro ny iza bought. AV fish DET who This seems to constitute a counterexample to the generalization that a nominative interrogative phrase can occur in situ as long as it is headed by an overt D. Nevertheless, Law (2006) a ttributes the ungrammaticality of (41b) to iza inability to take an overt determiner. As shown in (42a) and (42b) below, when a non human interrogative phrase occurs in the preverbal position before the focus marker no it can optionally take ny The interrogative phrase iza never be preceded by ny as illustrated by (42c). As iza D, it can never fulfill the requirement on the formal marking of a subject. Therefore, it can never a ppear in situ in the subject position at the end of a sentence (41b). (42) Malagasy (Law 2006: 179) a. (ny) inona no hitan dRabe DET what FOC saw. PV PN b. (ny) fiara iza no vakin dRabe DET car who FOC buy. PV PN c. (*ny) iza no nahita ny zaza DET who FOC see. AV DET child

PAGE 212

212 5.3.3 Wh in Situ in Amis subject position is banned due to the topic li ke status of this syntactic position does not apply to Amis. Unlike the Malagasy and Tagalog data discussed in Sabel (2003) and Richards (1998), Amis absolutive interrogative phrases can stay in situ in pragmatically neutral contexts. Some relevant example s are repeated in (43). (43) Amis a. cikay cima < AV >run who. ABS b. ma alaw isu ku nima wawa PV see 2 SG ERG ABS whose child c. ma efer ku maan AV fly ABS what d. ka ulah an isu ku icuw aay a wacu KA like LA 2 SG ERG ABS which LNK dog e. pa an ni ngaday ku pina a wacu CAU eat LA ERG PN ABS how.many LNK dog This pattern is unexpected on the analysis that attributes the ba n on in situ absolutive marked interrogative phrases to the [+specific] or [+definite] features associated with this syntactic position. The grammaticality of the sentences in (43) suggests that this restriction does not exist in Amis. Instead, we will arg ue that the well formedness of in situ absolutive interrogative phrases in Amis can be explained by the requirement on the formal marking of absolutive phrases, as proposed by Law (2006) for Malagasy, Tagalog, and Tsou. Moreover, we will show that this for mal requirement arises from the

PAGE 213

213 EPP feature on T that must be locally satisfied by a phrase with a phonologically As reviewed in Section 5.3.2, the subject of a Malagasy sentence cannot be a bare N, but must be preceded by a determiner. There is a similar formal requirement in Amis. When an Amis common noun occurs in the absolutive/subject position, it must be preceded by an overt absolutive case marker. Consider the following sentences. (44 ) Amis a. ma nu wacu *( ku ) wawa PV chase ERG dog ABS child b. ma nu wacu *(ku) ra wawa PV chase ERG dog ABS that child c. ma nu wacu *(ku) ni wawa PV chase ERG dog ABS this child As demonstrated by the examples in (44), the absolutive case marker is obligatory in Amis. 2 It cannot be omitted regardless of the presence/absence of a demonstrative. Personal proper names cannot be preceded by ku but they m ust take the non common noun marker ci as illustrated below. (45 ) Amis a. ma nu wacu *(ci )panay PV chase ERG dog NCM PN b ma nu wacu (* ku ) ci panay PV chase ERG dog ABS NCM PN 2 As discussed in Chapter 1, ku can be decomposed into k and u The former is the absolutive case marker, while the latter is the common noun classifier. As the internal structure of this marker is not directly relevant to the argumentation presented here, we i gnore this detail here for ease of exposition.

PAGE 214

214 There fore, like Malagasy, the absolutive phrase in an Amis sentence must be preceded by a phonologically overt element: ku for common nouns and ci for personal proper names. inter rogative phrases. An absolutive interrogative phrase can occur in situ as long as it conforms to this formal requirement. This prediction is borne out as Amis absolutive interrogative phrases can take the same markers and occur in situ. As illustrated in ( 43), the interrogative phrases that belong to the category of common nouns take the absolutive case marker ku Just like their declarative counterparts, the absolutive case marker cannot be omitted, or otherwise ungrammaticality arises, as illustrated belo w. (46) Amis a ma alaw isu nima wawa PV see 2 SG ERG whose child b ma efer maan AV fly what c ka ulah an isu icuwaay a wacu KA like LA 2 SG ERG which LNK dog d pa an ni ngaday pina a wacu CAU eat LA ERG PN how.many LNK dog As for the interrogative word for personal proper names, the non common noun marker ci is an inherent and obligatory morphological component of this word, cima other words, the internal morphological structure of cima requirement that a personal proper name be preceded by the non common noun marker. It is thus able to stay in

PAGE 215

215 Despite its descript ive accuracy, this analysis does not provide a principled formal explanation. It is theoretically incomplete as it does not explain the connection between the presence of a phonologically overt element before an interrogative phrase and the interrogative p situ. The following discussion will complement 3 According to Landau (2007), EPP is a PF condition that must be satisfied by a phonologically visible element. Moreover, the phonologically overt element that can satisfy the EPP condition must be the head of the selected phrase. That is, in the following configuration where H bears an EPP f eature [P], the head of the selected phrase ZP in the specifier must have some phonetic material. (47) [ HP ZP [ H [P] The EPP condition formulated by Landau (2007) offers a straightforward explanation for the distribution of bare nouns in Romance lan guages concerning the contrast between subject and object positions. (48) Spanish (Landau 2007: 491) a. Quiero caf b. Caf me gusta. coffee me pleases c. El caf me gusta. the coffee me pleases 3 explanation for the formal requirement on the subject in Malagasy and Amis. Paul (2009) mentions the possibilit y of this analysis in passing but does not provide a detailed and thorough discussion.

PAGE 216

216 (49) Italian (Landau 2007: 491) a. In questo ufficio incontro sempre marocchini in this office I.meet always Moroccans b. *In questo ufficio marocchini telefonano sempre. in this office Morocca ns call.up always c. In questo ufficio dei marocchini telefonano sempre. in this office of.the Moroccans call.up always As demonstrated by the Spanish and Ita lian examples in (48) and (49), bare nouns can occur in the object position (48a, 49a), but they cannot occupy the subject position (48b, 49b). When they occur in the subject position, they must be preceded by an overt determiner (48c, 49c). Landau (2007) thus argues that T has an EPP feature that selects for a specifier with an overt D head in Spanish and Italian. The subjects in (48c) and (49c) fulfill this PF requirement due to the presence of an overt determiner. For lack of a phonologically overt deter miner, the subjects in (48b) and (49b) cannot pass this PF condition and the sentences thus crash at PF. By contrast, bare nouns can occur in the object position because V does not bear an EPP feature and the PF requirement of an overt D is not imposed on object arguments. As EPP can distinguish subject positions from object positions in other aspects of syntax, one theoretical advantage of the analysis of EPP as a PF condition is that it can use the same principle to explain their contrast in the presence/ absence of an overt D without stipulating additional theoretical mechanisms like the Empty Category Principle. a Malagasy sentence must have an overt D can be viewed as a conco mitant

PAGE 217

217 consequence of an EPP feature on T that selects for D. If the subject in Spec, TP is a bare NP without the projection of D or with a null c commanding D head, the EPP requirement of T will not be satisfied and the derivation will crash at PF. Likewi se, the generalization that a phrase occupying the absolutive position must be preceded by the absolutive case marker in Amis can be attributed to an EPP feature on T to be satisfied by an overt head K at PF. (50) is a legitimate configuration of the TP pa rt of the Amis clause structure. (50) EPP on T in Amis The category of K in this structure might be D. The case marker ku in Amis serves the functions of D both syntactically and semantically. One of the functions of D is to turn an NP into an argument that can be manipulated in Syntax (Szabolcsi 1994). Case markers in Amis serve this function because all the NP arguments must be preceded by one of the case markers, ku nu or tu In addition to NP arguments, they are also able to introduce a cl ausal argument. Amis complement clauses can be nominal and are case marked. If the matrix verb takes the agent voice marker, the nominal complement clause is case marked as oblique, as shown in (51a), just like the theme argument in an agent voice sentence If the matrix verb takes the patient voice marker, the nominal complement clause is instead preceded by the absolutive case marker ku as illustrated in (51b). Amis nominal complement clauses can serve as either the oblique argument of

PAGE 218

218 an agent voice sen tence or the absolutive argument of a patient voice sentence. The case markers that introduce clausal arguments are obligatory as well. They can turn a nominal clause into an argument to be manipulated in Syntax. (51 ) Amis a. mi nanay kaku tu [ pi padang ni aki ] AV hope 1 SG ABS OBL PI help GEN PN tu safa OBL younger.sibling brother.) b. ma araw aku ku [ pi kalat nu wacu ci ofad an ] PV see 1 SG ERG ABS PI bite GEN dog NCM PN OBL According to Chierchia and Turner (1988), Ns are predicative, whereas D functions to provide referentiality for Ns. This function of D can be observed in the contrast between a nominal predicate and a nominal argument in Amis in terms of their formal marking. While nominal arguments in Amis must take one of the case markers, nominal predicates can only be preceded by the optional classifier u Consider the following sentences. (52) Amis a. (u) f afahian ku singsi aku CN woman ABS teacher 1 SG GEN b. (u) singsi ku ra fafahian CN teacher ABS that woman The noun fafahian ly take the common noun marker u It cannot be preceded by a case marker. By contrast, it is used as an argument in (52b), where it must take the absolutive case marker ku The noun singsi

PAGE 219

219 a rgument in (52a) and its use as a predicate in (52b). Bare NPs in Amis, with or without a classifier, can directly serve as nominal predicates. The addition of a case marker to an NP provides referentiality to the NP and turns it into an argument. Therefor e, case markers in Amis can be viewed as D. It is not unclear whether it is also associated with definiteness effect, but this is not crucial to its syntactic status as D (Simpson 2002). Personal proper nouns in Amis cannot take the absolutive case marker ku We assume that they move to D when they are used as arguments in Syntax. The requirement that an Amis absolutive phrase must be preceded by a phonologically overt element, ku or ci can thus be formalized as an EPP satisfaction requirement. The phrase in the specifier of a TP must be a DP and the head of this DP must have some phonetic material. Otherwise, the derivation will crash at PF. Amis non human interrogative phrases in the absolutive position can stay in situ because they are able to fulfill t his EPP requirement. They can be preceded by the absolutive case marker ku the head D. As for cima common noun classifier ci and like its non interrogative counterparts, can move to D when utilized as an argument. In ei ther case, D is phonologically visible and thus the EPP requirement can be satisfied. 5.3.4 Wh in Situ in Kavalan While absolutive interrogative phrases in Amis are able to stay in situ, this is not true of Kavalan. Except for mayni =ay REL interrogative phrases cannot appear in the absolutive subject position. (53) Kavalan a. *qan ya tiana tu may ku < AV >eat ABS who OBL rice 1 SG GEN

PAGE 220

220 b *qaRat ya niana tu zapan su < AV >bite ABS what OBL leg 2 SG GEN es you c. *qaRat an na wasu nay ya zanitiana saku bite PV ERG dog that ABS whose cat d *tayta ya kin tani sunis ti buya an < AV >see ABS HUM how.many child NCM PN OBL In what follows, interrogative phrases cannot be extended to Kavalan. Instead, the Kavalan wh in situ The explanation based on the formal requirement of the absolutive subject cannot account for the wh in situ pattern in Kavalan, where the absolutive subject does not need to be headed by an overt D in order to be licensed in that position. As shown below, the absolutive argument i n Kavalan can optionally take the case marker ya for both common nouns and personal proper names. (54) Kavalan a. m uRin (ya) sunis AV cry ABS child that /That b m tawa (ya) ti buya AV laugh ABS NCM PN The sentences in (54) demonstrate that the absolutive argument can be a bare NP without an overt D. The case marker is optional and so is the demonstrative in (54a). Kavalan is thus distinct from Amis and Malagasy in terms of the formal requiremen t on the absolutive argument. The formal requirement that an absolutive subject be

PAGE 221

221 accompanied by a phonologically overt element does not license Kavalan absolutive arguments. Since the absolutive argument in Kavalan does not need to be headed by an overt D and the absolutive case marker ya is optional, Kavalan does not seem to impose any this implies that there will be no requirement on the formal marking of in situ abs olutive interrogative phrases either. We would thus expect that an absolutive interrogative phrase should be able to occur in situ, whether it takes the absolutive case marker overtly or not. This prediction turns out to be wrong as Kavalan absolutive inte rrogative phrases cannot stay in situ, except for mayni =ay REL Unlike Amis, the EPP feature on T in Kavalan is not anchored by D and thus the phrase occupying Spec, TP does not need to have an overt D head. It is not anchored by N either. This is because the absolutive phrase can be a headless relative clause without an overt N, as illustrated below. (55) Kavalan ti utay (ya) [m ala=ay tu kelisiw ku] NCM PN ABS AV take= REL OBL money 1 SG GEN In (55), the h ead noun of the relative clause is phonetically empty and the absolutive marker is optional. This contrasts with Amis, where a headless relative clause must be preceded by the absolutive case marker ku to function as the subject. This is illustrated below. (56) Amis ci utay *(ku) [mi takaw ay tu payci aku] NCM PN ABS AV steal FAC OBL money 1 SG GEN

PAGE 222

222 Therefore, neither an overt D nor a pronounced N licenses an absolutive phrase in Kavalan. Nevertheless, there is st ill a constraint on what type of phrase can occur in the absolutive position in Kavalan. The head of the absolutive phrase must contain inherent phi features or [D] features, whether it is pronounced or not. Overt nouns, proper nouns, unpronounced nouns, a nd pronouns can all occupy the absolutive subject position in Kavalan. A complement clause in Kavalan, however, cannot be promoted to the absolutive subject position in a patient voice sentence, in contrast to Amis, which allows a complement clause to occu py the absolutive position as long as it is preceded by the case marker ku as shown in (51b). Complement clauses in Kavalan are headed by the complementizer tu They can be a full finite clause with their own tense or aspect markers, as shown in (57a) and (57b). They can also be nominalized clauses with the clausal nominalizer, an on the verb. This is illustrated in (57c) and (57d). Note that although the complementizer tu is identical to the oblique case marker tu in form, they should receive separate t reatments. This is because regardless of the voice marking on the matrix verb, a complement clause in Kavalan is always preceded by tu It cannot take the absolutive case marker ya even if the verb takes the patient voice marker, as illustrated by the ungr ammaticality of (57e). The ungrammaticality of absolutive CPs in Kavalan suggests that only a phrase whose head contains phi features can occupy the absolutive subject position, regardless of its phonological realization (cf. Amis in (51)). (57 ) Kavalan a. ipil=iku tu [ m qila=ti ya ti utai hear=1 SG ABS COMP AV scold= PFV ABS NCM PN ti abas an ] NCM PN LOC I heard that Utai scold ed Abas.

PAGE 223

223 b. kasianem an ku tu [ m lizaq ti utai tayta remember PV 1 SG ERG COMP AV like NCM PN < AV >see tu salekiaw an ] OBL dance NMZ I remember that Utai likes to see (others) dance. c. sanu an na=iku ni utay tu [ qa lizaq an ni buya tell PV 3 SG ERG =1 SG ABS ERG PN COMP QA like NMZ GEN PN tu tazungan nay ] OBL girl that Utay told me that Buya liked that girl. d. qa qenut an ku aisu tu [ ni pukun an su QA angry PV 1 SG ERG 2 SG ABS COMP PFV hit NMZ 2 SG GEN tu lazat nay ] OBL person that I am angry that you hit that person. e kasianem an ku ya [ qa lizaq an ni utai tu remember PV 1 SG ERG ABS QA like NMZ GEN PN OBL ta zungan nay ] girl that I remember that Utai likes that girl However, the requirement of the formal features does not explain the wh in situ pattern of Kavalan as tiana niana mayni =ay REL ssess phi features or [D] features. In addition to the formal requirement of phi features, there are also semantic and discourse constraints on the transitivity of di fferent Kavalan sentence types in discourse, definiteness plays a primary role in distinguishing between a tu marked oblique NP in an agent voice sentence and an absolutive NP in a patient voice sentence. While a tu marked oblique NP is interpreted as an i ndefinite theme, an absolutive NP denotes a definite theme. The contrast is illustrated by the sentences in (58) and (59) below. 4 4 The examples have been reglossed to reflect my analysis of the Kavalan clause structure.

PAGE 224

224 (58) Oblique NP as an indefinite theme in Kavalan (Liao 2004: 258 259) a. sangi tu < AV >make OBL boat b. m nanguy=ti talawma tu iRuR AV swim= PFV < AV >cross OBL river c. Ringu sangi tu namat a kubalan unable < AV >make OBL weapon ABS Kavalan (59) Absolutive NP as a definite theme in Kavalan (Liao 2004: 259 260) a. qat qatiw an na=ti a Rimuy an na=ti RED go PV 3 ERG = PFV ABS police.station kill PV 3 ERG = PFV a kingchat na ziptun ABS policeman GEN Japan b. taktak an na ya taqan na lepaw na bayblan cut.down PV 3 ERG ABS pillar GEN house GEN old.woman In addition to definiteness, Huang and Tanangkingsing (2011) have further argued that the discourse distinction between salient/topical and non salient/non topical arguments in Kavalan has been grammaticalized as the formal distinction between core and oblique arguments in the morphosyntactic case system. They inve stigate the different discourse distributions of a tu marked oblique NP in an agent voice sentence and an absolutive NP in a patient voice sentence. Their findings suggest that an absolutive NP in a patient voice sentence is more topical than a tu marked o blique NP in an agent voice sentence with regard to their participant tracking behaviors in discourse. An NP shows strong topic persistence when the referent it denotes is mentioned in subsequent clauses. By contrast, if an NP is not the topic of discourse it is

PAGE 225

225 participant tracking behavior refers to this discourse pattern of information flow regarding whether the referent that it denotes will be mentioned again in subs equent clauses. A tu marked oblique NP and an absolutive NP in Kavalan differ from each other in their participant tracking behaviors significantly (Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011). Whenever a referent is denoted by the absolutive NP in a patient voice sen tence, it is always mentioned again in the subsequent clauses and there are no exceptions to this discourse pattern. In other words, an absolutive NP exhibits strong topic persistence. Consider the following excerpt of a narrative. (60) Kavalan tayta an na ya paRin nani see PV 3 ERG ABS tree DM yau a usiq a izau e EXIST ABS one LNK this FIL tangan na paRin a yau m diyuq sayza hole GEN tree LNK that AV rotten probably qat iw an na m zaqis na sunis a yau go PV 3 ERG AV climb ERG child LNK that a paRin a yau nani ABS tree LNK that DM frog_Haciang, NTU Corpus) The first clause is a patient voice construction and the absolutive subjec t is paRin It is mentioned again in subsequent clauses. The second clause of this excerpt is an into the discourse. The third clause denotes the state of this tree. Finally, the last clause also describes what happened to the tree. In other words, the entire excerpt is

PAGE 226

226 concerned with the absolutive subject in the first clause, which exhibits strong topic persistence and functions like a topic. By contra st, the oblique NP in an agent voice sentence tends to introduce a non salient referent that will not be talked about again in the rest of the discourse. This discourse property of an oblique NP is illustrated by the following excerpt of a conversation. (6 1) Kavalan paluma=iku tu qawbiq plant=1 SG ABS OBL yam.leaves mudu=ita tu babuy masang nani AV .raise=1 IPL ABS OBL pig past DM Angry_pilaw_abas, NTU Corpus) Before this excerpt, the speaker me ntioned that she had to go to her vegetable farm in the morning although she and her children were still waiting for her husband. In (61 ), she digressed a little from the main story line and told the addressee what they used to plant and raise in the past. She provided this information simply because she mentioned her vegetable farm. This was irrelevant to the story that she was telling. After this excerpt, the speaker resumed her story and the oblique NPs introduced in these two clauses were never mentione d again in the subsequent discourse. To summarize, not only does a Kavalan absolutive phrase carry inherent phi features, but it also needs to be both definite and topical. We thus propose that a Kavalan absolutive phrase moves to Spec, TP to check the uni n features on T and then it moves to Spec, TopP to check the [op] (topic) feature on Top. The contrast between Kavalan and Amis in terms of the morphological marking of nominal complement clauses can thus have a principled explanation. In Kaval an, a nominalized

PAGE 227

227 complement clause is a CP headed by the complementizer tu and does not contain D features. Therefore, it can never be promoted to the absolutive subject position because it cannot move to Spec, TP to check the unint features on T. Its movement to this position would lead the derivation to crash at LF per Full Interpretation. As for Amis, the EPP feature on T requires the D head in its specifier featur es. Even though an features in Amis, it can still fulfill the EPP requirement of T as long as it is headed by an overt D. Note that a nominalized argument clause in Amis is a DP in that it must be preceded by a c ase marker instead of a complementizer. 5 As a topic, a Kavalan absolutive phrase also moves to Spec, TopP. In the de rivation of a Kavalan sentence, an interpretable scope feature, [op], is assigned to a [+definite] nominal argument that serves as the topic i.e., the absolutive argument. However, as shown in Section 4.2.2, Kavalan interrogative phrases also function as indefinites. Moreover, an interrogative phrase inherently encodes a request for new information, i.e., focus. Thus, an interrogative phrase like tiana niana not [+definite] and cannot serve as the topic, so it cannot be assigned the [op] feature. When it moves to the specifier of TopP, the uninterpretable [op] feature on Top cannot be checked since tiana niana features or [D] features. 5 The fact that Kavalan does not allow a CP to be a subject and the fact that Amis requires the subject of a clause to have an overt D seem to constitute counterexamples to the typology of subjects proposed by Davies and Dubinsky (2001). They argue that the clause structure of verb initial languages makes it impossible for these lan guages to require subjects to be a DP. However, a more thorough and comprehensive study on the subject properties of Kavalan and Amis is required before we can reach any valid conclusion in this regard.

PAGE 228

22 8 The derivation for (62a), which is schematically represented in (63), thus fails to obey the interface condition of Full Interpretation. (62 ) Kavalan niana a. *qaRat ya niana tu zapan su < AV >bite ABS w hat OBL leg 2 SG GEN es b. maytis tu niana ya ti abas AV .afraid OBL what ABS NCM PN c. qaRat an na niana ya zapan su bite PV ERG what ABS leg 2 SG GEN es (63) It is because t he uninterpretable [op] feature on Top cannot be checked that an interrogative sentence with an absolutive interrogative phrase is ungrammatical. By contrast, the derivation for a sentence where niana ergative argument, e.g., (62b ) and (62c), is convergent because there is no violation of any interface conditions like Full Interpretation. In both sentences, a [+definite] absolutive phrase can be assigned the [op] feature and can thus check the uninterpretable [op] feature of Top wh en it moves to Spec, TopP. The structure in (64) represents the derivation of (62c).

PAGE 229

229 (64) There is no feature that is not mapped to an interpretation at the interface, so the derivation converges at LF. The only issue that we have not addres sed so far concerns the syntactic distribution of mayni =ay REL has demonstrated that mayni =ay exhibits a different pattern than the other interrogative phrases Except for mayni =ay REL cannot stay in situ when it is marked absolutive in the subject position. We attribute this restriction to the inability of an interrogative phrase to move to Spec, TopP for lack of an interpretable [op] feature, which is assigned to a [+definite] DP. Howe ver mayni =ay = REL seems to be a counterexample to this analysis as it can utilize the wh in situ strategy regardless of how the NP t hat it modifies is case marked. We will argue that the distribution of mayni =ay REL unterexample, but instead corroborates our claim that the restriction on wh in situ in Kavalan results from where an absolutive argument has to move in the structural representation. T he different patterns exhibited by mayni =ay = REL and tiana niana

PAGE 230

230 discourse linked (D linked) and non discourse linked (non D linked) wh phrases proposed by Pesetsky (1987) is valid across languages and must be taken into account. Acc ording to Pesetsky (1987) proposal, the distinction between D linked and non D linked wh phrases is contingent on their discourse status. The answer to a question of a D linked wh phrase like which previ Pesetsky (1987) incorporates both LF movement and operator binding/unselective binding into the explanation for different patterns of w h in situ phrases. He shows that there is an asymmetry between D linked wh phrases ( which X ) and non D linked wh phrases ( what the hell ) based on certain syntactic tests like the Superiority Condition and island constraints. In situ D linked wh phrases beh ave like variables, whose interrogative force and scope are determined by a Question operator. They thus do not need to undergo LF movement to Spec, CP. In situ non D linked wh phrases on the other hand are real quantifiers/operators, which must undergo LF movement to Spec, CP. Their different semantic status, as a variable or as an operator, leads to their different syntactic behaviors in terms of the Superiority Condition, as shown below. (65) a. Who i did you persuade e i to read what? b. ??What j did you p ersuade whom to read e j ? (66) a. Which man i did you persuade e i to read which book? b. Which book j did you persuade which man to read e j ? According to Pesetsky (1987), the contrast between these two pairs of sentences can be attributed to the different d iscourse status of who / what and which NP Non D linked wh words like who and what

PAGE 231

231 movement. Superiority Condition is thus expected. By contrast, in situ D linked wh phrases like which NP are variables, whose scope is determined via unselective binding by a Q operator. They do not need to move at LF and are thus not subject to the Superiority Condition. Pesetsky further demonstrates that the same distinction based on discourse linking also applies to wh i n situ languages like Japanese. While the syntactic distinction between D linked wh phrases and non D linked wh phrases is acknowledged, the discourse motivation for the distinction is debatable. It has been pointed out that non D linked wh phrases can als o be used in contexts where D linked wh phrases should occur. For instance, suppose I have three cousins and we are talking about them. You can ask me either of the following questions and both of them are appropriate in this context. (67) a. Which cousin is your favorite? b. Who is your favorite? This suggests that who can also be D linked under some circumstances. Thus, there have been studies that attempt to attribute the so called D linking phenomenon to formal aspects of grammar like Syntax (Hirose 2 003; Shields 2008; Tsai 1997a) or Semantics (Rett 2006; Rullmann and Beck 1998). In what follows, we argue that the distinction between D linking and non D linking in Kavalan is a syntactic phenomenon. One noticeable difference between a D linked wh phrase and a non D linked wh phrase in Kavalan is that the former takes an additional marker = ay and forms a modification structure with its following noun. The relationship of modification is broadly and loosely defined. The marker = ay functions to introduce di verse kinds of modifiers of a noun, including relative clauses, adjectives, numerals, quantifiers, demonstratives, and possessors, as illustrated below.

PAGE 232

232 (68) Kavalan a. Raya=ay wasu big= REL dog b. u tulu=ay wasu NHUM three= REL dog c. mwaza=ay wasu many= REL dog d. zau=ay wasu this= REL dog e. zaku=ay wasu 1 SG POSS = REL dog Demonstratives and possessors can also occur in the post nominal position, but the occurrence of the ma rker = ay is forbidden in this position. (69) Kavalan a. wasu zau dog this b. wasu zaku dog 1 SG POSS The existence of a linker that connects a noun with its modifiers, broadly defined, has been observed in many languages, e.g ., Chinese, Thai, and Burmese (den Dikken and Singhapreecha 2004; Simpson 2001, 2002). According to den Dikken and Singhapreecha (2004) and Simpson (2001), a noun phrase where the noun and its modifiers are connected by a linker always involves predication Moreover, the presence of the linker induces predicate inversion.

PAGE 233

233 (70) DP internal Predicate Inversion construction is base generated as the subject and predi cate of a small clause (SC) respectively. The linker heads its own functional projection, FP, and prompts the predicate to move to Spec, FP. 6 The derivation is schematically represented by the structure in (70). Due to the parallel functions between = ay an d linkers connecting a noun and its modifier in other languages, we assume that = ay also heads its own functional projection, FP, and triggers DP internal Predicate Inversion. This explains why modifiers of nouns must be followed by = ay in the pre nominal position. Moreover, DP internal Predicate Inversion derives a restrictive modifier or a quantifying phrase. Restrictive modifiers include both intersective modifiers like color attributes and subsective modifiers like dimension attributes; both types occur in the = ay construction in Kavalan. Like other modifiers of nouns, mayni ay and occurs before the noun. A Kavalan mayni 6 d in D, not F. Except for this difference, his analysis is similar to den Dikken and Singhapreecha (2004) in that both analyses propose that the modification structure with a linker involves inversion.

PAGE 234

234 It also undergoes DP internal Predicate Inversio n, triggered by the presence of F, or = ay As an interrogative, mayni x into the derivation. Moreover, the domain of this free variable is restricted by the subject NP in the small clause. In Kavalan, it is this syntactic configuration of restrictive modification that contributes to the D linking interpretation of an interrogative phrase. In other words, the so called D linking phenomenon results from the syntactic structure of a phrase, not its discourse status, in Kavala n. (71) questions in Kavalan further corroborates the analysis of DP internal Predicate Inversion induced by = ay as the factor for D linking. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, zanitiana in the absolutive subject position. However, its grammaticality does improve if it occurs in the = ay construction. The grammaticality judgments are shown below. (72) Kavalan a. *tayta an ni imuy ya zanitiana sunis see PV ERG PN ABS who se child

PAGE 235

235 b. ??tayta an ni imuy ya zanitiana=ay sunis see PV ERG PN ABS whose= REL child While (72a) is outright ungrammatical, (72b), where = ay is inserted after zanitiana d much better to my consultants compared with (72a). By contrast, although tani take the modification marker = ay Note that = ay does occur on numerals that precede a noun, as shown i n (68b). The following pseudo cleft question illustrates that tani cannot take the modification marker = ay (73) Kavalan kin tani(*=ay) sunis ya pukun tu wasu HUM how.man= REL child ABS < AV >hit OBL dog This suggests tha t the structure of a noun phrase preceded by tani from the modification structure of mayni=ay REL internal Predicate Inversion induced by the linker. Therefore, an in situ tani phrase in the subj ect position is ungrammatical regardless of the presence of = ay as illustrated below. (74) Kavalan *qaRat an na wasu ya kin tani(=ay) sunis bite PV ERG dog ABS HUM how.man= REL child We do not have an explanation for why tani cannot take the modification marker though. Nevertheless, the distributions of in situ zanitian a tani support our analysis of D linking in Kavalan as a syntactic phenomenon. The different patterns exhibited by tiana niana and mayni =ay = REL linking

PAGE 236

236 status which results from their respective syntactic structure Since tiana niana non D linked, they are inherently non topical and thus an interpretable [op] feature cannot be assigned to them during the derivation. As shown above, if they are marked absolutive and moves to Spec, TopP, they lack the matching [op] feature to check the uninterpretable [op] fea ture on Top. They thus cannot occur in the absolutive argument position, or otherwise the derivation would crash at LF due to Full Interpretation. The interrogative phrase headed by mayni =ay REL D linked due to the restrictive modi fication structure where it occurs (71) and can thus be assigned an interpretable [op] feature during the derivation when it is marked absolutive. When it moves to Spec, TopP, the uninterpretable [D] and [op] features on Top can both be checked. The deriva tion can thus converge at LF without violating any interface conditions like Full Interpretation. 5.4 Conclusion This chapter has discussed the constraints on the formation of pseudo cleft questions and the wh in situ construction. In both Kavalan and Amis only when the absolutive subject argument is questioned can a pseudo cleft structure be utilized. As a pseudo cleft question contains a headless relative clause as the subject, the issue boils down to why only null operators that stand for the absolutive subject can be extracted to Spec, CP. After reviewing several approaches to this constraint in Austronesian linguistics, we adopt the predicate raising approach as an explanation. As the absolutive subject moves out of TP before the remnant TP moves to a higher functional projection, it is eligible for extraction if necessary. After the remnant TP moves to the specifier of FocP, it becomes a syntactic island out of which nothing can be extracted. Therefore, non subjects cannot be extracted to Spec, CP.

PAGE 237

237 We have also addressed the issue of the wh in situ patterns in Kavalan and Amis. There is no single approach that can accommodate the empirical facts in both Kavalan and Amis. In Amis, all types of interrogative phrases can occur in situ regardless of their c ase observation that interrogative phrases in Austronesian languages can stay in situ as long as they can receive the same formal marking as their non interrogative counterparts. Th e crucial formal marking requirement in Amis is that the absolutive subject must take the overt absolutive case marker ku or the non common noun marker ci The absolutive case marker ku can be attached to interrogative phrases that inquire about non human entities; the human interrogative phrase cima inherently takes the marker ci Interrogative phrases in the subject position in Amis can fulfill this formal requirement and are thus allowed to stay in situ. We suggest that this requirement on the formal m T in Amis has an EPP feature that selects for a phonologically overt K, so the subject in Spec, TP must be headed by an overt K, or otherwise the derivation would crash at PF. Howev interrogative phrases cannot stay in situ in the absolutive subject position, except for mayni=ay REL situ wh phrases in Kavalan supports status of the subject as an explanation. The absolutive subject in Kavalan is interpreted as definite and exhibits strong topic persistence (Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011; Liao 2002, 2004). It is assigned an interpretable [op] feature and moves to Spec, TopP to check the uninterpretable [op] feature on Top. An interrogative phrase in the absolutive

PAGE 238

238 subject position cannot meet this requirement and thus the derivation of a sentence with an absoluti ve interrogative phrase crashes at LF. The interrogative phrase headed by mayni=ay REL situ in the subject position because of its D linking status, which results from its syntactic structure of restrictive modification that involves DP internal Predicate Inversion. The inversion is triggered by the modification marker, or the linker, = ay that heads a functional projection FP.

PAGE 239

239 CHAPTER 6 A SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF INTERROGATIVE VER BS 6.1 Introduction It has been shown in Chapter 3 that no t all interrogative words in Kavalan and Amis can be used as verbs. The interrogative words that can be syntactically realized cannot serve as verbal predicates as they cann ot take voice markers. Section 3.4 further reveals that there is a correlation between the interrogative verb constructions and the voice markers. An interrogative verb f uncti ons as an intransitive verb when it takes the agent voice marker. If it takes the p atient voice marker, it is used as a transitive verb It is also found that an interrogative word can belong to more than one syntactic category. For example, maan tanian Kavalan and icuwa predicate. Moreover, there is a semantic restriction on the verbal use of tanian or icuwa in that it is restricted to questio ns that inquire about the location of a theme argument in a ditransitive event. The use of tani pina as a verb observes a similar restriction to verbal tanian icuwa regarding which argument t hey can question. Only when the quantity of a theme used as a verb, the question is associated with a unique interpretation. It implies that the quantity of the theme argumen t might change. This unique interpretation does not verbal predicate in a pseudo cleft question.

PAGE 240

240 To account for the syntactic/semantic properties and restrictions of the interrogative verbs in Kava lan and Amis, this cha pter delineates a syntactic analysis that can offer an explanation for the following issues (1) Issues to be resolved a. Why can some interrogative words be used as verbs but others cannot? b. Why is there a correlation between the interrogative verb constructi ons and the voice markers? c. Why is there a correlation between the choice of voice markers and the interpretation of an interrogative root? d. How can we account for multiple categoriality of an interrogative word and the semantic restrictions on the use of a n interrogative verb? e. predicates and at the same time question an argument of another verb? The syntactic account presented in this chapter assumes that the syntactic ca tegory of a wo rd is derived in S yntax (Borer 2003; Mara ntz 1997). We will argue for this syntactic approach by showing that the derivation of interrogative verbs is systematic because whether an interrogative word can be used as a ver b can be attributed to universal or language specific principles or constraints of syntax and the syntactic representations of voice markers and their corresponding interpretations This syntactic analysis not only provides a natural explanation for the correlation between the voice markers and the transitivity/interpretation of interrogative verbs but also accounts for the semantic restrictions on the use of interrogative verbs in a straightforward and uniform way. Moreover, assuming that Kavalan and Amis interrogative verbs are derived synt actically, we can make falsifiable predictions on what interrogative words can and cannot be syntactically realized as verbs in the two languages based on syntactic principles and constraints. We will show that the

PAGE 241

241 predictions are borne out and thus there is no need to impose arbitrary stipulations on the lexical entries of interrogative verbs. We will first clarify the assumptions of our syntactic approach in Section 6.2. The main argumentation of this chapter is presented in Sections 6.3 and 6.5. Section 6.3 discusses the syntactic derivations of interrogative verbs and argues that the derivations obey syntactic principles and constraints. The applicability of our syntactic analysis to 6.4. Based on the analysis formulated in Section 6.3, Section 6.5 explains why certain interrogative words cannot be used as verbs in Kavalan and Amis. Section 6.6 concludes the chapter. 6.2 Assumptions 6.2.1 A Categorial Roots We assume that lexical root s are not specified for syntacti c categories like N and V, as proposed by Distributed Morphology (Embick and Noyer 2007; Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994 ; Marantz 1997 ). The syntactic categories of the roots are determined by functional heads like v 0 n 0 and a 0 in Syntax When a root occurs in a verbal environment with the v 0 functional head, it appears as a verb; if instead the root occurs in a nominal environment, it becomes a noun For example, betu categorial root. Due to the differe nt syntactic positions it occupies, it is interpreted as a noun in (2a), but functions as a verb in (2b). The root palu same pattern (3). (2) Kavalan a. tapiRaw an ni imuy ya betu touch PV ERG PN ABS stone

PAGE 242

242 b. betu an ku ya wasu stone PV 1 SG ERG ABS dog (3) Amis a. ku palu aku big ABS beat 1 SG GEN (Wu 2006: 68) b. mi palu ci sawmah ci mayaw an AV beat NCM PN NCM PN OBL (Wu 2006: 70) We assume that D, e.g., case markers in Amis, is a noun creating head, whereas little v is a verb creating head in the two languages. In the following two sub sections, we will elaborate on the assumption that the so called voice markers are derivational morphemes and phonological realizations of little v We extend this assumption to interrogative words. That is, interrogative roots are a categorial and their syntactic categories are determi ned by the syntactic environment where they occur. Specifically, if an interrogative root is able to move to v in Syntax, it will be interpreted as a verb and an interrogative verb is thus derived. We will detail how this basic idea can be implemented to a ccount for the syntactic and semantic properties/constraints of interrogative verbs in Section 6.3. 6.2.2 Austronesian Voice Markers as Verbal Derivation Following Starosta (2002), we analyze voice markers as derivational morphemes. In view of the inadequ acy of the analysis that treats Austronesian voice as inflection, Starosta (2002) argues that voice markers in Austronesian languages are derivational based on evidence from transitivity and nominalization. His primary argument is that voice markers occur in both nouns and verbs, so they must be derivational. Section 5.2.2 has provided some examples that illustrate the dual functions of voice markers in

PAGE 243

243 Austronesian languages. This phenomenon is also true of Kavalan and Amis. The examples in (4) illustrate that the morpheme responsible for theme and location nominalization in Kavalan is identical to the patient voice marker an 1 The voice and applicative markers in Amis also occur in de verbal nouns and each voice corresponds to a distinct type of nominaliz ation. For example, the agent voice marker is involved in agent nominalization (5a), the patient voice marker derives a patient noun (5b), the locative applicative marker derives a location noun (5c), and the instrument applicative marker is involved in in strument nominalization (5d). (4) Kavalan a. qan an eat NMZ b. kelawkaway an work NMZ c. qaynep an sleep NMZ d. taqsi an study NMZ (5) Amis a. mi tilid ay AV study FAC b. ta tayal en IRR work PV work to 1 The reason why the patient voice marker an in Kaval an can derive both themes and locations is due to its historical development. This voice marker an was originally a locative voice marker, but it has taken on the role and function of a patient voice marker after the original patient voice marker in Kaval an was lost.

PAGE 244

244 c. pi tilid an PI study LA d. sa palu IA beat As voice markers can change the syntactic category of a stem, they should be analyzed as derivational morphemes. The analysis of voice as derivation raises a fundamental question regarding the distinction between nouns and verbs in Kavalan and Amis. If the claim that voice markers can derive both nouns and verbs is correct, how can we distinguish one from the other? That is, since derived nouns and verbs share the same form, how c an we determine whether a voice affixed word is a verb or a noun? An obvious answer is that we have to base our judgment on the syntactic environment where it occurs. For instance, qan an in (6a) occurs in the sentence initial predicate position and takes the future tense marker, but its counterpart in (6b) occurs in the subject position and takes the absolutive case marker. Therefore, the former is analyzed as a verb, whereas the latter is considered to be a noun. (6 ) Kavalan a. qan an ku=pa ya esi na ba buy eat PV 1 SG ERG = FUT ABS meat GEN pig b. nengi a qan an good ABS eat NMZ A problem of the analysis that regards voice markers as derivational morphemes for both nouns and verbs is that there are voice aff ixed words that are never used as

PAGE 245

245 nouns, e.g., voice affixed interrogative verbs described in Chapter 2. More importantly, there is evidence that suggests voice markers only derive verbs, but not nouns. Hsieh (2011), Hsieh and Chen (2006), and D. Lin (2010 ) argue that the examples in (4) and (5), which look like lexical nominalization, involve a more complex syntactic structure and should be analyzed as headless relative clauses. Consider the following examples. (7 ) Kavalan a. datebus ya [ni Rasa an ( ni buy a ) tu unglay] sweet ABS PFV buy NMZ GEN PN OBL pineapple /someone b. yau [ni qudu an( na) tu biyat] EXIST PFV raise NMZ 3 SG GEN OBL frog The subjects in both (7a) and (7 b) are complex noun phrase s. Both take the an marker and refer to the theme of the event. Moreover, the de verbal nouns are prefixed with the perfective marker ni These two complex noun phrases can be analyzed as an internally headed relative clause. Note that the agent arguments in the two examples can be dropped, which yields a generic reading. If so, the same analysis can apply to an is used. For example, qan an in (4a clause. The referent of a headless relative clause always corresponds to the gapped absolutive subject due to the constraint that only subjects can be relativized. This subject only constraint explai ns why each voice marker derives a specific type of nouns in (4) and (5). For example, in (5a), the lexical root takes the agent voice marker and the missing absolutive argument is thus an agent. In (5b), which is a patient voice construction, the missing absolutive argument is a patient. The null operators that stand for the missing subjects can move to Spec, CP. (5a) and (5b) thus must denote an

PAGE 246

246 agent and a patient respectively. The seeming nominalization function of voice markers should be analyzed as th e result of relativization instead. This suggests that the so called nominalization in Kavalan and Amis involves a structure that is clause like. There is no clear cut distinction between lexical nominalization and syntactic relativization as they can be a nalyzed in the same way The following examples show that what looks like nominalized lexical words can take dependents and turn into a relative clause. (8 ) Amis a. ya mi palu ay ci panay an that AV beat FAC NCM PN OBL b. ya ni paluma an ti ya ropas that PFV grow LA OBL that peach The peaches that ( we ) grow. c. sa pi palu ni ofad ci lekal an IA PI beat GEN PN NCM PN OBL (8a) and (8 c) are h eadl ess relative clauses and (8 b) is an internally headed relative clause. clauses in Kavalan and Amis can take adverbs and this suggests that they contain verbal structures. (9 ) Kavalan a. ni qudu an na ni buya tu wasu ta tasaw PFV raise NMZ 3 SG GEN GEN PN OBL dog RED year b. tayta an ni utay tu sudad qaya see NMZ GEN PN OBL book also The acceptability of VP related adverbs, e.g., manner and aspectual adverbs, is a piece of evidence for the verbal projection in nominals (Alexiadou 2001).

PAGE 247

247 nominaliz with voice markers in Kavalan and Amis indicate that nominalization in the two languages is not a lexical phenomenon but a syntactic operation, whereby aspectual information can be encoded and complements or adverbial adjuncts are allowed to appear words are still associated with verbal properties, suggesting that the voice markers in Kaval an and Amis never derive nouns. 2 As already pointed in Chapter 3 on the discussion of the morphosyntactic properties of Kavalan and Amis verbs, the affixation of the voice markers is specific to verbal predicates, but not non verbal predicates. The discussion in this section so far has also revealed that even though the voice markers also occur in de verbal nominals, the nominalized words or clauses still possess verbal properties and contain verbal projections. Another piece of evidence for the anal ysis of the voice markers as derivational morphemes of verbs is that they can derive denominal verbs. In (10a) and (11a), betu nanum denoting nouns and appear in canonical NP positions, but when they are affixed with a voice marker as in (10b) and (11b), they occur in the predicate position and denote an activity or action associated with the object denoted by their nominal counterparts. (10 ) Kavalan a. tapiRaw an ni imuy ya betu touch PV ERG PN ABS stone 2 Note that this conclusion does not imply that Kavalan and Amis do not have real lexical nominalization. It simply means that nominalization via voice markers should be analyzed as relativization. There might be lexical nominalizers in the two languages. For example, D. Lin (2010) argues that the circumfix pa an in Kavalan is a lexical nominalizer that derives an agentive noun.

PAGE 248

248 b. betu an ku ya wasu stone PV 1 SG ERG ABS dog (11 ) Amis a. mi tu nanum i takid AV pour OBL water PREP cup b. mi nanum=ho kaku AV water= IMPV 1 SG ABS It has been argued that all the lexical roots in Amis are inherently nominal and verbs must be derived via the affixation of voice markers (Wu 2006). The contrast between (12a) and (12b) further illustrates this analysis of Amis roo ts. (12 ) Amis a. ku palu aku big ABS beat 1 SG GEN (Wu 2006: 68) b. mi palu ci sawmah ci mayaw an AV beat NCM PN NCM PN OBL (Wu 2006: 70) We thus assume th at the voice markers in Kavalan and Amis are derivational morphemes that derive verbs only. 6.2.3 Austronesian Voice Markers as Verb Creating Heads in Syntax Another crucial assumption of our analysis concerns the component of grammar where derivation ta kes place. The standard view is that derivation is implemented in Lexicon and derivational morphemes are opaque in the syntactic component. The syntactic approach to word classes rejects this assumption and proposes that derivational morphology also takes place in Syntax (Harley 2009). In other words, category determining heads are visible in Syntax; they are theoretical elements in the syntactic component of Grammar. Based on this account, the verb deriving function of

PAGE 249

249 the voice markers in Kavalan and Amis suggests that they are phonological realizations of the category defining head v in Syntax. We further propose that the projection of the little v or the verb defining head, in Kavalan and Amis is merged in the complement position of T(ense) or Asp(ect). This is motivated by the interaction between voice markers and tense/aspect. In Kavalan, the future tense marker = pa can be attached to a PV marked verb, but not an AV marked verb. To use = pa in an agent voice construction, the verb must be in its bare fo rm. This is illustrated below. (13 ) Kavalan a. quni an su=pa ya sunis ku do.what PV 2 SG ERG = FUT ABS child 1 SG GEN b. *quni=pa=isu < AV >do.what= FUT =2 SG ABS c. quni=pa=isu do.what= FUT =2 SG ABS Wu (2006) has also shown that each voice marker in Amis is associated with an unmarked TAM reading. The relationship between voice markers and tense/aspect suggests that voice markers are accessible to Syntax and their interaction can be explained by the selectional restriction between T/Asp and vP. 3 3 On the lexicalist analysis, as the derivational history of a derived word has been obliterated in Syntax, the i nteraction between voice markers and tense/aspect is explained by the morphosyntactic features acquired by the derived word during the derivational process.

PAGE 250

250 6.3 Syntactic Derivations of Interrogative Verbs Giv en the assumption that voice markers are verb defining heads in Syntax, the correlation between the transitivity of interrogative verbs and the voice markers that they take can be attributed to the syntactic nature of v that the interrogative roots are mer ged with. The agent voice marker realizes intransitive v whereas the patient voice marker is inserted when v is transitive. That is, the transitivity of an interrogative verb is determined by v directly. An interrogative root always has at most one argume nt and the transitivity of an interrogative verb is derived via the merge of its root with v in Syntax. Consider the following two sets of sentences. (14 ) Kavalan a. quni=isu tangi < AV >do.what=2 SG ABS just.now b. quni an su ya sunis ku do.what PV 2 SG ERG ABS child 1 SG GEN (1 5) Amis a. mi maan ci panay AV do.what NCM PN b. ma maan cingra AV what.happen 3 SG ABS c. na maan en isu ku ra wacu P ST do.what PV 2 SG ERG ABS that dog These sentences reveal that the transitivity of an interrogative root like quni or maan is not lexically specified, but is determined by the voice marker that it takes. When affixed

PAGE 251

251 tructure, the interrogative roots in (14a), (15a), and (15b) are merged with an intransitive v which is realized phonologically by an agent voice marker. As for (14b) and (15c), what is merged with the interrogative roots and determines their syntactic ca tegory and transitivity is a transitive v which is later realized phonologically by a patient voice marker. We will elaborate on the syntactic structures of these voice markers later in this section after we discuss more semantic distinctions among them. Verbalizing heads exhibit finer semantic distinctions in addition to transitivity. It has been suggested that there are several distinct verb defining heads with different (combinations of) syntactic/semantic features. One type of v that has been extensive ly discussed is the agent introducing head, v [AG] (Marantz 1997) or Voice (Kratzer 1996). The verbal structure of unaccusative verbs is headed by another type of v which is more like a BECOME operator (Marantz 1997). Harley (2009) characterizes different types of v in terms of feature clusters like [dynamic], [change of state], and [cause] as in (16). (16) The feature specifications of v (Harley 2009): a. v CAUSE : [+dynamic], [+change of state], [+cause] b. v BECOME : [+dynamic], [+change of state], [ cause] c. v DO : [+dynamic], [ change of state], [ cause] d. v BE : [ dynamic], [ change of state], [ cause] The merger of a root with different types of v will thus derive verbs with different Aktionsart properties. The syntactic analysis just presented can account for the interpretation of interrogative verbs if different forms of a particular voice marker are conceived of as phonological realizations of different types of v as well.

PAGE 252

252 One clear case in point concerns the contrast between (15a) and (15b). When Amis maan i s affixed with mi it is used as an interrogative activity verb; the affixation of ma to this interrogative root derives an interrogative change of state verb. This contrast results from the fact that mi and ma realize two distinct v heads: v DO and v BE COME in Amis, the affixation of mi to a root, which can inherently denote either an object or an activity, can derive a plain activity verb with an optional motional/pu rposive/progressive reading. This is illustrated by the following two sentences. (1 7) Amis a. mi nanum ci aki tu nanum AV water NCM PN OBL water (Wu 2006: 165) b. mi palu ci sawmah ci mayaw an AV beat NCM PN NCM PN OBL 166) Wu (2006: 167) thus assigns the following logical structure to mi within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). (18) The Logical Structure of mi : )]) The first part of this logical structure is put into parentheses and captures the optional motional/purposive/progressive reading of mi whereas the second part is obligatory and r epresents the plain activity reading of this prefix. As for ma its combination with a root can derive a verb that is interpreted as a result state. 4 The following two sentences demonstrate this meaning of ma 4 Wu (2006) classifies ma verbs into four types, each of which is associated with a distinct logic al structure. Only the second type, or ma 2, is relevant to our discussion here.

PAGE 253

253 (19) Amis a. ma adah=tu kaku AV recover= PFV 1 SG ABS (Wu 2006: 183) b. ma ruhem=tu ku pawli AV ripe= PFV ABS banana (Wu 2006: 183) The following logical structure is proposed by Wu (2006: 185) for this prefix. INGR (20) The Logical Structure of m a : This logical structure expresses the telic property of a derived ma verb and its result state or change of state interpretation. In our system, mi can be conceived of as an activity denoting v i.e., v DO and ma can be analyzed as v BECOME which indicates change of state. The different interpretations of (15a) and (15b), i.e., mi maan and ma maan lie in the feature clusters of v that maan is merged with. The trees in (21) and (22) represent the derivations of (15a) and (15b) respectively. In (21), maan undergoes head movement to v DO which is the shorthand notation for the feature cluster [+dynamic, change of state, cause] and which is realized as the agent voice marker mi The resultant mi maan thus denotes a plain activity with an interrogative sense and the DP in the specifier of v P is interpreted as the agent of the activity. By contrast, the verbalizing head in (22) consists of the features, [+dynamic], [+cha nge of state], and [ cause] and ma is inserted in this context. The resultant ma maan is interpreted as a result state and the DP in the Spec, v P thus refers to a theme argument that undergoes the relevant change of state. The

PAGE 254

254 (21) (Partial) derivation for (15a) (22) (Partial) derivation for (15b) Unlike mi maan and ma maan maan en functions as a transitive interrogative n is also due to the specific feature cluster of the v headed by the patient voice marker en According to Wu (2006), a verb that is derived via the suffixation of en must have an animate causer/agent and the use of this derived verb emphasizes the inten tion of the agent. This can be demonstrated by the contrast between the following two sentences. The ergative DP in (23a) is an animate causer/agent, but the ergative DP in (23b) is not.

PAGE 255

255 (2 3) Amis a. tuniq en aku ku aca soft PV 1 SG ERG ABS meat a.little (Wu 2006: 174) b. *tuniq en nu kuwaq ku aca soft PV ERG papaya ABS meat a.little (Wu 2006: 174) In other words, the verbalizing head that en realizes must be [+agentive]. Moreover, the utilization of a verb suffixed with en always implicates the completion of the action. When en verbs take the imperfective aspect marker = ho they can never receive a progressive interpretation. Compare the following two sentences. (2 4) Amis a. ranam en=ho breakfast PV = IMPFV (Wu 2006: 176) b. mi nanum=ho ci panay tu sayta AV water= IMPFV NCM PN OBL soda (Wu 2006: 176 ) The verbs in (24a) and (24b) both take the imperfective aspect marker = ho While the verb in (24a), which is suffixed with en receives an iterative reading, the verb in (24b), which takes the agent voice marker mi is interpreted as progressive. This suggests that en is inherently [+telic]. The two important semantic features of en are captured by the following logical structure that Wu (2006: 176) proposes. (25) The logical structure of en : )) In our framework, the verbalizing head that is realized as en in Amis can be analyzed as v CAUSE which can introduce an agentive causer and implies an endpoint, change of state, or the completion of an action. To capture the inherent semantics of the

PAGE 256

256 patient voice marker en and its implications, we propose the verbal structure in (26) for verbs that are derived with this suffix. (26) The verbal structure of en This structure for en is basically the same as the lexical relational structure assigned to English causative deadjectival verbs by Hale and Keyser (1993). We adopt their conception that the vP/VP shell structure is associated with an asymmetric semantic an interrelation or a state encoded in the lower vP/VP. The structure in (26) thus aptly reflects the status of en as a causative operator that necessarily implicates an endpoint of the action or change of state. When this suffix is merged with ma an the interpretation of the resultant verb, maan en follows from the structure in (26). Consider the (partial) derivation in (27) for (25c). The higher v headed by en introduces an agentive causer, isu SG ERG t of the action as indicated by the lower v P whose head introduces a theme argument, kura wacu affected by the action. The derived verb, maan en is thus construed as a transitive interrogative verb with both an agent argument and a the me argument. The

PAGE 257

257 (27) (Partial) derivation for (25c) A question arises as to why the lower v in the vP shell structure of (26) or (27) is never real ized. It should be noted that there are no verbs that can simultaneously take an agent voice marker mi or ma and a patient voice marker like en The following verbs are ill formed. (28) Amis a. mi nanum en b. ma ruhem en However, voice markers can co occur with an instrumental or locative applicative marker, which is still viewed as a type of voice marker by many Formosan linguists. (29) Amis a. ka an ni ofad tu ku luma aku KA < AV >eat LA ERG PN OBL wine ABS house 1 SG GEN b. mi cikay an ni ofad i pitilidan ku cudad AV run LA ERG PN PREP school ABS book

PAGE 258

258 c. sa ka ni ofad tu futing ku alapit IA KA < AV >eat ERG PN OBL fish ABS chopsticks The co occurrence of voice markers with an applicative marker is one of the reasons why Wu (2006) analyzes the so called locative and circumstantial voice markers in Amis linguistics literature as applicative markers. They perform different functions and should not be classified into the same paradigm. This means that they are governed by different insertion rules and thus are considered separately when insertion takes place. By contrast, the co occurrence restriction of an agent voice marker and a patient voice marker indicates that they belong to the same set of insertion rul es. We propose that fusion takes place in the v P shell structure of (26) or (27). Fusion is a grammatical process that fuses two terminal nodes that are sisters, e.g., two heads after head to head movement, into one single node (Halle and Marantz 1993). As fusion results in one single terminal node, only one vocabulary item can be inserted into this position. In (27), v BECOME and v CAUSE undergo fusion and become one single terminal node, which is a composite of both CAUSE operator and BECOME operator. This leads to the semantic implication of the vP en i.e., [+dynamic], [+change of state], [+cause], it is inserted into this positio n, but not other voice markers. Note that Amis maan can also be used as a noun as in (30), where it occurs in a case marked position. As verbal maan is derived in a syntactic context where it can be merged with a verbalizing head via head movement, the us e of maan as a noun is also contingent on its syntactic environment. In (30), it is moved to n the category defining

PAGE 259

259 head for nouns, so that it can further be case marked. This derivation is schematically represented in (31). (30 ) Amis ma talaw ci lekal t u maan AV afraid NCM PN OBL what (31) An equally plausible alternative is to attribute the nominal status of maan in (30) to the presence of D, or the case marker ku 5 On this alternative analysis, there is no need to p osit the noun deriving head n in Amis. Amis maan is an exemplar that shows how the lexical category and interpretation of an interrogative root can vary with and be determined by the syntactic context where it occurs. This syntactic analysis of Amis maan c an apply to its Kavalan counterpart, quni that it takes. One prominent difference between Kavalan and Amis concerns the semantics of the different forms of the agent voice. While each form of the Amis agent voice morpheme is associated with a distinct logical structure or interpretation, as shown above for mi and ma the choice of Kavalan agent voice forms seems to be 5 Please refer to Section 5.3.3 for the analysis of Amis case markers as D.

PAGE 260

260 conditioned by phonology, i.e., phonologica lly conditioned allomorphy, and is subject to lexical variation to a great extent. In other words, Kavalan differs from Amis in that it does not utilize distinct lexical items to realize different types of intransitive v However, the overt distinction bet ween the intransitive v and the transitive v is still preserved in Kavalan. The agent voice construction is an intransitive syntactic structure, whereas the patient voice construction is the canonical transitive structure. The tree in (32) illustrates the derivation for quni argument, which is introduced by v DO (32) Kavalan quni The function of the patient voice marker an in Kavalan is similar to Amis en in that an also introduces an agent or causer argument and implies an endpoint, change of state, or the completion of an action. As illustrated in (33), an is analogous to the causative marker pa in terms of their function to introduce an external argument (33c, 33 d). Note that when sabiqbiq only have an unaccusative interpretation, as demonstrated by the ungrammaticality of (33b), where there is an additional external argument. Compare (33a) with (33d). The patient voice marker in (33d) functions as a causative operator that introduces an extra

PAGE 261

261 agentive causer and the action performed by this agentive causer leads to the change of state of the theme argument assigned by the original agent voice predicate. ( 33 ) Kavalan a. sabiqbiq=ti ya zanum nay boil= PFV ABS water that b *sabiqbiq=ti=iku tu zanum boil= PFV =1 SG ABS OBL water c. p a sabiqbiq=ti=iku tu zanum CAU boil= PFV =1 SG ABS OBL water iled wat d. sabiqbiq an ku ya zanum nay boil PV 1 SG ERG ABS water that The patient voice marker an should thus be construed as the phonological realization of v CAU SE Like Amis en it also invo lves a v P shell structure with an implicational causal relation between the higher v P and the lower v (1993) analysis of deadjectival verbs in English. Its structure is schematically represented in (34). (34) The stru cture of Kavalan an

PAGE 262

262 The merger of quni with an leads to the derivation of a transitive interrogative verb that requires an agentive causer and a theme argument that undergoes the action. It has been found that an can also introduce an additiona l theme argument ( Y. L. Chang 1997). According to Y. L. Chang (1997), an intransitive verb is allowed to take an additional argument when it is affixed with the patient voice marker an but not when it takes the agent voice marker. 6 (35 ) Kavalan a. ?mayn ep=iku tu qaynepan AV .sleep=1 SG ABS OBL bed ( Y. L. Chang 1997: 72) b. qaynep an ku ya qaynepan sleep PV 1 SG ERG ABS bed ( Y. L. Chang 1997: 72) c. talumbi ta liab an na takan ya sunis a yau < A V >hide LOC underside LOC GEN table ABS child LNK that d. ?talumbi ta liab an na takan ya sunis a yau < AV >hide LOC underside LOC GEN table ABS child LNK that tu tina na OBL mother 3 GEN e. talumbi an na sunis a yau ta liab an na takan hide PV ERG child LNK that LOC underside LOC GEN table ya tina na ABS mother 3 GEN The contrast between (35a) and (35b) illustra tes this function of an The patient voice marker in (35e) also performs the same function. The addition of an oblique argument that is affected by the event to an agent voice sentence in (35d) is only slightly 6 The examples from Y. L. Chang (1997) have been reglossed to reflect my analysis of the Kavalan cl ause structure.

PAGE 263

263 acceptable. Its patient voice counterpart, ( 35e), is fully grammatical. The absolutive DP agent. Thus, the argument structure of an not only includes an agent argument, but also a theme argument that is affe cted by the action of the agent. This provides further justification for the syntactic structure of an in (34). Amis. Moreover, both interrogative words can take the patient vo ice marker, as illustrated below. (36) Kavalan a. ( na )quni an su ya sunis a yau do.what PV 2 SG ERG ABS child LNK that b. ( na )quni an su m kala ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG AV find ABS child LNK that you find tha (37 ) Amis a. na maan en isu ku ra wacu P ST do.what PV 2 SG ERG ABS that dog b. na maan en ni panay mi padang kisu P ST do.how PV ERG PN AV help 2 SG ABS The only difference on the surface question. question can probable that (36a) and (36b) or (37a) and (37b) involve the same verbal derivation with the same category defining head, v CAUSE

PAGE 264

264 First of all, both types of questions require an agent or causer that brings about a certain action or event. Secondly, they both imply an endpoint. In the case of transitive erpretation v P complement to the interrogative root. We will elaborate on the v P complem entation question in Chapter 7. (38) question interrogative root to v CAUSE which is realized as the patien t voice marker en or an thus v P complement and per the implicational causal relation of the v P shell structure, v BECOME indicates that the action/event brought about by the agent/causer induces the complet ion of another

PAGE 265

265 event. In this sense, v BECOME in (38) is slightly different from its counterpart in (27), the question exhibits the complem entation structure of (38) and question in Chapter 7 when we explore the syntactic structure of the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction. 6.3.2 Syntactic Derivati a natural explanation for the grammatical properties and syntactic distributions of tanian and icuwa As discussed in Chapter 3, the use of Kavalan tanian and Amis icuwa as a verb is restricted to questions about the l ocation of the theme argument in a ditransitive event. Questions about the location where an event takes place cannot utilize tanian or icuw a as a verb. Relevant examples are repeated below. (39 ) Kavalan a. tanian an su ya kelisiw su where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 2 SG GEN b. *ta nian an su qan tu/ya babuy where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG < AV >eat OBL / ABS pig (40 ) Amis a. icuwa en isu ku payci where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money b *icuwa en isu mi saosi ku cudad where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV read ABS book

PAGE 266

266 We argue below that t he ir grammatical properties and restrictions can be derived with reference to the syntactic environment of the interrogatives themselves. Specifically, like other interrogative verbs that we have discussed, tanian and icuwa serve as verbs when they a re selected by a category defining verbal head the little v The adverbial, in situ properties of the adjunct use of tanian and icuwa as in (41 ) and (42) follow from its adjunct status. Not being selected by little v tanian and icuwa cannot be a verb in these c onstructions and therefore lack verbal properties. Rather, adjunct tanian and icuwa takes scope over the entire verb phrase. (41 ) Kavalan a. tanuz an na tuliq tanian ya wasu chase PV ERG bee where ABS dog b. tania n tanuz an na tuliq ya wasu where chase PV ERG bee ABS dog (42 ) Amis a. kisu tu icuwa < AV >eat 2 SG ABS OBL rice where b. icuwa kisu tu where < AV >eat 2 SG ABS OBL rice In (41), the question is intended to inquire about the location where the bees chase the dog. Likewise, in (42), the question concerns the location where the addressee eats. Since the scope of tanian and icuwa in (41 ) and (42) ranges over an event, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are adjoined to v P or TP. The different adjunction positions lead to the word order differences between (41a) and (41b) or between (42a)

PAGE 267

267 and (42b). As shown in the tree in (43) for (41a), tanian can be adjoined to v P. 7 (Subsequent movements, including the movement of the absolutive DP to Spec, TP and Spec, TopP and the remnant movement of TP to Spec, FocP, are not represented, as they are irrelevant to the present discussion.) (43) A djunction of tanian to vP The root tanuz v and then the derived verb tanuz an moves to T, deriving the word order where tanian follows the verb and the ergative DP. If tanian is adjoined to TP, as shown in (44), it wi ll occur in the sentence initial position before the verb. The absolutive DP needs to move to Spec, TP and Spec, TopP for feature checking and then the remnant TP moves to Spec, FocP. These subsequent movements do not affect the word order fact in the end. 7 We assume with Ernst (2002) that adjuncts can be attached to an intermediate projection instead of a maximal projection.

PAGE 268

268 (44) Adjunction of tanian to TP Whether tanian is adjoined to v no way for it to take the voice marker in v which has been m erged with the lexical verb Even if we allow tanian to be adjoined to the projection of the root ph rase before the root moves to v it is still forbidden from moving to v because it is inside an adjoined phrase. Head movement out of a specifier or an adjunct is never attested. In the Government and Binding framework, this is due to the Head Movement Con straint (Travis 1984) or the Empty Category Principle (Chomsky 1981). (45) Head Movement Constraint (HMC) X 0 may only move into Y 0 that properly governs it. (46) Empty Category Principle (ECP) An empty category must be properly governed.

PAGE 269

269 Baker (1988) a ssumes that the HMC can be derived from the ECP and head movement of X to Y, as represented in (47) below, results in a head adjunction structure, where the adjunction node does not count as the first branching node for c command. Under the framework of GB Baker (1988) proposes that if XP in (47) below is selected by Y, it does not count as a barrier for government from Y. This way, the trace of X in (47) can be antecedent governed. (47) Suppose tanian is adjoined to the root phrase instead of v P or IP, as represented by the structure in (48). (48)

PAGE 270

270 As an adjunct, its movement to v would violate the ECP because the phrase that it projects is not selected by v P and will act as a barrier for government. The illicit movement will lead to a structure where tanian cannot antecedent govern its trace. The notion of government has been abandoned by the Minimalist Program. However, the empirical fact that a head in a specifier or an adjoined phrase cannot move out of this position still holds. Other theoretical principles or conditions compatible with Minimalist ideas must be sought to explain this syntactic phenomenon. According to Matushansky (2006), the Transparence Condition as formulated in (49) is a potential principle that can generate the same effects as the Head Movement Constraint. (49) Transparence Condition (Matushansky 2006: 78) A head ceases to be accessible once another head starts to project. The Transparence Condition functions to ensure that only heads that are still projecting at some point of syntactic derivations are accessible to syntactic operations. When a head X 0 enters the derivation and merges with its complement phrase YP, it is necessary to assess both X 0 and Y 0 in order to determine which head projects. At this point, both heads are l ikely to project and thus both are still accessible to syntactic operations like movement or Re merge. Once the selection of X 0 for Y 0 is established, Y 0 is able to move to X 0 at this point of the derivation. This translates into the well known generalizat ion of the locality of head movement: A head Z 0 can move to the head W 0 of the phrase WP that takes ZP as the complement, but cannot skip it. The Transparence Condition rules out the configuration where the head in a specifier or an adjoined phrase moves t o a c commanding head that does not select for it. Take (48) as an example. When v projecting. Therefore, X 0 is not accessible to syntactic operations and is not allowed to

PAGE 271

271 move to v The ban on head movement out of an adjoined phrase can be explained by the Transparence Co ndition without invoking the notion of government. Regardless of what theoretical mechanism is adopted, if tanian in (48) moves to v this will result in an illicit syntactic configuration. Therefore, when tanian is used to question the location where an e vent takes place, it cannot take a voice marker and be used as a verb. The observation that adjunct tanian cannot be used as a verb finds a natural explanation in our syntactic analysis. The analysis that we propose assumes that interrogative verbs are der ived in Syntax and thus their derivations must conform to established syntactic principles and constraints like the HMC, the ECP, or the Transparence Condition. By contrast, the verbal derivation for tanian or icuwa in a question that inquires about the lo cation of a theme argument as in (39a) and (40a) does not incur any violation of syntactic principles and constraints. T ake (39a) as an example. The kelisiw su 2 SG GEN This is because the DP kelisiw su interrogative root then moves to v BECOME and v CAUSE in a succ essive cyclic fashion. The derivation can be schematically represented in (50) v BECOME and v CAUSE obeys the Transparence Condition as each step conforms to the legitimate configuration of head movement shown in (47). The higher v is the causative operator CAU SE which entails an agent thematic role and defines transitive verbs. This head is spelled out as the pati ent voice marker an in Kavalan Together with the inherent locational and interrogative semantics of tanian the resul t is a transitive construction in which the location of the theme is in question.

PAGE 272

272 (50) (Partial) derivation for (39a) 8 Specifically, the v P shell structure with v CAUSE and v BECOME involves an implicational relation where the action performed by t he agent introduced by v CAUSE must imply an endpoint. In the case of (50), the endpoint interpretation arises from the change of state of the theme argument, i.e., its ending up being somewhere. The does something and this Without a secondary lexical verb, the details of the action are left under 8 There is a slight difference between (50) and (34). In (34), the theme is base generated in the specifier of v BECOM E but the theme in (50) moves to this position. In (50), the theme DP is base generated in the complement position of the root phrase because it is an argument of tanian also assumes that it moves to Spec, v BECOME Whether t his movement is necessary is subject to debate; its motivation is not clear and requires further investigation. Nevertheless, the structure of v BECOME above a root phrase is reminiscent of the VP External Object Hypothesis as formulated in Basilico (1998). An examination of the scope (non )ambiguities might elucidate the base position and (non )movement of the theme DP in a structure like (34) and (50).

PAGE 273

273 When a secondary lexical verb is present, it serves to further specify the action of t he transitive event As pointed out in Chapter 3, the secondary lexical verb following tanian or icuwa must be able to take a location argument. Some relevant examples are repeated below. (51 ) Kavalan a. tanian an ni abas m Rupu ya adam where (verb) PV ERG PN AV shut ABS bird that b. tanian an ni imuy su bulin ya sunis na where (verb) PV ERG PN < AV >leave ABS child 3 SG GEN (52 ) Amis a. icuwa en isu pasiket ku wacu where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG tie ABS dog b. icuwa en isu mi na ku where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV pack ABS clothes This restriction on the secondary lexical verb can be a scribed to the structure in (50) thus compatible with verbs that take a loc ation argument. In Chapter 7, we will provide a structural analysis for sentences with verbal tanian and a secondary lexical verb and discuss where the lexical verb is merged in the structure proposed here. Whether there is a lexical verb following tanian or icuwa question the basic semantic structure of the construction is the same. The interrogative word tanian or icuwa merger with the transitive v Our syntactic ac count can provide a straightforward

PAGE 274

274 explanation for the fact that when tanian or icuwa is used as a verb with both an agent argument and a theme argument it always takes the patient voice marker an or en but not the agent voice marker, as illustrated b elow. (53 ) Kavalan *tanian=isu tu kelisiw su AV where=2 SG ABS OBL money 2 SG GEN (54 ) Amis *icuwa kisu tu paysu AV where 2 SG ABS OBL money This is because only v CAUSE which is phonologically realized as the patient voice marker an or en can introduce an agent argument or causer and simultaneously take the projection of v BECOME as its complement to denote a change of state caused by some action. The interrogative words tanian and icuwa do no other words, due to the vP shell structure of the patient voice marker, t he ergative argument of tanian an or icuwa en must be interpreted as the agent argument that causes the absolutive argument to be somewhere. This int erpretation is compatible with questions about the location of the theme a rgument in a ditransitive event, but not with questions that concern the location where an event takes place The semantic restriction on the verbal use of tanian thus finds a natura l explanation. show up as interrogative verbs. Relevant examples are repeated in (55) and (56). At not conform to the analysis of an or en as v CAUSE with v BECOME as its complement and

PAGE 275

275 t hus should constitute a counterexample to our syntactic approach to the derivation of interrogative verbs. A closer examination of the semantics of verbal tani or pina reveals otherwise. (55 ) Kavalan a. u tani an su ya kelisiw NHUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money b. kin tani an su=pa pukun ya sunis HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG = FUT < AV >beat ABS child (56 ) Amis a. pina en ni ofad ku paysu how.many (verb) PV ERG P N ABS money b. pa pina en isu mi lawup ku wawa HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV chase ABS child A question where tani or pina is employed as a verb and takes the patient v oice marker, e.g., (55) and (56), always implies that the quantity of the affected theme argument will or might change from the perspective of the speaker. For example, the utterance of (56a) is appropriate in a scenario where the speaker expected Ofad to take less money, but the contextual evidence s/he had suggested that he might want more money. The utterance of (56b) also has a similar connotation. Suppose that the addressee of this question had chased three children yesterday and he told the speaker th at he intended to chase five children today. In this situation, the speaker could utter (56b) to show his suspicion that the addressee might chase even more children. A more

PAGE 276

276 This type of implication is absent in a pseudo cleft question with tani or pina as a nonverbal predicate, as illustrated in (57) and (58). (57 ) Kavalan u tani ya ni ala su tu kelisiw NHUM how.many ABS PFV take 2 SG GEN OBL money Lit. The money that you took is how much? ) (58 ) Amis pi na ku mi ala an ni utay a paysu how.many ABS AV take LA ERG PN LNK money Lit. The m oney that Utay took is how much? ) Compared with (57) and (58), the q suffixed with the patient voice marker, emphasize the intention of the agent and simultaneously imply a change of state, specifically the change of the quantity of the theme argument that might be affected. Th e semantics of PV marked tani or pina is thus compatible with the syntactic structure assigned to the patient voice marker, or v CAUSE Our syntactic analysis correctly predicts that these two interrogative words can show up as a verb and the interpretation of the derived interrogative verb should conform to the semantics of the vP shell structure with v CAUSE and its accompanying v BECOME The tree in (59) demonstrates the derivation of pina en in (56a). The syntactic structure in (59) reflects three importan t features of verbal pina (or tani ). First of all, the fact that a question with PV marked pina emphasizes the intention of the agent can be ascribed to the agent introducing function of v CAUSE This is also the reason why verbal pina must occur in the pat ient voice construction, but not the agent voice construction, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (60) and (61). The verbal meaning of pina or tani is syntactically derived via the merger with the

PAGE 277

277 patient voice marker and the v P she ll structure associated with it. As v CAUSE the patient voice marker can introduce an agent argument or causer and simultaneously take the projection of v BECOME as its complement to denote a change of state caused by some action. The agent voice constructi on lacks this causative structure. (59) (Partial) derivation for (55a) (60) Kavalan *u tani=isu tu kelisiw CLF how.many=2 SG ABS OBL money (61) Amis *pina ci ofad tu pay s u how.many NCM PN OBL money The second fact that requires an explanation is that a question with pina en must inquire about the quantity of the theme argument, but not the agent argument. This observation is due to the semantics of the lower v P, whe re pina is predicated of the

PAGE 278

278 theme argument. The agent argument is introduced by v CAUSE and does not belong to the argument structure of pina Moreover, there is agreement between pina and the theme argument in terms of humanness. When the theme argument i s human, pina takes an agreement prefix pa which is derived via Ca reduplication. (The agreement prefixes on Kavalan tani are u for non humans and kin for humans.) Th e syntactic configuration in (59 ), where pina and the noun phrase in question exhibit a head complement relationship in the root phrase, allows this type of agreement to occur. The agent noun phrase, which is assigned by v CAUSE is never part of the argument structure of pina Thus, when pina is used as a verb and takes the patient voice ma rker, it is not the quantity of the agent noun phrase that is in question and it cannot agree with pina in terms of humanness. Finally, the v P shell structure with v CAUSE and v BECOME implicates that there is a causal relation between the two respective eve nts in the upper v P and the lower v P and further implies a change of state. This implicational relation contributes to the unique interpretation associated with pina en : The quantity of the affected theme argument will or might change from the perspective of the speaker. The syntactic mechanisms that are responsible for the derivation of verbal tani or pina are not peculiar to this interrogative word, but are shared by the other interrogative verbs. There is no need to resort to lexical stipulation. The gra mmatical and semantic features of interrogative verbs are the concomitant consequences of the syntactic structure they occur in. 6.4 Extension to Non Interrogative Words There are at least two advantages of the syntactic account proposed in the preceding s ections for Kavalan and Amis interrogative verbs. First of all, our syntactic

PAGE 279

279 account can be extended to non interrogative words that share similar morphosyntactic and semantic properties with interrogative verbs. In other words, it can capture the overall grammatical system of Kavalan and Amis. Secondly, since the derivation of interrogative verbs is constrained by established syntactic principles and operations, either universal or language specific, our syntactic account can make predictions about what i nterrogative words can and cannot be used as a verb. We will show that the predictions are borne out. This section deals with the first advantage and Section 6.5 will elaborate on the second advantage. 6.4.1 Location Verbs The syntactic analysis proposed i n the preceding sections can generalize to non interrogative cases such as locative deictics, which are also realized as verbs in Kavalan and Amis In (62) and (63), the locative deictics occur at the sentence initial position with the patient voice marker an or en suggesting that they are used as verbal predicates. (62 ) Kavalan 9 a. tazian an ku (pizi) ya kelisiw ku here (verb) PV 1 SG ERG put ABS money 1 SG GEN b. tayan an ku (pizi) ya kelisiw ku there (verb) PV 1 SG ERG put ABS money 1 SG GEN c tawian an ku (pizi) ya kelisiw ku there (verb) PV 1 SG ERG put ABS money 1 SG GEN 9 According to Jiang (2006), both tazian and tayan are proximal demonstratives of place, whereas tawian i s a distal demonstrative of place. Tazian refers to a place closer to the speaker and tayan refers to a place closer to the addressee.

PAGE 280

280 (63 ) Amis a. itin i en ni panay (pateli) ku paysu here (verb) PV ERG PN put ABS money b. itir aw en ni panay (pateli) ku paysu there (verb) PV ERG PN put ABS money Like their interrogative counterparts, tanian and icuwa the locative deictics in (62) and (63) are able to serve as the only verb in a sentence without any lexical verb. Moreover, when used as a verb, they must denote the location of the theme argument in a ditransitive event. When they refer to the location where an event takes place, they are not allowed to take the patient voice marke r, as illustrated below. (64 ) Kavalan *tazian an ku m Rasa tu/ya sudad here PV 1 SG ERG AV buy OBL / ABS book (65 ) Amis *itiraw en ni utay ladiw there PV ERG PN < AV >sing ng s The locative deictics exhibit the same grammatical properties and observe the same semantic restrictions as tanian and icuwa The syntactic analysis that we have elaborated on for the derivation of interrogative verbs can be invoked to explain the syntactic distributions of the locativ e deictics. The verbal locative deictics are also derived syntactically by merging with v CAUSE The tree in (66) represents the derivation of verbal tazian (The final parts of the derivation like v to T movement are not relevant and t hus are not included.) As shown in (66), tazian does not inherently assign an agent argument; instead, the agent argument is introduced by v CAUSE The lower v P represents a stative

PAGE 281

281 v P indicates a dynamic event, CAUSE and v BECOME the (66) (Partial) derivation f or verbal tazian As for (64) and (65), their ungrammaticality is due to the same reasons why adjunct tanian or icuwa cannot be employed as a verb. In (64), the semantic scope of tazian ranges over the entire event. It is adjoined to v P or IP, where it is structurally higher than the little v If it is adjoined to the root phrase, it still cannot move to v because if it does, its trace cannot be properly governed and the movement will violate the ECP on the GB account, or because the movemen t does not obey the

PAGE 282

282 Transparence Condition formulated by Matushansky (2006) within the Minimalist Program. Finally, as the intended meaning of the sentence concerns the location where an event takes place, it is not compatible with the structure represente d in (66). This structure entails a ditransitive event and verbal tazian refers to the location of the theme argument. The syntactic analysis that we have proposed for the derivation of interrogative verbs is thus not limited to interrogative verbs only, b ut can be extended to other non It is noteworthy that the syntactic structure for the derivation of verbal tanian in (50) or verbal tazian in (66) is similar to the structure assigned to the English ditransitive verb pu t by Larson (1988) and the lexical relational structure assigned to the English denominal location verb shelve by Hale and Keyser (1993). The tree in (67) represents itransitive verb, put (67) The verbal structure of put (Larson 1988)

PAGE 283

283 The structure for the derivation of denominal location verbs like shel ve is shown in (68). Hale and Keyser (1993) argue that a denominal location verb like shel ve as in shelve the book is derived after it successive cyclically moves from N to the highest V. The derivation involves three instances of incorporation: N to P, N P to the lower V, and N P V to the higher V. Each instance of incorporation or head movement observes the Transparence Condition. Therefore, the derivation of a de nominal location verb like shel ve is legitimate. (68) The verbal structure of the denominal location verb shel ve (Hale and Keyser 1993) This derivation is similar to the derivation of verbal tanian tazian both of which are co ncerned with location. The higher V in (68) corresponds to v CAUSE in our system and the lower V in (68) is parallel to v BECOME The derivational structures for shel ve (68) and tanian (50) both represent a ditransitive event involving an agent that does som ething and causes the theme argument to be somewhere. From this

PAGE 284

284 perspective, Kavalan and Amis are not radically different from English as they do share parallel structures and syntactic operations for the derivation of location verbs. Despite the similarit ies, there are still substantive differences between the structure of (67)/(68) in English and the structure that we propose for Kavalan and Amis location verbs. First of all, they differ in where the theme argument is base generated. In Kavalan and Amis, it is base generated in the root phrase. We assume that the location interrogative word and the location deictics function like a location predicate of a theme in the root phrase to explain certain properties of this group of words. The theme argument in t he English structure is base generated in the VP domain, not in the projection of the locative expression, i.e., PP. The second prominent difference concerns whether v CAUSE has an overt phonological realization. It is realized as the patient voice marker i n Kavalan and Amis, whereas it is covert in English. The final difference lies in the presence or absence of a prepositional phrase in the obligatory even though there is no overt P. The reason is probably that an NP must be the complement of P to be interpreted as a location, or N must move to P to acquire the denotation of a location before moving to V. By contrast, the structure of Kavalan and Amis location verbs does n ot contain a PP. While English possesses a rich inventory of prepositions, the inventory of prepositions in Formosan languages is extremely impoverished and some of them might lack this class of words completely. There is only one lexical item in Amis that might qualify as a preposition, i which can mark a variety of locative or temporal relationships. As for Kavalan, it does not seem to have any prepositions. Locative notions are grammatically signaled by the locative case on nouns

PAGE 285

285 or expressed through th e composite of directional/orientational nouns and the locative case. See the following examples for illustration. 10 (69) Kavalan a. ta paw an ni buya ya ti imuy tangi LOC house LOC GEN PN ABS NCM PN now b. yau ta lia b an na takan ya sunis a yau EXIST LOC underside LOC GEN table ABS child LNK that c. ta RasuR an na lepaw LOC inside LOC GEN house As shown by the contrast between (67) and (68), the presence of an overt P head blocks the movement of N to V because of the Head Movement Constraint. Due to the impoverishment of prepositions and the absence of P in the structure of Kavalan and Amis location verbs, there is no intervening head that blocks movement from the root position to the V domain. The inventory of prepositions might be a parameter that can contribute to the cross linguistic differences in the formation of location verbs. Our syntactic approach is thus a promising way to conduct further researc h on the typology of location verb derivations. 6.4.2 Manner Verbs Given that ( na ) quni maan undergo head movement to v to derive interrogative verbs, it should not be surprising that their non interrog ative counterparts, e.g., manner deictics and manner adverbial 10 Interested readers can refer to Jiang (2006) for a detailed investigation of the spatial expressions in Kavalan.

PAGE 286

286 expressions, are also syntactically realized as verbs. The following examples are for illustration. (70 ) Kavalan a. nayau an ku that.way (verb) PV 1 SG ERG (it) in b. naya u an na ya sunis na that.way (verb) PV 3 ERG ABS child 3 SG GEN his child in c. nayau an na sanu that.way (verb) PV 3 ERG < AV >say d. paqanas an ku tayta ya sudad slow (verb) PV 1 SG ERG < AV >see AB S book (Y. L. Chang 2006: 46) (71 ) Amis a. en ku kamay this.way (verb) PV ABS hand b. ma ku pi tilid aku AV this.way (verb) ABS PI study 1 SG GEN ying is like this.) Our syntactic analysis can capture the syntactic similarities between manner interrogatives and manner deictics/adverbials in a straightforward way. Their verbal usage is derived because they can be merged with the verb defining head v ia licit head movement. A detailed and comprehensive discussion of how manner deictics and adverbial verbs are derived syntactically within a category less framework like DM is beyond the scope of the present study and requires further in depth investigati on. 11 It 11 See Y. L. Chang (2006, 2010) and E. Liu (2003) for a discussion on the syntax of adverbial expressions in Kavalan and Amis respectively. Neither of them assumes a category less framework like DM.

PAGE 287

287 also remains to be seen whether their derivations are subject to any syntactic or semantic constraints. However, the two sets of data in (70) and (71), together with the other interrogative sentences discussed so far, suffice to show that there is no absolute underlying distinction between adverbs and verbs in Kavalan and Amis The notion of adverbs as a distinct syntactic category is also fuzzy in other languages, e.g., Dyirbal, where adverbs modifying verbs show the same inflection as verbs (Dixon 1972). In general, the overlap between adverbial and verbal expressions, both interrogative and non interrogative, provides evidence for our syntactic approach, in which roots are not identified with particular lexical categories. The categories of words are defined with respect to the syntactic environments where they occur. 6.5 Interrogative Words That Cannot Be Verbs The syntactic analysis we have been arguing for can also predict what interrogative words can and cannot be used as verbs in Kavalan and A mis based on the semantics of the voice markers, or verb defining heads, and established syntactic principles and constraints. Why certain interrogative words in Kavalan and Amis cannot take voice markers and be used as verbs finds a natural explanation in our syntactic framework. Our analysis predicts that if an interrogative word must be adjoined to another phrase, it cannot be utilized as a verb as its movement from an adjoined position to v would violate the ECP or the Transparence Condition Also, if t he merger of an interrogative word with v results in a structure that cannot receive a well formed interpretation that interrogative word should not occur in that verbal environment on the intended interpretation. We have argued that these two considerati ons rule out the use of adjunct tanian or icuwa as a verb. In Section 6.5.1,

PAGE 288

288 cannot be syntactically realized as a verb in Kavalan and Amis for the same reasons. be used as a verb either. syntactically realized as a verb we need to consider where the two interrogative words are base generated. While it has become a c ommon assumption that English determiner the demonstratives this / that / these / those and genitive marker occupy the distribution, whether the same analysis can apply to other languages is controversial because some languages allow a determiner to co occur with a demonstrative (Bernstein 1997). The following examples are for illustration. (72 ) English a. the child b. this child c. *the this child/*this the child (73 ) Spanis h el hombre este the man this (74 ) Javanese ika n anak this the child To account for the non complementarity of a determiner and a demonstrati ve in languages like Spanish (73) and Javanes e (74 ), Bernstein (1997) proposes the structure in (75) where D is lexically realized as a determiner but demonstratives are base generated in Spec, FP.

PAGE 289

289 (75 ) As for Formosan languages, they do not have overt determiners, but their demonstratives and possessives can co occur, as shown below (Tang 2006). 12 This suggests that they do not compete for the same syntactic position. (76 ) Paiwan icu a kun ni kai this A skirt GEN PN 940) ( 77 ) Kavalan zau=ay sunis ni buya this= REL child GEN PN Tang (2006) shows that the syntactic distributions of demonstratives and possessives are quite complicated in Formosan languages as they can occur in a post nominal po sition or in a pre nominal position. The following Kavalan and Amis examples illustrate the two patterns. Note that Amis demonstratives are bound morphemes that must co occur with case markers or common noun markers. More importantly, they can only occur i n a pre nominal position, as suggeste d by the ungrammaticality of (79 a). 12 Despite the lack of overt determiners in Formosan languages, the definiteness interpretation of a noun phrase is still encoded indirectly through case marking. Therefore, Tang (2006) still assumes that DP is present in noun phrases in Formosan languages.

PAGE 290

290 (78 ) Kavalan a. sudad zau book this b. zau=ay sudad this= REL book c. sudad zaku book 1 SG POSS d. zaku=ay sudad 1 SG POSS = REL b ook (79 ) Amis a. *cikay wawa ku ni < AV >run child ABS this b. ciky ku ni (a) wawa < AV >run ABS this LNK child c. wacu nu maku dog GEN 1 SG POSS d. (nu) maku a w acu GEN 1 SG POSS LNK dog It should also be noted that when Kavalan and Amis demonstratives and possessives occur pre nominally, an additional marker = ay or a is inserted between th em and the noun, as shown in (78b), (78d), (79b), and (79 d). T he occurrence of the marker = ay or a is forbidden when demonstratives and possessives follow nouns (78a, 78c, 79c). The two markers, = ay in Kavalan and a in Amis, indicate a modification structure in a noun phrase, occurring between the modifier and the mo difi ed noun. The relationship of

PAGE 291

291 modification is broadly and loosely defined. They function to introduce diverse kinds of modifiers of a noun, including relative clauses, adjectives, numerals, quantifiers, demonstratives, and possessors. This is demonstrat ed by the following noun phrases that contain a pre nominal modifier. (80 ) Kavalan a. [qiRuziq tu kelisiw]= ay sunis nay steal OBL money= REL child that b. masang= ay utuz past= REL earthquake earthquake, NTU corpus) c. Raya= ay wasu big= REL dog d. u tulu= ay wasu CLF NHUM three= REL dog (81 ) Amis a. [mi takaw ay tu payci] a wawa AV steal FAC OBL money LNK child b amis a singsi Amis LNK teacher c. kuhting ay a ayam black FAC LNK bird As already discussed in Section 5.3.4, due to the parallel functions between Kavalan = ay and linkers connecting a noun and its modifier in other languages, we assume that = ay heads its own functional projection, FP, and triggers DP internal predicate inversion. According to den Dikken and Singhapreecha (2004) and Simpson

PAGE 292

292 (2001), a noun phrase where the noun and its modifiers are connected by a linker always involves predication. Moreover, the presence of the linker induces predicate modifier in this construction is base generated as the subject and predicate of a sma ll clause (SC) respectively. The linker heads its own functional projection, FP, and prompts the predicate to move to Spec, FP. The derivation is schematically represented by the structure in (82). (82) DP internal predicate inversion (den Dikken and Singh apreecha 2004) Like other modifiers of nouns, mayni zanitiana = ay and must occur before a noun. This is also true of Amis icuwaay nima a and must precede a noun, a s illustrated below. (83 ) Kavalan a. [ mayni=ay sunis ] ya tayta an ni imuy which= REL child ABS see PV ERG PN Imuy see? is which child?) b. [ zanitiana=ay kelisiw ] ya ala an=ay ni utay whose= REL money ABS take PV = REL ERG PN Utay take? is whose money?)

PAGE 293

293 (84 ) Amis a. [ icuwaay a wacu ] ku ka ulah an isu which LNK dog ABS KA like LA 2 SG ERG b. [ nima a wacu ] ku mi kalat ay tu pusi aku whose LNK dog ABS AV bite FAC OBL cat 1 SG GEN es m my cat is whose dog?) We thus assume that these modifier like interrogative phrases have the structural representatio n in (85). They must undergo DP internal predicate inversion, triggered by the presence of F, which is headed by = ay or a (85) t occur in the pre nominal position. If the structure in (85) is correct, t he reason why the interrogative words that Kavalan and Amis cannot be used as a verb can be attributed to their adjunction structure. As adjunct tania n icuwa forbidden from moving to v due to violations of the Transparence Condition, mayni zanitiana icuwaay nima not allowed to move to

PAGE 294

294 v either. During the course of the derivation, they m ust move to the specifier of FP headed by = ay or a via DP internal predicate inversion. Their movement from the specifier position to a c comm anding head would result in the illegitimate configuration in (86), which does not conform to either ECP or the Tr ansparence Condition (86) Illegitimate head movement It is worth noting that although Kavalan tani interrogative mo difier of a noun too, it cannot take the modification marker = ay Note that = ay does occur on numerals that precede a noun, as shown in (80d). The following pseudo cleft question illustrates that tani cannot take the modification marker = ay (87) Kavalan kin tani(*=ay) sunis ya pukun tu wasu HUM how.man= REL child ABS < AV >hit OBL dog This suggests that the structure of a noun phrase preceded by tani in (86). It is not derived via DP

PAGE 295

295 and Amis are also ruled out on semantic grounds. As discussed above, tanian / icuwa patient voice marker, as the lexical realization of v CAU SE can a ssign an agent /causer argument and the semantics of the v P shell structure with v CAU SE followed by v BECOME is compatible with a question that inquires about the location of the theme argument in a ditransitive event which is a typical and canonical type o questions The tani and pina exhibit the same grammatical patterns when they are used as verb s Due to the semantics of v CAU SE and v BECOME a question that is formed with verbal tani or pina rece ives a unique interpretation where the speaker suspects that the quantity of the affect ed theme argument might change. The generalization is that a question with a PV marked interrogative verb always implies a change of state of the theme argument with res pect to the meaning of the interrogative word. In the case of tanian / icuwa argument changes because of some action performed by the agent. As for tani / pina nt that will be affected by the action of the agent. This type of causal relation and change of state questi question. Take (83 a) as an tion does not imply that the theme argument will undergo some change with respect to the meaning

PAGE 296

296 does not quest question is incompatible with the syntactic representation of a PV marked interrogative verb and its associated semantic int erpretation. question is not associated with the semantics of a PV marked interrogative verb is elusive, but the empirical generalization remains intact. Based on our contention that all the interr ogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis are derived in Syntax, their derivation must conform to established syntactic principles and constraints. Moreover, the derived verbal structure should be able to be mapped to a well formed semantic structure. To put it in an informal way, the interpretation of the derived structure for an interrogative verb must be consistent with the available meaning of the question where the interrogative verb occurs. In what follows, we will show that the structure of a voice marked i nterrogative does not yield an interpretation that be analyzed as the interrogative form of a proper noun of the type that den otes verb. It is used in some languages to question names. It can take a pr oper noun determiner or a non common Kavalan and Amis, i.e., tiana and cima also behave like a personal proper noun.

PAGE 297

297 constructi on. The existential construction in Kavalan is introduced by the existential marker yau at the beginning of the sentence. The existential marker in Amis is ira which also occurs in the clause initial position. The pivot of the existential construction fol lows the existential marker. This is illustrated in (88a) and (89a). (88 ) Kavalan a. yau Riis ( ta lima an su ) EXIST mosquito LOC hand LOC 2 SG GEN ( on your hand b. yau=iku tazian ayi tamaisuan EXIST =1 SG ABS here aunt 2 SG LOC Earthquake_abas_Haciang, NTU corpus) c. yau ti imuy matiw sa lazing EXIST NCM PN AV .go to sea (89) Amis a. ira ku a wawa EXIST ABS one LNK child b. ira ci panay i lumaq EXIST NCM PN PREP house The same construction is also employed as a locative construction, as shown in (88b) and (89b). Moreover, the existential marker yau can also function as an aspect marker for perfective or experiential aspect when there is a verb phrase after the pivot (88c). When the pivot of the sentence is a pronoun or a personal proper noun, the construction cannot function to introduce a new referent into the discourse. While (88a) and (89a) can serv e as the first sentence in a narrative and introduces a new referent

PAGE 298

298 as the background information for further recount, (90a) and (91a) cannot be used in this way and only has a listing function. (90) Kavalan a. yau ti imuy EXIST NCM PN b. yau ti tiana EXIST NCM who c yau ti tiana ta lepaw an su EXIST NCM who LOC house LOC 2 SG GEN d yau ti tiana matiw sa lazing EXIST NCM who AV .go to sea (91) Amis a. ira ci panay EXIST NCM PN b. ira cima EXIST who c ira cima i lumaq EXIST who PREP house For example, if I am asked who will attend a festival, the utterance of (90a) or (91a) is appr opriate as the first of a list of people who I know will attend the festival. An existential sentence with a pronoun or personal proper name as the pivot can also be interpreted as a locative sentence, as already shown in (88b) and (89b), or the existentia l marker must be interpreted as an aspect marker (88c). The same restriction is observed in an existential construction with ti tiana cima

PAGE 299

299 (91b) must be interpreted as the interrogative counterpart of (90a) and (91a) in that it o nly has a listing function, performing an act of asking for the list of people. For example, if I know you are going to Taipei with some friends and I want to know who you are going with, I can ask you the question in (90b) or (91b). Like a personal proper or an experiential event (90d). Although Kavalan tiana and Amis cima can occur in the existential construction, their range of interpretations is parallel to an exis tential construction with a personal proper noun, not an indefinite noun. In other words, they behave like personal proper nouns in that the existential construction where they occur cannot receive a typical existential meaning, but must be interpreted in a different way, i.e., listing, location, or experiential aspect. Secondly, both tiana and cima (92 ) Kavalan tiana nangan su who name 2 SG GEN (93 ) Amis cima ku ngangan nu ina isu who ABS name GEN mother 2 SG GEN Finally, tiana in Kavalan can take the non common noun marker ti which is also attached to proper names, as already shown in (90a) and (90b). The non common noun marker ci cima These morphosyntactic properties of tiana and cima indicate that they should be analyzed as the interrogative form of a personal proper name. This fur ther suggests that they are of the semantic type , denoting individuals. Their inherent semantic type is

PAGE 300

300 incompatible with the semantic type of a verb, which must be a function that can apply to an individual or another function. In other words, the mer v would result in a structure whose semantic interpretation is inconsistent with the available individuals and the function of the question is to ask t he addressee to pick out a an or en in the two languages, the resultant interrogative verb should also be interpreted as a causative v P shell structure and interpretation associated with v CAUSE and v BECOME its meaning should the theme argument undergoes a change of state with question e theme argument concerning the question. This suggests that verbal pre dicate. In this case, it is selected by a Predicate head, which functions to turn nouns and adjectives into a predicate (Baker 2003). However, it can never be selected by v which is the real category defining head for verbs and semantically selects for a function, i.e., those words that are semantic predicate inherently. The same reasoning

PAGE 301

301 questions an object. However, two issues arise from this analysis that require a more comprehensive investigation. The first is to determine the semantic type of the other interrogative roots that can be combined with v Is the semantic type of an interro gative root crucial or is it the semantic type of the resultant interrogative word that is the crucial determinant? The question cannot be associated with the semantics of a PV marked interrogative verb. We have to leave these two issues for future research. 6.6 Conclusion The possibility or impossibility of using an interrogative word in Kavalan and Amis as a verb is motivated by syntactic and semantic principles/constraints, either universal or language specifi c. There is no need to stipulate the syntactic categories of interrogative words in the lexicon. Once the assumption that derivational morphology, e.g., the Kavalan and Amis voice system, must operate in the lexicon is abandoned, the syntactic behaviors of interrogative verbs find a uniform explanation in Syntax. Interrogative words are not lexically specified for syntactic categories. Their syntactic categories and the relevant grammatical patterns follow from the interaction of the following factors: The inherent semantics of interrogative words, the available interpretation of the question where they occur, the verbal structures of the voice markers, and the syntactic principles and constraints that are crosslinguistically valid, e.g., the Head Movement C onstraint or the Transparence Condition. Finally, the syntactic approach can be extended to non interrogative words as well and makes correct predictions about what interrogative words can and cannot be used

PAGE 302

302 as verbs. It is thus able to depict the overall grammatical system of Kavalan and Amis and proves to be a promising way for future typological research. Interrogative verbs are not unconstrained lexical idiosyncrasies. Instead, their derivations are systematically conditioned in Syntax.

PAGE 303

303 CHAPTER 7 T HE INTERROGATIVE VER B SEQUENCING CONSTRUCTION 7.1 Introduction The preceding chapter has expounded on the syntactic analysis of interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis and showed that the derivation of interrogative verbs is systematic and follows from ind ependently required mechanisms of syntax and semantics. In discussing how interro are derived in Syntax, we briefly alluded to the possibility of using them in a verb sequencing structure where they are f ollowed by a lexical verb. The following two examples are for illustration. (1) Kavalan tanian an ni abas m Rupu ya adam where PV ERG PN AV shut ABS bird that (2) Amis na maan en ni panay mi padang kisu PST do.how PV ERG PN AV help 2 SG ABS In Chapter 3 these verb sequencing sentences with both an interrogative verb and a lexical verb are termed the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVS C) for descriptive purposes. The present chapte r will scrutinize these verb sequencing sentences from a syntactic and theoretical perspective and explore their syntactic structure and derivation. The present chapter will offer a detailed discussion on the grammatical properties of the Kavalan and Amis IVSC as the first step to explore their syntactic structure. The following issues concerning the IVS C will be addressed. (3) Issues to be discussed

PAGE 304

304 a. What are the grammatical properties of the IVSC ? b. What is the syntactic relationship between the interrogati ve verb and the lexical verb in the IVS C? c. What syntactic structures or operations are involved in the derivation of the IVS C? The issue (3a) will be discussed in Section 7.2. Empirical facts will be presented to show that the interrogative verb and the lex ical verb in the IVSC in both Kavalan and Amis do not enjoy equal syntactic status. It will be argued that the two verbs are not coordinated and that the interrogative verb should be analyzed as the main verb of the construction. Having demonstrated that t he IVSC contains a subordinate clause headed by the lexical verb, Section 7.3 will investigate what type of subordination characterizes the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb (3b). The findings reveal that IVS C sente nces do not constitute a homogeneous class in terms of the syntactic relatio n ship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb. The lexical Section 7.4 explores other structural differences between the two types of IVSC in terms of the syntactic operations that derive the grammatical distributions of the NP arguments (3c). It is f or IVSC features obligatory control of the theme argument. Section 7.5 is the conclusion. 7.2 Grammatical Properties of the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction The interrogativ e verbs in Kavalan that can occur in the IVSC include naquni tanian whe pasani tani sikatani The Amis interrogative verbs that inquire

PAGE 305

305 about the same concepts, i.e., maan icuwa talacuwa pina kinapina sentences in (5) for illustration. All these examples contain an interrogative verb that occupies t he sentence initial position and is followed by a lexical verb. (4) Kavalan a. naquni an su m kala ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG AV find ABS child LNK that b. tanian an su pizi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV .pu t ABS money 1 IPL GEN c. pasani an su m azas ya kelisiw ta to.where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV take ABS money 1 IPL GEN d. kin tani an su=pa pukun ya sunis HUM how.many(verb) PV 2 SG ERG = FUT < A V >beat ABS child e. sika tani an su pukun ya sunis times how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG < AV >beat ABS child (5 ) Amis a. maan en ni panay (a) mi padang ku ya wawa do.how PV ERG PN LNK AV help ABS that child b. icuwa en isu (a) mi simed ku paysu where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG LNK AV hide ABS money c. talacuwa en ni panay (a) mi kerir ku ra wawa to.where (ver b) PV ERG PN LNK AV take ABS that child c. pina en ni ofad (a) mi ala ku paysu how.many PV ERG PN LNK AV take ABS money

PAGE 306

306 d. kina pina en nu wacu (a) mi kalat ku pusi times how .many PV ERG dog LNK AV bite ABS cat Section 7.2.1 will present empirical facts to show that the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the IVSC are not coordinated. The IVSC exhibits structural and semantic properties of subordination instead of coordination. In section 7.2.2, it will be argued that the interrogative verb, not the lexical verb, must be analyzed as the main verb of the IVSC. Finally, section 7.2.3 briefly discusses the appropriateness of a Se rial Verb Construction (SVC) analysis of verb sequencing constructions in Formosan languages, especially the Kavalan and Amis IVSC, and suggests that its indiscriminate application to Formosan languages fails to illuminate both the parallels and the dispar ities among different verb sequencing constructions of Formosan languages. 7.2.1 Coordination or Subordination According to Tsai and Chang (2003), t he interrogative word ainenu which is also a Formosan language, is also syntactically realiz ed as a verb. Moreover, this interrogative verb co occurs with a lexical verb in a coordinate sentence This is illustrated below. (6 ) Tsou m i ta m ainenu ho m i ta eobak o AV REA 3 SG AV how and AV REA 3 SG hit AV ta e Pasuya OBL NOM Pasuya (Tsai and Chang 2003: 237) As sho wn in (6 ), there is a coordinator, ho and the lexical verb phrase. In other words, the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in a Tsou IVSC s yntact ically form a coordinate structure. This syntactic structure does not

PAGE 307

307 reflect the semantic relationship of modification between the method interrogative word and the event that it modifies. Tsai and Chang (2003), however, argue that there is in fact no syn tax semantic s mismatch in sentences like (6 ) in Tsou if the neo Davidsonian analysis of manner adverbial expressions is adopted (Parsons 1990). On this approach, a manner adverbial can be analyzed as a predicate of the event that it modifies. For example, 224). (7 ) This semantic representation means that there is some event, this event is hitting, the That is, the so called adverbial modification is semantically represented as a type of semantic conjunction. In a s imilar vein, the sentence in (6 ) can be represented syntactically and semantically in the following way (Tsai and Chang 2003: 224, 231). (8 ) The synt actic and semantic representations of (6 ) a. Syntax: [ ConjP [ IP m i ta m ainenu] [ ho [ IP m i ta eobak o ta e Pasuya]]] b. Semantics: ?x In (8 b), mainenu is analyzed as a predicate of an event and the method of achieving this event is inquired about, as represented by ?x at the beginning of this

PAGE 308

308 representation. Moreover, this predicate about method is conjoined with other properties of the event in this sem antic representation. There is thus no syntax semantics discrepancy between syntactic conjunction and semantic modification. Instead, the semantic structure of conjunction is mapped directly onto the syntactic structure of conjunction (8a) where an interr ogative phrase is coordinated with a verb phrase by the coordinator ho Given the empirical facts in Tsou and the neo Davidsonian analysis of manner adverbial expressions, it is possible that the IVSC in Kavalan and Amis also involves the coordination of a n interrogative verb and a lexical verb. However, the empirical facts in the two languages suggest otherwise. The structure of the Kavalan IVSC is distinct from covert coordination where two constituents are coordinated without an overt marker. The presenc e of an optional linker a in the Amis IVSC also indicates that this construction is not derived via coordination. In Kavalan, two verbs or verb phrases can be conjoined with the optional coordinator sRi ( P. Li 2009), as demonstrated in (9 a). (9 ) Kavalan a m RaRiw (sRi) mu lti ltiq sunis nay AV run and AV RED jump child that ( P. Li 2009 : 225) b mu Rtut (sRi) tibuq sunis nay AV frightened and < AV >fall child that c. tibuq (sRi) mu Rtut sunis nay < AV >fall and AV frightened child that d. pukun an na (sRi) qaRat an na aiku beat PV 3 ERG and bite PV 3 ERG 1 SG ABS

PAGE 309

309 A comparison between (9b) and (9 c) sh ows that the coordinated verbs can undergo permutation. Reversing their word order does not lead to ungrammaticality, nor does this affect the truth conditional meaning of the sentence. The Kavalan I V S C exhibits neither syntactic properties of a coordinat e structure. T he optional coordinator, sRi is not allowed in the Kavalan IVSC. (10) Kavalan a. *naquni an su sRi m kala ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG and AV find ABS child LNK that b. *tanian an su sRi m nubi ya ke lisiw ta where PV 2 SG ERG and AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN The insertion of the coordinator, sRi between the two verbs in the IVSC sentences in (10) renders them ungrammatical. Secondly, the interrogative verb and the lex ical verb cannot undergo permutation. The interrogative verb occurs in the sentence initial position and must precede the lexical verb. A sentence where the lexical verb precedes the interrogative verb is ungrammatical, e.g., (11 ). (11 ) Kavalan a. *m kala naquni an su ya sunis a yau AV find do.how PV 2 SG ERG ABS child LNK that b. *pizi tanian an su ya kelisiw ta AV .put where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 1 IPL GEN c. *pukun kin tani an su y a sunis < AV >beat HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS child Unlike VP coordination, the coordinating conjunction, sRi cannot intervene between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the IVSC and the linear order of the two verbs

PAGE 310

310 cannot be reversed either. The two grammatical properties suggest that the Kavalan IVSC is not derived via coordination. There is another difference between an IVSC and a coordinate structure. As shown in (9d), the second verb in a coordin ate structure can take the patient voice marker. However, the lexical verb in an IVSC cannot be affixed with the patient voice marker. This will be illustrated and elaborated on in the following sub section. The coordination a nalysis is also incompatible w ith the grammatical properties of the Amis IVSC One obvious difference between the Kavalan IVSC and the Amis IVSC is that an optional linker, a can intervene between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the Amis IVSC, but not in Kavalan. Nevert heless, this optional linker in Amis does not mark VP coordination. One of the functions of the linker, a is to conjoin two nou n phrases, as illustrated in (12 ). (12 ) Amis a. ma hemek ci ofad a ci panay AV happy NCM PN LNK NCM PN b. ma talaw kaku tu a tu oner AV afraid 1 SG ABS OBL frog LNK OBL snake It can conjoin two nominal subjects (12a) or two nominal objects (12b). By contrast, it cannot appear in a VP or IP coordinate structure. (13 ) Amis a. mi nanum (*a) kaku AV water LNK < AV >eat 1 SG ABS b. mi nanum ci panay (*a) ci lekal AV water NCM PN LNK < AV >eat NCM PN

PAGE 311

311 The two sentences in (13) where two VPs or IPs are conjoined become ungrammatical when the linker is present. When a intervenes between two verb phrases, it functions to introduce a non finite subordinate clause or a complement clause with future/irre alis tense specificatio ns (Y. Chen 2008; E. Liu 2003). In (14 a), a introduces a complement clause where the verb is marked irrealis through Ca reduplication. It cannot introduce a complement clause with a past tense or perfective marker, as suggested by th e ungrammaticality of (14 b). Finally, control complements, whose TAM inform ation is not specified, can be introduced by the linker a as illustrated in (14 c). (14 ) Amis a. ma kaku (a) [ta tayal ci panay] AV know 1 SG ABS LNK IRR work NCM PN now that b. ma ci ofad (*a) [na mi faca ay=tu kaku AV know NCM PN LNK P ST AV wash FAC = PFV 1 SG ABS tu rikor] OBL clothes c. mi lalang kaku ci panay an (a) [mi palu ci ofad an] AV d issuade 1 SG ABS NCM PN OBL LNK AV hit NCM PN OBL Therefore, the fact that a can intervene between the interrogative verb an d the lexical verb in the Amis IVS C shows that their syntactic relationship is not coordina tion, but some form of subordination. 1 Moreover like its Kavalan counterpart, the i nterrogative verb in the Amis IVS C must precede the lexical verb. If their linear order is reversed, the sentence becomes 1 E. Liu (2003) and Tsai (2007) argue that the functional dive rsity of the Amis linker a is a result of conjunctive reduction, a grammaticalization process shared by many Formosan languages through which a conjunction marker is grammaticalized as a modifier marker or a non finite complementizer.

PAGE 312

312 ungrammatical. The strict linear order between th e two verbs is illustrated below with an icuwa IVS C. (15 ) Amis a. icuwa en isu (a) mi simed ku paysu where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG LNK AV hide ABS money b. *mi simed isu (a) icuwa en ku paysu AV hide 2 SG ERG LNK where (verb) PV ABS money This is in stark contrast to VP coordination, where the change in the linear order does not influence grammaticality. The linear order pattern in the IVSC is reminiscent of other syntactic constructions involvin g subordination in both Kavalan and Amis. In a verb sequencing sentence with a main verb and a subordinate verb, the linear order of the two verbs is fixed in that the main verb must precede the secondary verb. For example, in a try type control sentence lik e (16 a) and (17a) the main verb, paska and tanam must precede its verbal complement, qapaR and adup A rever sal of their linear order result s in ungrammaticality (16b, 17b) There is thus a parallelism between the IVSC and a ve rb sequencing structure that takes a subordinate verb in terms of word order. The strict linear order between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the IVSC suggests that this particular construction might feature subordination with the interrogat ive verb as the main verb Section 7.2.2 below will provide more empirical evidence to corroborate this analysis. (16 ) Kavalan a. paska an ku kapaR ya saku try PV 1 SG ERG < AV >catch ABS cat

PAGE 313

313 b. *kapaR paska an ku ya saku < AV >catch try PV 1 SG ERG ABS cat (17 ) Amis a. mi tanam kaku mi adup tu fafuy nu lutuk AV try 1 SG ABS AV hunt OBL pig GEN mountain b. *mi adup kaku mi tanam tu fafuy nu lut uk AV hunt 1 SG ABS AV try OBL pig GEN mountain 7.2.2 The Interrogative Verb as the Main Verb of the IVSC The preceding section has argued against the analysis of the IVSC as a coordinate structure and suggested that subordinati on might be the structural relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb. This section will present empirical facts that support this subordination analysis. The evidence concerns the tense and aspect interpretation of the lexical verb, the case marking pattern of the nominal arguments, and the grammatical restriction on the voice form of the lexical verb. First of all, the tense and aspect interpretation of the lexical verb in the IVSC is dependent on the interrogative verb. The interrog ative verb and the lexical verb must be interpreted with the same tense value. In (18a), both the interrogative verb and the lexical verb must receive a past tense interpretation. This is confirmed by the ungrammaticality or infelicity of (18b), in which t he interrogative verb receives a past tense interpretation but a future tense interpretation is imposed on the lexical verb. (18 ) Kavalan a. nasiRab naquni an su=ti m kala yesterday do.how PV 2 SG ERG = PFV AV find ya sunis a yau ABS child LNK that

PAGE 314

314 b. *nasiRab naquni an su=ti m kala yesterday do.how PV 2 SG ERG = PFV AV find ya sunis a yau temawaR ABS child LNK that tomorrow Moreover, tense, aspect, and mood (TAM) m arkers if any, must be attached to the interrogative verb. The lexi cal verb cannot host its own TAM markers. Please see the following sentences for illustration. (19 ) Kavalan a *naquni an su =ti m kala =ti ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG = PFV AV find= PFV ABS child LNK that b *naquni an su m kala =ti ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG AV find= PFV ABS child LNK that The ungrammaticality of (19a) suggests that the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the IVSC cannot host separate aspect markers. The ungrammaticality of (19b), in contrast to (18a), further indicates that the lexical verb is not allowed to take TAM markers. The same phenomenon is also observed in Amis. The contrast between (20a) and (20 b) suggests that the past tense marker must immediately precede the interrogative verb and that it cannot occur immediately before the lexical verb. The epistemic modal predicate, latek exhibits the same distribution as shown in (20c) and (20d) The distributions of the T AM markers in the Kavalan and Amis IVSC indicate that the lexical verb is structurally subordinate to the interrogative verb and that the lexical verb must be non finite. In structural terms, the subordinate clause in the IVSC hea ded by the lexical verb either lacks any projections associated with tense, aspect, and mood or contains a non finite T or I.

PAGE 315

315 (20 ) Amis a. na icuwa en isu (a) mi simed P ST where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG LNK AV hide ku paysu ABS money b. *icuwa en isu (a) na mi simed where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG LNK P ST AV hide ku paysu ABS money c. latek icuwa en ni ofad (a) mi simed maybe where (verb) PV ERG PN LNK AV hide ku paysu ABS money d. *icuwa en ni ofad (a) latek mi simed where (verb) PV ERG PN LNK maybe AV hide ku paysu ABS money The case marking pattern of the nominal arguments in the IVSC further corroborates the subordination ana lysis. In a sentence with a control main verb an d its verbal complement like (21 a) and (22a) it is the voice marker on the main verb that determines the case of the nominal arguments. (21 ) Kavalan a. paska an ku kapaR ya saku try PV 1 SG ERG < AV >cat ch ABS cat b. *paska an kapaR aiku tu saku try PV < AV >catch 1 SG ABS OBL cat (22 ) Amis a. tanam en aku mi adup ku fafuy nu lutuk try PV 1 SG ERG AV hunt ABS pig GEN mountain

PAGE 316

316 b. *tanam en mi adup kaku tu fafuy nu lutuk try PV AV hunt 1 SG ABS OBL pig GEN mountain In both (21 a) and (22a) the agent arg ument receives ergative case, while the theme argument takes the absolutive case marker This conforms to the case marking pattern of a patient voice sentence. When the agent argument is marked absolutive and the theme argument is mar ked oblique as in (21 b) and (22b) the sentence becomes ungrammatical. Note that the theme arguments in (21a) and (22a), i.e., saku and fafuy nu lutuk kapaR adup receive absolutive case in conformity with the case marking pattern of a patient voice construction. This indicate s that the age nt voice marker on the subordinate verb is not able to determine how the nominal argum ents are case marked. As for the IVS C, the case marking pattern is contingent on the voi ce marker on the interrogative verb. Consider the following sentences. (23 ) Kavalan a. tanian an su m nubi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN b. *tanian an m nubi aisu tu kelisiw ta where (ver b) PV AV hide 2 SG ABS OBL money 1 IPL GEN (24 ) Amis a. maan en isu (a) mi padang ku ya wawa do.how PV 2 SG ERG LNK AV help ABS that child b. *maan en (a) mi padang kisu tu wawa do.how P V LNK AV help 2 SG ABS OBL child

PAGE 317

317 (23 a) and (24a) exhibit the case marking pattern of a patient voice sentence in that the agent argument receives ergative cas e and the theme argument take s the absolutive case marker If nu bi in (23) and padang marker, were the main verb the agent should receive absolutive case and the theme oblique case in accordance with the case marking pattern of an agent voice construction. This case ma rking pattern results in ungrammaticality, as demonstrate d by (23 b) and (24b) T he ungrammaticality of (23b) and (24b) results from the mis alignment between the theta roles of the NPs and their case. The agent voice marker on the lexical verb in the IVSC does not determine how case is assigned to NPs, even though the NPs are the arguments of the lexical verb. The parallelism between a control sentence and the IVSC regarding t he ir case marking pattern thus lends further support to the analysis of the interr ogative verb as the main verb. The final piece of evidence for the subordination analysis of the IVSC concerns the restriction on what voice marker the lexical verb is allowed to take. (25 ) Kavalan a. *naquni an su pakala an ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 S G ERG find PV ABS child LNK that b. *tanian an su nubi an ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG hide PV ABS money 1 PL GEN c. *u tani an su ala an ya kelisiw NHUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG take PV ABS money (26 ) Amis a. *maan en ni panay (a) padang en ku ya wawa do.how PV ERG PN LNK help PV ABS that child

PAGE 318

318 b. *icuwa en isu (a) simed en ku paysu where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG L NK hide PV ABS money c. *pina en ni ofad (a) takaw en ku paysu how.many (verb) PV ERG PN LNK steal PV ABS money T he lexical verb in the IVS C can only take the agent voice marker, but n ot the patient vo ice marker, as illustrated by the ungrammatical sentences in (25) and (26) where the lexical verbs are suffixed with the patient voice marker Note that in a coordinate structure, the second verb can take the patient voice marker, as alrea dy illustrated in (9d). The only difference between (25) and (26) on the one hand and the grammatical IVSC sentences on the other hand lies in the voice marker on the lexical verb. There is an AV restriction on the lexical verb of the IVSC. Note that the l exical verbs in (25) and (26) can be suffixed with the patient voice marker when they are used as the only verb in a sentence, as illustrated in (27) and (28). (27) Kavalan a. pakala an su=ti ya sunis a yau find PV 2 SG ERG = PFV ABS child LNK that b. ala an su=ti ya kelisiw take PV 2 SG ERG = PFV ABS money (28) Amis a. padang en=tu ni panay ku ya wawa help PV = PFV ERG PN ABS that child b. takaw en=tu ni ofad ku paysu steal PV = PFV ERG PN ABS money

PAGE 319

319 The AV restriction on the lexical verb of the IVSC thus indicates that the lexical verb in such sentences is defective and does not act like a full fledged main verb. This pattern is remini scent of other verb sequencing constructions in Kavalan, Amis, and other Formosan languages, the V2 of which is restricted to the agent voice (Y. L. Chang 2006, 2010; Y. Chen 2008; L. Huang 1997; E. Liu 2003; Wu 2000, 2006). The contrast between (a) and (b ) in the following three pairs of sentences indicates that the secondary verb in a verb sequencing construction, e.g., a control sentence, can only be affixed with the agent voice marker and is not allowed to take the patient voice marker. (29 ) Kavalan a. siangatu=pa=iku tenun begin= FUT =1 SG ABS < AV >weave b. *siangatu=pa=iku tenun an begin= FUT =1 SG ABS weave PV (30 ) Kavalan a. paska an ku qapaR ya saku try PV 1 SG ERG < AV >catch ABS cat b. *paska an ku qapaR an ya saku try PV 1 SG ERG catch PV ABS cat (31 ) Amis a. ma tanam=tu ni ofad (a) mi padang ku wawa PV try= PFV ERG PN LNK AV help ABS child to help the ch b. *ma tanam=tu ni ofad (a) padang en ku wawa PV try= PFV ERG PN LNK help PV ABS child

PAGE 320

320 The second verbs in these sentences occur in a subordinate clause and cannot take the patient voice marker, as suggested by the ungrammaticality of (29b), (30b), and (31b). The AV restriction is an indication of a non fin ite reduced subordinate clause. The fact that the lexical verb in the IVSC also obeys the AV restriction thus constitutes a strong piece of evidence for the su bordination analysis of the lexical verb. To summarize, the following grammatical properties of the IVS C all point to the conclusion that the interrogat ive verb in this construction should be analyzed as the main verb, whereas the lexical verb is non fini te and structurally subordinate to the interrogative verb. (32 ) Grammatical p rop erties of the IVS C a. The optional coordinator, sRi is not allowed to intervene between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the Kavalan IVSC There is an optional link er, a which introduces an irrealis subordinate clause, between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the Amis IVSC b. The word order of the interrogative verb and the lexical verb cannot be reversed. The interrogative verb must precede the lexical verb. c. The TAM interpretation of the lexical verb is dependent on the interrogative verb. TAM markers, if any, must be attached to the interrogative verb. d. The case marking pattern of the nominal arguments is determined by the voice marker on the interrogati ve verb. e. The lexical verb observes the AV restriction. These empirical facts of the IVSC are incompatible with the coordination analysis, but can be easily explained by the subordination analysis. The grammatical properties listed in (32), especially (32d) and (32e), further reveal that the agent voice marker on the lexical verb is distinct in nature from the agent voice marker affixed to verbs in a simple clause or a matrix clause. As already discussed in Chapter 6, each form of the Amis agent voice marker in a simple clause or a matrix

PAGE 321

321 clause is associated with its unique theta features or semantic features, e.g., BECOME and CAUSE, and is able to control the alignment between case and arguments. The agent voice marker on the lexical verb in the IVSC is dev oid of such features and thus should not be identified with the agent voice marker in a simple or matrix clause. Instead, it should be construed as the default marker for v that does not possess any theta features or semantic features and occurs in a non f inite clause that lacks projections of tense, aspect, and mood. On the assumption that voice markers are the phonological realizations of v as discussed in Chapter 6, the AV restriction can be ascribed to this elsewhere insertion rule that regulates the r elationship between the verb defining head, or the little v and voice markers. The properties listed in (32c) and (32e) suggest that the lexical verb phrase in the IVSC is non finite and cannot contain any specific TAM morphology. In Kavalan, the lexical verb phrase is not introduced by any overt marker. We thus assume that it only projects up to vP, which is headed by the default agent voice marker in a non finite clause. Its temporal or aspectual dependence on the matrix clause and the absence of any TAM markers arise from the absence of the T or Asp domain in its syntactic representation. As for the Amis IVSC, it is also non finite, but it can be introduced by the linker a As already pointed out in the preceding discussion, w hen a intervenes between t wo verb phrases, it functions to introduce a non finite subordinate clause or a complement clause with irrealis tense specificatio ns (Y. Chen 2008; E. Liu 2003). We assume analysis that the linker a is a defective Mod Asp head that introdu ces a subordinate clause whose TAM information is dependent on the matrix

PAGE 322

322 clause. In other words, the lexical verb phrase in the Amis IVSC is a Mod Asp phrase headed by a which marks a clause as non finite. 7.2.3 Serial Verb Constructions in Formosan Lan guages Some Formosan linguists contend that sentences with a sequence of verbs expressing a variety of meanings, e.g., motion, phase, modal, manner, frequency, and instrument, in Formosan languages all fall under the rubric of a Serial Verb Construction (S VC), which can be informally defined as a syntactic construction where two or more verbs are concatenated with no intervening linking element (L. Huang 1997; Wu 1995). This indiscriminate approach, which views all verb sequencing constructions in Formosan languages as an SVC, has been challenged by studies that focus on specific types of verb sequencing constructions, e.g., Y. L. Chang (2010) on adverbial verb constructions in Kavalan and Y. Chen (2008) on control constructions in Amis. A cursory observatio n on the Kavalan sentences in the preceding two sections shows that their syntactic and semantic features overlap the following cross linguistic properties of an SVC (Baker 1989; Collins 1997 ; Crowley 2002; Lefebvre 1991; Muysken and Veenstra 2006; Sebba 19 87 ). (33) Cross linguistic Properties of SVCs a. The two verbs in an SVC are not separated by any overt linker, coordinator, or subordinator. b. The two verbs in an SVC are interpreted with the same tense value. c. Each individual verb in an SVC can be used alone as a main verb in its own right. d. The structural relationship between the two verbs or verb phrases in an SVC is subordination instead of coordination. e. The two ve rbs in an SVC must share an argument.

PAGE 323

323 Section 7.2.1 has shown that the two verbs in a Kavalan IVS C cannot be conjoined by an overt coordinator. In fact, none of the markers that connect phrases or clauses in Kavalan can intervene between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in an IVSC. For example, the following sentences are ungrammatical if t he interrogative verb and the lexical verb are separated by a linker, coordinator, or complementizer. (34 ) Kavalan a. naquni an su (* a/sRi/tu ) m kala ya sunis nay do.how PV 2 SG ERG LNK /and/ COMP AV find ABS child that b t anian an su (* a/sRi/tu ) m nubi where PV 2 SG ERG LNK /and/ COMP AV hide ya kelisiw ta ABS money 1 IPL GEN Section 7.2.1 and section 7.2.2 have also demonstrated that the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the Kavalan I VSC must be interpreted with the same tense value and that their structural relationship is subordination instead of coordination. These two characteristics of the Kavalan IVSC correspond to the properties of an SVC in (33b) and (33d) respectively. Moreove r, in the Kavalan IVSC, not only can the lexical verb function as an independent main verb in a simple sentence, the interrogative verb can also show up alone without the lexical verb. Examples showing interrogative verbs used as an independent main verb w ith no lexical verb have been presented in Chapter 3 and a syntactic analysis for how they are derived has been proposed in Chapter 6. Some examples that are relevant to the IVSC are repeated below. (35 ) Kavalan a. naquni a kita do.how NAV 1 IPL ERG

PAGE 324

324 b. tanian an su ya kelisiw su where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 2 SG GEN d. u tani an su ya kelisiw NHUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money These exam ples demonstrate that the interrogative verb in the Kavalan IVSC behaves like a lexical verb, which is able to occur as the only verb in a sentence and takes noun phrases as its argument. Therefore, both verbs in the Kavalan IVSC are lexical in nature and meet the requirement in (33c). Finally, according to (33 e), the two verbs in an SVC share at least one argument. Argument sharing can also be observed in the Kavalan IVS C. Consider again the relevant examples, which are repeated below. (36 ) Kavalan a. naq uni an su m kala ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG AV find ABS child LNK that b. tanian an su pizi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV .put ABS money 1 IPL GEN c. kin tani an su=pa puk un ya sunis HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG = FUT < AV >beat ABS child In (36 a), the interrogative verb naquni su 2 SG ERG which is also interpreted as the agent of the embedded lex ical verb The interrogative verbs in (36b) and (36 c) share a theme argument with the lexical verbs. The interrogative scope of tanian b) only covers the theme argument kelisiw ta as the intended meaning of the question concerns the location of this theme argument. This theme argument is also interpreted as the theme argument of the

PAGE 325

325 lexical ditransitive verb, pizi he absolutive noun phrase in (36 c) sunis is the theme argument of both tani d pukun arguments in (36 ) are all expressed only once. Repeating the shared arguments in the subordinate lexical clauses in these examples will result in ungrammaticality. To summarize, t he crosslinguistic pro perties of an SVC listed in (33) are also characteristic of the Kavalan IVSC and thus it seems to qualify as a type of SVC. That is the IVSC in Kavalan can be construed as a special type of SVC with an interrogative verb as the main verb. Although Amis and Kavalan IVSCs are characte rized by almost the same grammatical and semantic properties, the classification of the Amis IVSC as an SVC is untenable. T here is a critica l difference between the Amis IVSC and the Kavalan IVS C. While the insertion of a linker, coordinator, or subordinat or between the interrogative verb and the l exical verb in the Kavalan IVS C leads to ungrammaticality the linker, a can optionally intervene between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the Amis IVSC, as illustrated in (5 ). The presence of th e o ptional linker in the Amis IVS C indi cates that the Amis IVS C s hould not be analyzed as an SVC where no linker, coordinat or, or subordinator is allowed. However, the conclusion that the Amis IVSC and the Kavalan IVS C should be identified as two distinct ve rb sequencing constructions is suspicious. As summarized in (32), they exhibit the same grammatical and semantic features except for the optional linker in Amis. As will be argued in Section 7.3 and Section 7.4 below, they also involve the same syntactic d erivations and operations. In other words, all that distinguishes the Kavalan IVSC and the Amis IVSC is the optional presence of a linker in Amis, which

PAGE 326

326 happens to be a crucial criterion to identify whether a construction is an SVC or not. The classificati on based on this single criterion does not reveal any critical difference between the Kavalan IVSC and the Amis IVSC in terms of structure or meaning. Regardless of the possibility of a linker, the lexical verb of the IVSC in both languages is subordinate to the main interrogative verb, is non finite, and must obey the AV restriction. Teng (2007) also makes a similar comment on SVCs in Puyuma and Paiwan, both of which are Formosan languages. She adopts the criterion of no linker to identify SVCs. However, s he notes that SVCs in Paiwan exhibit similar structural and functional properties as SVCs in Puyuma, except that SVCs in Paiwan have a linker a She thus does not want to identify Paiwan SVCs as a distinct structure from Puyuma SVCs. The confusion in the i dentification of SVCs that results from the presence of a linker casts doubt on the utility of the term SVC when applied to Formosan languages. Likewise, SVC is not an ideal term to describe the structure of the Kavalan and Amis IVSC and thus its indiscrim inate application to other verb sequencing structures in Formosan languages needs a thorough overhaul. However, this is beyond the scope of the present study as it requires comprehensive and in depth structural analyses on each type of verb sequencing cons tructions. 7.3 The Syntactic Relationship Between the Two Verbs in the IVS C Having established that the IVSC contains a subordinate lexical verb phrase we will further investigate what type of subordination characterizes the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb Three non coordinate structures of verb sequencing will be examined in the context of the IVSC : double headed VP structur e (Baker 1989), complementation, and adjunction Complementation

PAGE 327

327 and adjunction are typic double headed structure is proposed specifically for an SVC structure, but Hiraiwa and Bodomo (2008) reformulation of this structure as Parallel Merge within the Minimalist Program makes it possib le to extend this analysis to the derivation of a surface subordinate structure. We thus still take this analysis into consideration in addition to complementation and adjunction. It will be argued tha t IVS C sentences can be classified into two types with respect to the structural relationship between the interrogative verb an d the lexical verb. While an IVS interrogative verb, the lexical verb in an IVS C headed by should be analyzed as an adjunct to the interrog ative verb. 7.3 .1 Doub le Headed VP S tructure Based on SVCs in Yoruba and Sranan, Baker (1989) argues that the VP in an SVC is projected from two verbal heads, which share an object. This double headed VP ca n be schematically represented by the structure in (37) (37) Double headed VP (Baker 1989) The VP structure in an SVC is thus different from other phrasal projections, which only allow one head. According to Baker (1989), t he fi rst verb in (37 ) c an direc mark the role to the same NP. These two mar king can be characterized as (38 ).

PAGE 328

328 (38 ) a. or b. To prevent the structure in (37 Criterion, Baker (1989) assumes that roles in the same structural position. This version of Criterion is satisfied in (37 ) roles from V1 and V2 simultaneously in the same VP. Hiraiwa and Bodomo (2008) contend that double headed analysis of SVC can be conceived of as a kin d of Parallel Merge in the sense of Citko (2005). According to Citko (2005), Parallel Merge has properties of both Internal Merge, as shown in (39) (39) Parallel Merge (Citko 2005) Hiraiwa and Bodomo (2008) argue that the VP in an SVC is derived via Parallel Merge of the two verbs and their shared argument. On this account, an SV C is assigned the structural representation in (40) This structure exhibits Parallel Merge in that the NP object of V 1 is merged with V 2 via Internal Merge while V 1 and V 2 are merged via External Merge at the same time. The analysis of object sharing as s ymmetric sharing

PAGE 329

329 in (40) provides a straightforward account for the empirical observations about SVCs in Dgr in (41). (40 ) Parallel Merge of SVC (Hiraiwa and Bodomo 2008) (41 ) SVCs in Dgr In Dgr, not only V 1 and the object can form a syntactic constituent excluding V 2 but also V 2 and the object can form a syntactic constituent excluding V 1 (Hiraiwa and Bodomo 2008: 819) structure in (39) or (40) is not linear izable. Hiraiwa and Bodomo (2008) thus propose the following additional condition on Parallel Merge. (42 ) Parallel Merge and Linearization Parallel Merge (or Ternary Branching) is allowed in narrow syntax as long as the structure is made linearizable befo re Spell Out. (Hiraiwa and Bodomo 2008: 823) As far as (40 ) is concerned, the shared object NP and one of the two verbs must move before Spell Out to break the symmetry of this structure and make it linearizable. Therefore, the object NP undergoes object s hift to the specifier of AspP 1+2 and one of the two verbs need to move to v. Thes e movement operations transform (40 ) to an antisymmetric structure like (43 ) and result in a seeming subordinate structure on the surface

PAGE 330

330 (43 ) Object shift and verb movemen t for linearization (Hiraiwa and Bodomo 2008) It should be noted that the double headed VP structure and Parallel Merge are proposed to account for object sharing SVCs only. 2 They do not apply to subject sharing SVCs. It is thus impossible for the t wo structures to characterize an IVSC that is derived via Parallel Merge as the two verbs in t his type of IVSC share the theme argument and the subordinate structure might result from the need for linearization. The IVSC only. However, there is an empirical problem of Parallel Merge w hen it applies to the Kavalan and Amis IVSC. The symmetric structure of the two verb phrases in (40) predicts that V 1 and V 2 are equidistant from v and that either V 1 or V 2 can move to v so as to break the symmetry for linearization. This prediction is not borne out in Kavalan 2 For Baker (1989), o bject sharing is one of the defining properties of an SVC.

PAGE 331

331 and Amis due to the fixed word order between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb. In addition to the word order fact, the symmetric structure is also unable to accommodate other empirical facts of the IVSC. Given the symmetric structure, either the interrogative verb or the lexical verb in the IVSC should be able to move out of the phrase formed by Parallel Merge for linearization purposes. This entails that either verb can move to the inflectional domain to host tense or aspec t markers. Moreover, either verb can surface as the main verb of the sentence and determines the case marking pattern of the nominal arguments. This further implies that there should be no constraint on what voice markers the lexical verb is allowed to tak e. All of these predictions contradict the empirical facts of the IVSC. Hiraiwa and Bodomo ( 2008 ) notice a similar problem of their analysis for SVCs in Dgr concerning the word order of the two verbs. As shown by the contrast between (44a) and (44b), t he linear order of the two verbs in a Dgr SVC is fixed. (44 ) Dgr a. d s l nn 3 SG P ST roast FOC meat eat b. d l nn s 3 SG P ST eat FOC meat roast In order to rule out ungrammatical sentences like (44b) where V 2 moves to v and thus precedes V 1 Hiraiwa and Bodomo ( 2008 ) adopt the Temporal Iconicity Condition in ( 45 ) proposed by Y. Li (1993). They assume that the Temporal Iconicity Condition operates at LF and that the verbal constituent denoting a temporally preceding subevent must asymmetrically c command the other verbal constituent. In narrow syntax, ow ing to the parallel structure of the two verb phrases, either verb can move to v without violating

PAGE 332

332 Minimality. The Temporal Iconicity Condition will rule out sentences like (44b) at LF. To derive (44b), V 2 1 v Th is is allowed in narrow syntax. However, when the final structure is sent to LF, V 2 subevent that temporally follows the subevent denoted by V 1 commands V 1 onicity Condition and hence the derivation for (44b) crashes at LF. (45) Temporal Iconicity Condition Let A and B be two subevents (activities states, changes of states, etc.) then the temporal relation between A and B must be directly reflected in the vice versa. (Y. Li 1993: 499) Although the Temporal Iconicity Condition can successfully block the derivation of ungrammatical SVCs in Dgr, it makes a wrong prediction about the linear order of the interrogative ve rb and the lexical verb in the IVSC. Consider the following two sentences from Kavalan. (46 ) Kavalan a. tanian an su pizi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV .put ABS money 1 IPL GEN b. kin tani an su pukun ya sunis HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG < AV >beat ABS child Supposing these two sentences are derived via Parallel Merge, they should exhibit the parallel verbal structure in (47) before verb movement and object movement. (For ex syntactic status, either of them is allowed to move to v without leading to any violations of Minimality. The Temporal Iconicity Condition will determine which derivation c onverges or crashes at LF.

PAGE 333

333 (47) Parallel Merge analysis of the IVSC In Chapter 6, we have shown that when tanian or tani is used as a verb, its syntactic structure and the corresponding semantic interpretation involve two operators: CAU SE and BECOME. In other words, the event denoted by an IVSC can be decomposed into two subevents. The first subevent denotes an action performed by an agent and this leads to the second subevent regarding the change of state of a theme. For example, in (46a), the concerns the location of the theme, which is the result of the first subevent. In other The Temporal Ic onicity Condition predicts that only the derivation where the lexical verb moves to v can converge at LF because the subevent denoted by the lexical verb temporally precedes the subevent denoted by the interrogative verb. The ungrammaticality of the follow ing sentences shows that this prediction is wrong. (48 ) Kavalan a. *pizi tanian an su ya kelisiw ta AV .put where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 1 IPL GEN b. *pukun kin tani an su ya sunis < AV >beat HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS child

PAGE 334

334 Instead, it is the interrogative verb that must occur in the sentence initial position and precede the lexical verb. In conclusion, the analysis of Parallel Merge fails to account for the linear order a symmetry between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the IVSC. The Temporal Iconicity Condition is unable to rescue the analysis as it predicts the opposite linear order. 7.3 .2 Complementa tion or A djunction The discussion so far has revealed th at the IVS C structure is not derived via coordination or Parallel Merge of an interrogative verb and a lexical verb. Having excluded the possibilities of coordination and Parallel Merge, we i nvestigate whether the IVS C involves complementation or adjunctio n in this sub section. Our findings suggest that an IVS phrase to the interrogative verb, whereas the syntactic relationship between or and its following lexical v erb is adjunction. Despite its importance in syntactic theories concerning structural representations, the distinction between a complement and an adjunct has been a thorny issue in linguistics. One of the reasons is that there are no absolutely reliable d iagnostic criteria for the distinction. There are many cases where an adjunct has the same surface morphosyntactic form as a complement. For example, depending on the matrix verb, an infinitive, e.g., to impress Sally might be analyzed as an adjunct as in Mark did this to impress Sally or as a complement as in Mark wanted to impress Sally This mean s that the surface morphosyntactic form of a constituent does not necessarily constitute a reliable piece of evidence for its complement or adjunct status. Like wise, although the lexical verbs in IVS Cs headed by different interrogative verbs all have to observe the

PAGE 335

335 AV restriction, this constraint does not entail that they all enjoy the same syntactic status. We need other independent criteria to help us determine whether the lexical verb in the IVS C is a complement or an adjunct. The following two lists summarize the properties of complements and adjuncts properties mainly consist i n the syntactic and semantic relationship between a head and its complement/adjunct. They will serve as the diagnostics for the distinction between complementation and adjunction in the following discussion. (49 ) Properties of a complement Y in relation to its head X: a. A head X without its complement Y is not well formed or X is different from [XY] in terms of category or meaning. b. Without Y, the meaning of X is incomplete or incoherent or Y can still be inferred from the linguistic or situational context. c. Se mantically, Y saturates an argument position of X. In other words, X discharges an argument position to Y. ( 50 ) Properties of an adjunct Y in relation to its head X: a. A head X without its adjunct Y is well formed and X is the same as [XY] in terms of catego ry or meaning. b. Y merely restricts the meaning or denotation of X. c. Semantically, Y discharges an argument position to X or a projection of X without determining the morphosyntactic properties of [XY]. (49a), (49b), (50a), and (50 b) basically capture our inf ormal intuition about complements and adjuncts. That is, a complement can be obligatory, but an adjunct is always optional. This is motivated by the semantic aspects of a complement and an adjunct in that a complement functions to complete the meaning of i ts head, whereas an adjunct serves to modify the meaning of its head.

PAGE 336

336 The criteria in (49c) and (50 c) deserve separate discussion. (49 c) states that a head discharges an argument position to its complement in terms of their semantic functions Couched in t role to its role from the head. This information is grid of a head. However, within our syntactic framework, there is still no established way to formaliz e the condition in (50 c) regarding the relationship bet ween a head and its adjunct. (50 c) is mainly motivated by the semantic analysis of adjuncts. The Neo Davidsonian analys is of adverbial modifiers advoca ted by Par sons (1990) treats adverbial modifiers as predicates of un derlying events. An adjunct such as an adverbial modifier is viewed as a type of semantic predicate that also has argument positions to discharge. For example, the adverb slowly in John runs slowly takes the verb phrase as its argument and is thus a semantic function of the type < >. While a head discharges an argument position to its complement, it saturates an argument position of its adjunct in terms of their semantic types This dual st atus of a head is schematically represented by the tree diagram in (51) from Bierwisch (2003). (51 ) Complementation and adjunction

PAGE 337

337 The arrow s in the tree stand for the discharge of an argument position. The head X in (51) discharges an argument position to YP, its complement; ZP, an adjunct of X, Although both a head and an adjunct can discharge an argument position, an adjunct does not determine the morphosyntactic properties and category of the resultant phrase Let us illustrate (49c) and (50c) with the English example, read the book slowly The verb read is of the semantic type, >. The DP the book is a definite noun phrase of the semantic type . For ease of exposition, we ignore the internal semantic structure of the DP. As for the adverb slowly its semantic type is <,>. (52) is the semantic type structure of the English VP read the book slowly (52) The semantic type structure of read the book slowly In this semantic type structure, V is an unsaturated function >, which maps individuals to another function . DP is of the correct semantic type that can saturate an argument position of V > What projects af ter the merger of V and DP is V. This illustrates the relationship between a head and its complement. V discharges an

PAGE 338

338 argument position to DP and determines the morphosyntactic category of the resultant is in the domain of AdvP <,> AdvP. However, AdvP does not determine the morphosyntactic category of the resultant phrase. Their relationship is adjunction: The adjunct AdvP discharges an argument IVSC Wi th the diagnostics listed in (49) and (50 ), we can now probe into the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in the IVSC. Co nsider IVSC first. (53 ) Kavalan naquni an su m kala ya sunis a yau do.how PV 2 SG ERG AV find ABS child LNK that (54) Amis maan en ni panay (a) mi padang ku ya wawa do.how PV ERG PN LNK AV help ABS that child First of all, the lexical verb in the IVS C headed by is obligatory. The deletion of the lexical verb would result i n a sentence that has a different interpretation. (55 ) Kavalan naquni an su ya sunis a yau do.what P V 2 SG ERG ABS child LNK that (56) Amis maan en ni panay ku ya wawa do.how PV ERG PN ABS that child This is illustrated in (55) and (56) above. The sentence in (55 ) does not contain a lexical verb like m kala AV

PAGE 339

339 the method of how to do something, but questions what one does to the theme argument. If both the lexical verb and the them e argument are deleted as in (57 ), the resultant sentence could have two interpretations. (57 ) Kavalan naquni a kita do.how NAV 1 PL ERG It could question what to do and it s meaning is more similar to (55) than to (53 ). It could also be interpreted as a question that inquires about the method of how to do something. In this case, the question must be understood elliptically. There must be some salient discourse information about an action or event that the speaker finds difficult to a chieve. A possible scenario is that the speech participants plan to visit a friend in another village but it turns out that the person who can give them a ride is sick. Under this situation it is appropriate to utter (57 bout how they can visit their friend. In other words, in order for (57 ) to be interpreted as a how question, the addressee of this question must be able to infer from the relevant context the elided lexical VP that naquni requires. The relationship between and its following lexical verb thus conforms to the first two criteria of comple mentation in (49a) and (49 b). Without the lexical verb, the meaning of naquni or maan is incomplete or incoherent or the lexical verb can be inferred fro m the context The diagnostic of argument saturation also indicates that a naquni IVS C or maan IVSC involves a complementation structure. Along the lines of the Neo Davidsonian analysis proposed by Parsons (1990), naquni or maan should be semantically anal yzed as a predicate that selects for an action. It discharges an argument position to a verb

PAGE 340

340 phrase. Although both an adjunct and a head can discharge an argument position, an adjunct can never determine the morphosyntactic properties of the resultant p hra se. As argued in the preceding discussion, naquni or maan func tions as the main verb in an IVS C and the voice marker on it determines the case marking pattern of the nominal arguments. This suggests that the argument saturation property that holds between naquni and its following lexical verb must emanate from the head complement configuration instead of the adjunct head configuration. The interrogative verb naquni is a head and it discharges an argument position to its verbal complement and determines the morphosyntactic properties of the resultant phrase In what follows, we will illustrate this idea with (53). IVSC in (53) is represented and assign the label V to the interrogative verb and the lexical verb on the assumption that this simplification will not alter the semantic derivation. The semantic representation of an interrogative shown in (58) is an informal notation; we put a questio n mark (?) before a semantic type to informally mark it as an interrogative. As shown in this structure, VP 1 the semantic type of which is , belongs to the domain of V 2 the semantic type of which is ?<,>. VP 1 can thus saturate an argument position of V 2 Moreover, the morphosyntactic properties of the resultant phrase are determined by V 2 In other words, the resultant phrase is a projection of V 2 This configuration of argument saturation is characteristic of complementation, where the hea d discharges an argument position to its complement and also determines the morphosyntactic properties of the derived phrase.

PAGE 341

341 (58) Semantic type structure for (53) e referent of (59) Semantic interpretation of (58) DP (that child) c V 1 (find) VP 1 V 2 (do how) f how( ) 2 [ f how( )] ( ) ? how( )] ? how( ) DP (you) d VP 2 ?[ how( )] (d) ? d finds c how( d finds c) In concl usion, the three properties of complementation listed in (49) are all IVS C should be analyzed as a complement to naquni or maan The syntactic behavior of the lexical verb phrase lends furt her support to this complementation analysis. The lexical verb phrase can be syntactically realized as the absolutive argument in Amis, as illustrated in (60).

PAGE 342

342 (6 0) Amis maan en ni panay [ku pi padang tu ya wawa] do.how PV ERG PN ABS PI help OBL that chi ld In this sentence, the lexical verb does not take any voice markers, but appears in the form of a nominal root. When a verb in Amis appears in its nominal root form, it always co occurs with the verb classification prefix, pi or ka The entire lexical verb phrase is syntactically treated as a core DP argument that can take a case marker, e.g., the absolutive case marker, ku Note the parallelism between (60) and a patient voi ce sentence regarding the case marking of the core arguments. When a verb takes the patient voice marker, the agent argument receives ergative case and the theme argument receives absolutive case. The fact that the lexical verb phrase in its nominal root f orm can take the absolutive case marker in (60) indicates that it is conceived of as one of the core arguments of the main verb, maan The clausal complement of other complement taking verbs can also be syntactically realized as a DP argument in Amis (Lin and Wu 2008). This is demonstrated by the two sentences in (61). (61a) shows that the verb tengil take a clausal complement. In (61b), the verb in the complement clause occurs in its root form and the complement clause is syntactically treated a s a DP that can take the absolutive case marker, ku in a patient voice sentence. The syntactic behavior of the lexical verb phrase in a maan IVSC as in (60) thus corroborates our analysis that the lexical verb phrase is an argument of maan (61) Amis a. m a tengil aku [ma keter ci aki ci ofad an] PV hear 1 SG ERG AV scold NCM PN NCM PN OBL

PAGE 343

343 b. ma tengil aku [ku pi keter ni aki ci ofad an] PV hear 1 SG ERG ABS PI scold GEN PN NCM PN OBL is heard by me.) IVSC IVS C delineated above is not applicable to the I V S C headed by which exhibits different syntactic and semantic properties concerning the relations hip between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb. The relevant examples are repeated in (62) and (63) (62 ) Kavalan a. tanian an su m nubi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN b. u tani an su m ala ya kelisiw NHUM how.much (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV take ABS money (63 ) Amis a. icuwa en ni ofad (a) mi simed ku paysu where (verb) PV ERG PN LNK AV hide ABS money b. pina en isu mi pacuk ku fafuy how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV kill ABS pig IVS C or the IVSC is optional and its deletion does not alter the interpretation of the interrogative verb. Consider the sentence s in ( 64 ) and ( 65 ) used alone as a verb without a lexical verb. Chapter 6 has shown that is used as a verb when it undergoes head movement to v CAU SE and that the resultant verbal structure denotes a ditransitive event t tanian remains intact regardless of the presence/abs ence of a lexical verb. Both (62a) and (64a ) denote a

PAGE 344

344 ditransitive event and are intended to inquire about the location of the theme argument no matter what action is involved. In other words, without the lexical verb, tanian (or icuwa ) still remains unchanged in terms of its category and logical meaning. (64 ) Kavalan a. tanian an su ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money 1 IPL GEN b. u tani an su ya kelisiw CLF NHUM how.much (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money (65 ) Amis a. icuwa en ni ofad ku paysu where (verb) PV ERG PN ABS money b. pin a en isu ku paysu how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG ABS money This is also true of tani pina BECOME and v CAUSE The vP occurs as a verb. That is, the quantity of the theme a rgument is expected to change. This specific interpretation arises regardless of whether there is a lexical verb following tani does not vary with the presence or absence of a lexical verb. Howev er, as is well known, the optionality criterion for the distinction between complements and adjuncts is rather inconclusive. Complements can be optional too and the omission of a complement does not necessarily alter the meaning of its head, e.g., eat vs. eat pizza While obligatoriness is a reliable diagnostic for the distinction between

PAGE 345

345 complements and adjuncts, optionality is not. Therefore, the fact that the lexical verb IVSC is optional does not constitute e vidence for an adjunction structure. We need to consider other semantic properties or functions of the lexical verb phrase. The a ddition of a lexical verb to (64 ) or (65) changes the question to a more specific one. In other words, the lexical verb in the IVSC functions like a modifier, specify ing the action involved in the event. This suggests that the lexical verb might be an adjunct in accordance with the second criterion of adjunction: An adjunct merely restricts the meaning or de notation of its head. IVSC offers a more reliable piece of evidence for the analysis of their lexical verb as an adjunct (66)

PAGE 346

346 ing lexical verb suggests that the lexical verb functions as an adjunct to the interrogative main verb. The interrogative verb tanian or icuwa does not semantically select for an event or action. Instead, it selects for a theme argument. The discussion in Chapter 3 and Chapter 6 has shown that the use of tan ian or icuwa as a verb is restricted to a question that inquires about the location of a theme argument in a ditransitive event. In other words, verbal tanian or icuwa is allowed only when it questions t he location of a theme argument, but it is forbidden when it questions the location where an event takes place. This restriction on the verbal use of tanian or icuwa discharges an argument position to a theme DP, not to a verb phrase. The structure that we assign to verbal tanian in Chapter 6 repeated in ( 66 ) reflects the fact that tanian IVSC cannot be the complement of tanian or icuwa In a sentence l ike (62a), the ditransitive verb shares the theme argument with tanian Its location argument is syntactically realized as the main verb of the sentence. However, tanian cannot be the syntactic complement of this ditransitive verb, or otherwise its movemen t to v would violate the Head Movement Constraint or the Transparence Condition. On the assumption that the verbal structure of a ditransitive verb contains a VP shell (Larson 1988), the verb nubi structure in (67) with the theme argument base generated in the specifier of the lower VP and the location argument in the complement of the lower VP. The problem of this structure is that it predicts that tanian can never be syntactically realized as a verb if the head o f the lower VP is occupied by a lexical verb. The head movement of tanian from

PAGE 347

347 XP to v has to cross an intervening head, i.e., nubi violation of the Head Movement Constraint. This prediction is wrong as tanian is still the main verb of an IVSC even if there is a lexical verb. (67) IVSC but at the same time, it i generated as the movement to v This issue can be resolved if we adopt the adjunction analysis of the lexical ditransitive verb. A s stated in (50c), an adjunct is able to discharge an argument position to its head although it does not determine the morphosyntactic properties of the phrase. The morphosyntactic evidence for the analysis of tanian or icuwa as the main verbal head in an IVSC is robust. The only way it can saturate an argument position of the ditransitive verb is to adjoin the ditransitive verb to the verb phrase headed by tanian or icuwa This can be schematically represented as (68).

PAGE 348

348 (68) As an adjunct, the vP h eaded by nubi to the head tanian thereby satisfying the requirement that it should have a location argument. In what follows, we provide a formal semantic account for the structure in (68) and show that it s semantic representation and interpretation are legitimate and can ensure that the argument positions of both verbs are saturated. IVSC in (62a), repeated below as (69a), is represented in (69b). For ease and clarity of exposition, we omit vP assumption that this simplification will not alter the semantic derivation. The semantic representation of an interrogative shown in (69) is an informal notation; we put a question mark (?) before a semantic type to informally mark it as an interrogative. As the projection of the little v is omitted in the following structure, V 1 is in fact a composite form of tanian patient voice marker. In other words, it has already In Section 7.4, we will explain why ya kelisiw ta occurs not only in VP 1 but also in VP 2

PAGE 349

349 (69) Kavalan a. tani an an su m nubi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN b. Semantic type structure for (62a = 69a) 3 The argument saturation configuration of VP 2 1 is characte ristic of an 1 can saturate an argument position of VP 2 because its semantic type is in the domain of VP 2 the interrogative status of a phrase; it does not alter the semantic type of a phrase. The semantic interpretation of (69b) is given in (70). (70) Semantic interpretation of (69b) DP (our money) m V 1 (tanian an) where (x) 1 where (x)](m) ? where (m) DP (our money) m V 2 (hide) f D f(q) 3 Note that the semantic type of nubi shifting (Partee 1986; van der Does and de Hoop 1998). In theory, nothing prevents this se mantic type from being used in a normal declarative (non IVSC) sentence. The question is whether regular locations can be used as a verb too just like tanian as a verb, as illustrated in Secti on 6.4.1. A semantic theory is needed to explain the extent of and the restrictions on type shifting of location expressions within Kavalan. This is beyond the scope of the present study.

PAGE 350

350 VP 2 [ f D f(q)](m) f D f(q) 1 [ f D f(q)](? where (m)) ? ( whe re (m))(q) ? q puts m where (m) DP (you) d VP 1 ?[ q puts m where (m)](d) ? d hides m d puts m where (m) While the semantic representation of (69b) derives the correct semantic interpretation in (7 0), a semantic representation where the lexical verb phrase is base generated as the complement of the interrogative verb is uninterpretable. (71) The lexical VP as the complement of the interrogative verb (illicit representation) If the lexic al verb phrase occurs in the complement position of the interrogative verb, neither of them can saturate an argument position of the other. The illicit semantic representation is given in (71). In this structure, V 1 should discharge an argument position to a phrase of type and VP 2 requires a phrase of type to saturate its argument position. Neither can achieve argument saturation and thus the structure is uninterpretable.

PAGE 351

351 IVSC not only functions like a modifier representation. The requirement that the lexical ditransitive verb h ave a location argument can be fulfilled in this structure. Other structures will result in a semantic representation that is uninterpretable. All the evidence converges on the conclusion that IVSC, the interrogative verb, tani or pina selects for a DP IVSC questions the quantity of the theme argument, not the frequency of an action or event. In other words, tani or pina discharges an argument position to a DP, not to a verb phrase. The lexical verb in the IVSC thus should not be analyzed as the complement of tani or pina As suggested in Section 6.3.3, the agreement between tani or pina and the theme DP i n terms of the feature [ + human] indicates that the theme DP is an argument of the interrogative verb and that they must occur in a local configuration for agreement to take place. This agreement pattern corroborates our analysis that the complement of tan i or pina is the theme DP, not the lexical verb phrase. To summarize, Kavalan and Amis IVSC sentences do not form a homogeneous class in terms of the structural relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb. The interrogative verb naquni or maan complement, whereas tanian or icuwa tani or pina DP as its complement and a verb phrase as its adjunct. The following section will

PAGE 352

352 present one more piece of evidence for the d ifferentiation between these two types of IVSCs and argue that they are derived via distinct syntactic operations. 7.4 Syntactic Operations in the IVSC 7.4.1 Case Marking of the Theme DP: Raising or Control IVSC or a IVSC are two distinct structures. The former involves complementation, but the latter adjunction. There is another semantic difference between the two types of verbal complement, verbal IVSCs involve theme argument sharing. This semantic difference corresponds to the ways how the theme argum ents in the two types of IVSC are case marked. Consider the IVSC sentences in (72) and (73) and pay attention to the case marking of the theme arguments. (72 ) Kavalan a. naquni an su m kala ya/tu sunis do.how PV 2 SG ERG AV find ABS / OBL child b. tanian an su m nubi ya/*tu kelisiw ta where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS / OBL money 1 IPL GEN c. kin tani an su =pa pukun HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG = FUT < AV >beat ya/*tu sunis ABS / OBL child (73 ) Amis a. maan en ni panay (a) mi padang ku/tu wawa do.how PV ERG PN LNK AV help ABS / OBL child

PAGE 353

353 b icuwa en ni ofad mi simed ku/*tu paysu where (verb) PV ERG PN AV hide ABS / OBL money c pina en isu mi pacuk ku/*tu fafuy how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV kill ABS / OBL pig IVSC like (72a) and (73a), the theme DP can receive either absolutive case or oblique ca IVSC (72c, 73c) must be case marked absolutive. If it receives oblique case, the sentence becomes ungrammatical. This empirical observation on the case marking of the theme arguments su IVSC can either stay in the complement clause or move to the matrix clause, whereas the theme DP in a IVSC must be syntactically realized as an argument in the matrix clause. 7.4.2 DP IVSC In (72a) and (73a), when the theme DP is case marked oblique, it should be analyzed as the object of the embedded verb, which takes the agent voice marker. When it receives absolutive case, it should be syntactically trea ted as an argument of the matrix verb, which takes the patient voice marker. The simplified bracketed structures in (74) represent the two different syntactic positions that the theme argument IVSC can occupy. Regardless of its syntactic posi tion, the absolutive/oblique DP is interpreted as the theme argument of the lexical verb and it that Kavalan naquni and Amis maan (7 4) IVSC a. [ matrix do.how PV [ complement AV Lexical.Verb OBL Theme ]]

PAGE 354

354 b. [ matrix do.how PV [ complement AV Lexical.Verb ] ABS Theme ] The raising analysis can resolve the issue of the syntax semantics mismatch of (74b). Semantically, the theme DP is not an argument of the matrix interrogative verb, naquni or maan but it receives absolutive case, which is assigned to the theme argument of a PV marked verb. It is worth noting that the theme argument in other verb sequencing constructions exhibits the same alternation between absolutive case and oblique case. 4 (75) Kavalan paqanas an ku tayta ya/tu sulal slow PV 1 SG ABS < AV >see ABS / OBL book (Y. L. Chang 2010: 196) (76) Amis kalamkam en aku ku/tu he may fast PV 1 SG ERG < AV >eat ABS / OBL rice (Wu 2006: 288) In (75) and (76), both of which are an adverbial verb sequencing construction, the absolutive/oblique DP is interpreted as the theme argument of the lexical ver b, not the adverbial verb, regardless of its syntactic position. IVSC can enter the derivation without any Case features or with an absolutive Case feature. In the former situation, it remains in the embedded claus e as the complement of the lexical verb and is assigned the default inherent oblique Case in the embedded agent voice clause. This leads to the derivation of (74a). Note that it is not imperative that a patient voice sentence have an absolutive DP, as illu strated below. (77 ) Kavalan a. qatiw an na=ti salaw go PV 3 ERG = PFV < AV >hunt 4 The examples in (75) and (76) have been reglossed.

PAGE 355

355 b. kelawkaway an na work PV 3 ERG (78 ) Amis a. tireng en ni panay stand PV ERG PN b. rakat en ni panay walk PV ERG PN c. ma orad anini AV rain now IVSC enters the derivation with an absolutive Case feature, it must move to the matrix clause to check Case. This is because a non finite clause cannot license absolutive Case in Kavalan (D. Lin 2010). Only finite T can check absolutive Case. As shown in Section 7.2.1, the lexical verb in the IVS C is defective and is not allowed to take any tense or aspect markers. This suggests that the embedded clause in the IVSC is not TP o r is not headed by finite T We assume that the subordinate clause in the IVSC is vP in Kavalan and Mod AspP headed by a in Amis. In eithe r case, there is no absolutive C ase feature in the embedded non finite clau se. The theme argument thus has to move to the mat rix clause to check absolutive C as e against the finite T The tree in (79) represents the raising of the theme DP out of the embedded clause. This raising analysis explains why the theme argument, which is thematically part of the embedded lexical verb, structurally belongs to th e matrix interrogative verb phrase. It is also compatible with the complement analysis of the lexical VP in the preceding section. Extractio n out of a complement is allowed, whereas

PAGE 356

356 extraction out of an adjunct is forbidden due to the Condition on Extraction Domain (C. T. Huang 1982). (79) DP IVSC IVSC in (79) is reminiscent of restructuring. T. Chen (2010) argues

PAGE 357

357 Mayrinax Atayal, a Formosan language, is a restructuring predicate, as illustrated below. (80 ) Mayrinax Atayal hahcwal un=mi kat ku caj how PV =1 SG GEN < AV >bite NOM taro (T. Chen 2010: 13) single property or feature of certain predicates, but is rather a particular configuration IVSC exhibits certain pro perties of a monoclausal structure even though it consists of a main verb and a subordinate verb. First of all, there is no structural Case assigner in the embedded complement clause. The lack of structural Case assigner prompts the object in the complemen t clause to move to the matrix clause for Case checking. This syntactic phenomenon is parallel to the long object movement observed in German restructuring clauses. (81) German a. dass der Traktor zu reparieren versucht wurde that the tractor NOM to r epair tried was (Wurmbrand 2001: 19) b. dass der Traktoren zu reparieren versucht wurden that the tractors NOM to repair tried were (Wurmbrand 2001: 19) As illu strated in (81), the embedded object does not check Case in the embedded clause. Instead, it checks Case against the matrix T in that it receives nominative case and agrees with the matrix auxiliary. According to Wurmbrand (2001), the long object movement results from the structure of the infinitive, which is a bare VP without the functional heads that can check nominative and accusative Case.

PAGE 358

358 IVSC that is indicative of a monoclausal structure is the lack of T projection in th e embedded complement clause. Section 7.2.1 has shown that the lexical verb in an IVSC cannot host its own tense and aspect marker and must receive the same tense value as the matrix predicate. This indicates that the IVSC in Kavalan only projects to vP. Due to the presence of the linker a we IVSC is a Mod AspP headed by the linker. Nevertheless, this Mod Asp hea d is still defective; it signals non finiteness. It is worth noting that the nature of the v P in the subordinate clause is distinct from the v P in the matrix clause. The embedded v only functions to mark the verbal category of the root and is not associate d with other functions of the typical voice markers in Kavalan and Amis. That is, the v that the lexical verb is merged with only functions as a verb creating head but lacks detailed verbal semantics such as CAU SE or BECOME. It is not associated with any t heta features. 5 The AV restriction on the lexical verb in an IVSC arises from the nature of this type of v in embedded non finite clauses as the agent voice marker is the default morpheme that can be inserted under this particular v which is neutral in te rms of its verbal semantics. 6 Therefore, not only does the IVSC lack inflectional projections like TP and AspP, its 5 One advantage of this analysis of the embedded vP is that it can provide a natural explanation for the persuade type control construction in Kavalan. In Kavalan, the embedded verb in this control construction must take the causative prefix pa As the v or the agent v oice marker, in the non finite subordinate clause is devoid of any theta features, an agent PRO cannot be assigned in the subordinate clause and thus the causative prefix pa which can change the valency of the embedded verb, is inserted to introduce an a dditional agent argument in the subordinate clause. 6 One of the reasons for the agent voice marker to be chosen as the default morpheme for v in a reduced non finite clause is that the citation form of a verb is always given in agent voice.

PAGE 359

359 v P is also devoid of detailed verbal semantics like theta IVSC is the quintessence of a monoclausal structure with two verbs. IVSC IVSC is shared by the interrogative verb and the lexical verb, but it can only be syntactically realized as the absolutive argument of the matrix interrogative verb, which IVSC in Kavalan should have the following bracketed structure. The bracketed structure of the corresponding Amis construction is the same. (82) Kavalan a. [ tanian an su [ vP m nubi] ya kelisiw ta ] where PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN b. [u tani an su [ vP m ala] ya kelisiw] N HUM how.much PV 2 SG ERG AV take ABS money There are three possible structural representations that can account for theme argument sharing between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb in (82). The first possibility is that the theme a rgument undergoes movement from the embedded clause to the matrix clause and leaves a trace in the subordinate clause (83a). The second and third possibilities are that there is a pro or a PRO in the subordinate clause that is co referential with the matri x absolutive theme DP (83b, 83c). These structural possibilities are represented by the following bracketed structures. (83) a. [where/how.many PV [ vP AV Lexical.Verb t i ] ABS theme i ] b. [where/how.many PV [ vP AV Lexical.Verb pro i ] ABS theme i ] c. [where/h ow.many PV [ vP AV Lexical.Verb PRO i ] ABS theme i ]

PAGE 360

360 The first potential solution, i.e., NP movement, is similar to the raising analysis of IVSCs. I IVSC is an adjunct clause, which is a syntactic island. If the theme DPs in (82) were base generated in the lexical verb phrase and then were extracted out of this phrase, the Condition on Extraction Domain would be violated. The gramm aticality of (82) suggests that the theme DPs do not undergo this illicit movement. The structure represented by (83a) is thus ruled out. Criterion stipulates that the roles and argument DPs must be bi unique. Therefore, the only way that the matrix interrogative verb and the lexical verb in (82a) or (82b) can share an argument is to resort to either pro or PRO. The postulation that there is a pro in the IVS IVSC presupposes that this type of verb sequencing construction exhibits object drop. This presupposition is untenable. IVSC cannot contain an overt pronoun that is co referential w ith the absolutive argument in the matrix clause. This is illustrated by the following ungrammatical sentences, where an overt object pronoun occurs in the subordinate clause. (84 ) Kavalan a. *[tanian an su [ vP m nubi timaizipana ] ya sunis] where (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV hide 3 SG OBL ABS child b. *[kin tani an su=pa [ vP pukun HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG = FUT < AV >beat qaniau ] ya sunis] 3 PL OBL ABS child

PAGE 361

361 (85 ) Amis a. [ icuwa e n ni ofad [mi simed cingraan ] ku wawa ] where (verb) PV ERG PN AV hide 3 SG OBL ABS child b. *pa pina en isu [mi cangraan ] HUM how.many (verb) PV 2 SG ERG AV beat 3 PL OBL ku tamdaw ABS person The ungrammaticality of (84) and (85) suggests that a true pronominal element cannot IVSC. The property of theme argument sharing between the interrogative verb and the lexical v erb in this construction cannot be attributed to object drop or the occurrence of a pro in the subordinate clause. Due to the problems of the NP movement analysis and the pro analysis, the postulation of a PRO is the only way that can account for theme arg ument sharing in a IVSC. (86) IVSC In the vP headed by the lexical verb, there is a PRO controlled by the absolutive DP. In IVSC is characterized by adjunct control,

PAGE 362

362 i.e., control into an adjun IVSC and a IVSC can account for its semantic property of theme argument sharing and also the syntactic distribution of the theme argument. The structure in (86) portrays adjunct control in this ty pe of IVSC. IVSC is faced with both theoretical and empirical problems. It does not confo rm to the Control module that governs the distribution and interpretation of a PRO. Neither is it compatible with the language specific mechanism that regulates obligatory control in Kavalan. The first problem concerns the distribution of a PRO. It is only found in the subject position of a non finite clause, as illustrated by the following English examples. (87) a. John i tried [PRO i to leave early]. b. Mark i persuaded Sally j [PRO *i/j to attend the meeting]. GB reduces this distributional constraint to th e PRO Theorem, which states that a PRO can only occur in an ungoverned position. An alternative analysis argues that PRO must occur in a position where its null case can be checked (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993). IVSC is in a non finite clause, i.e., the lexical verb phrase, it does not appear in the subject position of this clause. It is the theme argument of the lexical verb and occupies the complement position of the verb phrase. This distribution contradicts the PRO Theorem. IVSC does not obey the Minimal Distance Principle (MDP), which requires a PRO to be coindexed with the closest c commanding DP. The effect of this principle can be observed in (87b), where the PRO must be coindexed with Sally but not Mark because

PAGE 363

363 Sally is structurally closer to PRO than Mark This principle is violated by the PRO in a IVSC. Its closest c commanding DP is the ergative ag ent argument, not the absolutive theme argument. The structure in (88) illustrates the violation of the MDP, using Kavalan tanian (88) The lexical verb phrase in a tanian IVSC is adjoined to the matrix verb phrase, as refle cted in (88). The PRO in the lexical verb phrase is c commanded by two DPs: the agent DP in the specifier of the matrix vP and the higher copy of the theme DP in the specifier of TP. The agent DP is structurally closer to the PRO. However, the PRO is not c oindexed with this DP, but with the theme DP, which is structurally more distant. In fact, the two theoretical problems are not unique to the IVSC in Kavalan and Amis. Object control into adjuncts is also possible in English, as illustrated below. (89) a. Mary brought John i [to e i talk to the children]. b. Mary brought John i [to talk to e i ] In (89a), the antecedent of the empty category in the purpose clause is the object of the matrix clause, i.e., John Likewise, the object of the matrix clause in (89b) also binds the

PAGE 364

364 IVSC or a IVSC resembles that of (89b). Both configurations manifest a control relationship between the theme argument in the matrix clause and the them e argument in an adjunct clause. There are theoretical alternatives that are proposed to account for object control into adjuncts. For example, Jones (1991) argues for a semantic analysis of object control into adjunct purpose clauses like (89). The assump tion of his semantic analysis is that object control into adjunct purpose clauses is established by semantic predication, whereby the object antecedent in the matrix clause is semantically linked to the purpose clause predicate. To put it in a less technic al way, this predication relationship is signaled by an index i on both the object antecedent and the purpose clause, as illustrated in (90a). His semantic analysis aims to account for the entailment of the semantic representation in (90b), where the funct ion of the purpose clause is applied to John (j). (90) a. Mary brought John i [to talk to e i ] i b. If we extend this analysis to the IVSC in (88), this means that there is a predica tion relationship between the adjoined lexical verb phrase and the base generated theme argument in the root phrase. This predication relationship leads to the control relationship between the PRO in the adjoined phrase and the absolutive noun phrase. Howe ver, this semantic analysis seems counterintuitive to the semantic representation we have developed for (88) in Section 7.3.2.2. The challenge arises from how to formalize the predication relationship between the lexical vP and the absolutive DP and

PAGE 365

365 at the same time still fulfill the need of the lexical vP for a location argument. We will thus set this semantic analysis aside for the time being and pursue a syntactic analysis in Section 7.4.4 that is more compatible with the semantic representation we have developed. IVSC IVSC also deviates from the empirical generalizations on how obligatory control operates in Kavalan. The interpretation of control sentences in Kavalan is not determined by the grammatical roles like subject and object In a try type control sentence in Kavalan, PRO is always co referential with the agent of the matrix verb regardless of its grammatical role. This is illustrated below. (9 1) Kaval an a. m paska= iku i [satzay PRO i ] AV try=1 SG ABS sing b. paska an ku i [satzay PRO i ] try PV 1 SG ERG sing The antecedent of the PRO in (91a) is case marked absolutive. In (91b), the verb takes the patient voice marker and the agent argument, which is coindexed with the PRO in the embedded clause, receives ergative case. In both cases, the agent ar gument in the matrix clause can control the PRO in the embedded clause even though it does not serve the same grammatical functi on in the two sentences According to Chang and Tsai (2001) and Yeh (1997), in most Formosan languages, the verb in the complement clause of a persuade type control verb has to undergo causativization. Chang and Tsai (2001) argue that this is because contr ol verbs in Formosan languages have to observe a constraint called Actor Sensitivity which

PAGE 366

366 stipulates that only an agent can control a PRO The following examples illustrate two persuade type control verbs in Kavalan. (9 2) Kavalan a. m linana= iku i tu su nis [ pa lusit PRO i ] AV persuade=1 SG ABS OBL child CAU leave (Chang and Tsai 2001: 3) (lit. I persuade my child, causing (him/her) to leave.) b. pawRat an na ni buya i aiku [ pa qibasi PRO i force PV 3 ERG ERG PN 1 SG ABS CAU wash tu qudus] OBL clothes (lit. Buya forced me, causing (me) to wash clothes.) In both (92a) and (92b), the embedded verb has to be prefixed with the causative marker pa T he PRO in the embedded clause does not correspo nd to the patient in the matrix clause, but to the agent, which functions semantically as the causer in the embedded clause. The Control mechanism in Kavalan regarding the persuade type control is thus distinct from English object control, where the gramma tical object can control the PRO in the embedded clause. In both try type and persuade type control sentences in Kavalan, it is the agent argument that can act as the controller of the PRO. In other words, a theme argument is unable to control a PRO. Howev er, in a tanian IVSC and a tani IVSC in Kavalan, the PRO in the lexical verb phrase is controlled by the theme argument in the matrix clause, as illustrated in (93). The relationship between the PRO and its antecedent in a tanian IVSC thus deviates from th e canonical control pattern in Kavalan. (9 3) Kavalan [tanian an su [ vP m nubi PRO i ] ya kelisiw ta i ] where PV 2 SG ERG AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN

PAGE 367

367 In view of the theoretical and empirical problems confronting the PRO analysis of a IVSC, we propose an alternative analysis that can account for adjunct control in this type of IVSC, or theme argument sharing between the main verb and the adjoined verb, without invoking the mediation of PRO. This alter native analysis is based on the Movement Theory of Control (Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003) and sideward movement (Nunes 2001, 2004). The following section will delineate I IVSC is an instance of sideward movement. It will also be IVSC and IVSC regarding the case marking of the theme DP. Before we proceed with the analysis of adjunct control as sideward movement, it is worthwhile to comment on some unresolved issues of the structure of obligatory control in Kavalan and Amis. First of all, it remains to be seen whether the Actor Sensitivity Constraint propos ed by Chang and Tsai (2001) also holds in more usual adjunct control sentences. Secondly, a separate syntactic study is required to examine whether it is the PRO analysis or the Movement Theory of Control that can better account for the empirical facts of obligatory control in Kavalan and Amis. The research findings of this theoretical syntactic study can shed light on whether a language can utilize both mechanisms of obligatory control and whether both mechanisms should be incorporated into the core compon ents of the syntactic theory we have been using. Van Urk (2010) suggests that both mechanisms are required and they derive different structures of obligatory control. However, the following analysis of adjunct control in IVSC as sideward movement does not imply that both PRO control and the movement type

PAGE 368

368 control are core components of the grammar that regulates obligatory control in Kavalan and Amis. We cannot reach a definite conclusion until the two issues raised above are resolved. 7.4.4 Adjunct Control in IVSC as Sideward Movement In recent years, there have been attempts to eliminate the Control module from Universal Grammar and reduce the control mechanisms to movement operations (Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003). This line of research, i.e., the Movement T heory of Control, is motivated by the elimination of the D Structure in the Minimalist Program. Without the D Structure, the theoretical validity of the Theta Criterion is cast in doubt and thus the theoretical motivation for PRO or the entire Control modu le is untenable. It is argued that this reductionist analysis can not only achieve theoretical parsimony but also allow for wider empirical coverage, e.g., backward control and copy control (Polinsky and Potsdam 2006). Under the Movement Theory of Control, the coreference between an argument of a control predicate and an argument in its complement clause is not mediated by PRO and the Minimal Distance Principle. Instead, a control predicate is akin to a raising predicate in that they both involve movement o f a DP argument in the embedded clause to the matrix clause. The crucial difference between them i s that the target of movement position, whereas the moved DP in a raising sentence position. This proposal is based on the following assumptions. (94) Assumptions of the Movement Theory of Control (Hornstein 2003) a. Theta roles are features. b. A DP can have more than one theta features.

PAGE 369

369 c. Movement is due to Enlightened Self Interest. That is, movement of a syntactic object is motivated by the need to check its own feature or to check a feature on the target. Hornstein (20 01) advocates that the Movement Theory of Control can also offer a succinct analysis for adjunct control as in (95). (95) Mark i saw John j [before PRO i/*j leaving]. Although extraction out of adjuncts is generally forbidden, it is permitted in parasitic ga p (PG) constructions, e.g., (96). (96) [[Which paper] i did you file t i without reading PG i ]? Nunes (2001, 2004) argues that parasitic gap constructions are derived via sideward movement, which allows movement of an element from a syntactic object to anoth er independent syntactic object. This is represented in (97). (97) Sideward movement (Nunes 2001) a. Copy i : [ K i i i with L, an independent syntactic object: [ M i [ L Following Nunes (2001, 2004), Hornstein (2001) suggests that adjunct control also results from sideward movement. For instance, the derivation of (95) starts with th e construction of the adjunct clause, before Mark leaving Before this clause is adjoined to the main clause, Mark undergoes sideward movement and merges with the matrix VP first so as to check the theta feature on the main verb. This movement is legitimat e as it obeys Enlightened Self Interest. According to Nunes (2001, 2004), the implementation of sideward movement hinges on the proposal that the movement operation is composed of four independent syntactic operations: Copy, Merge, Form Chain, and Chain Re duction. He defines Form Chain and Chain Reduction as follows.

PAGE 370

370 (98) Form Chain (Nunes 2001, 2004) (99) Chain Reduction Delete the mini mal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suffices for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the LCA. (Nunes 2001: 308) The primary purpose of executing Form Chain and Chain Reduction is to prevent a syntactic object from simultaneously c commanding an element X and being c commanded by the same element, e.g., a copy of X. The application of Chain Reduction also prohibits a syntactic object from preceding and following itself. With the two syntactic operations, the Lin ear Correspondence Axiom (100) can be satisfied. (100) Linear Correspondence Axiom Let X, Y be nonterminals and x, y terminals such that X dominates x and Y dominates y. Then if X asymmetrically c commands Y, x precedes y. (Kayne 1994: 33) With the Moveme nt Theory of Control and sideward movement, we do not need to IVSC or a IVSC. Moreover, we will not be confronted with the theoretical and empirical problems incurred by the PRO analysis. The following discussion will demonstrate how adjunct control in the construction under consideration is derived from sideward movement of the shared theme DP. We will illustrate the derivation with the following Kavalan sentence. The same an alysis applies to Amis. (10 1) Kavalan tanian an ni buya m nubi ya kelisiw ta where (verb) PV ERG PN AV hide ABS money 1 IPL GEN The derivation of (101) has the following numeration. For expository purposes, some functio nal heads are not included in the numeration.

PAGE 371

371 (102) N = {T FIN tanian, v CAU SE ( an), ni=buya, v (m ), nubi, ya=kelisiw ta} The root nubi ya = kelisiw ta check the theta feature on this verb and acquir e the theme theta role. The resultant root phrase then merges with v ( m ). This is accompanied by the head movement of nubi v ( m ). Note that the v that the lexical verb is merged with only functions as a verb creating head but lacks detailed ver bal semantics such as CAU SE or BECOME. In other words, it is not associated with any theta features. The AV restriction on the lexical verb in an IVSC arises from the nature of this type of v in embedded non finite clauses as the agent voice marker is the default morpheme that can be inserted under this particular v The derivation so far results in the following syntactic object K. (103) K = [ vP m nubi j [ nubi j ya=kelisiw ta i ]] (104) Tree representation of K When tanian feature that needs to be checked against a DP. The DP in (104) undergoes sideward movement and merges with tanian to check its theta feature. The DP thus acquires one more theme theta role. This movement is legitimate because it obeys Enlightened Self Interest. A feature of the

PAGE 372

372 target is checked because of this movement. An independent syntactic object L results from the sideward movement. (105) L = [ tanian k ya=kelisiw ta i ] (106) Tree representation of L Note that tanian could have merged with ni = buya from the numeration since Merge is a less costly operation than Move, which consists of Copy and Merge. However, this will lead to an i nconvergent derivation. We will return to this issue later. The derivation proceeds with v CAUSE ( an) merging with L and with tanian moving to v CAUSE ( (107) tanian k an [ tanian k ya=kelisiw ta i ]] (108) Tree repres represented in (109).

PAGE 373

373 (109) m otivated by the need of theta feature checking on the lexical verb, nubi discharges not only a theme argument but also a location argument. As Section 7.3.2.2 has explained, the saturation of an argument position can be achieved via either he ad complement or head adjunct configuration. In the former case, a head discharges an argument position to its complement, whereas in the latter case, an adjunct discharges an argument position to its head without determining the morphosyntactic features o f the phrase. Please refer to the semantic type structure in (69b) and its semantic s headed by tanian the locative interrogative verb checks the location theta feature on the lexical verb, nubi merges with ni = buya This DP checks the theta feature on v CAUSE ( an ) and acquires an agent theta role. The structure at this point of the derivation is shown in (110).

PAGE 374

374 (110) ni=buya (111) TP

PAGE 375

375 T FIN then enters the derivation and merges with vP; the t heme DP moves from the complement position of tanian to the specifier of TP. This movement is triggered by Enlightened Self Interest as the finite T can check the absolutive Case feature on the theme DP. Note that the interrogative verb has to undergo head movement to T. The structure in (111) is thus derived. (112) TopP The structure in (111) does not reflect the correct verb initial word order of the sentence. The absolutive DP has to move to TopP to check the uninterpretable [D] and [op]

PAGE 376

376 features on Top, as shown i n (112). 7 Finally, the remnant TP moves to FocP and the verb initial word order is thus derived. (113) represents the final structure. (113) FocP According to the definition of Form Chain in (98), the copy of the DP ya = kelisiw ta 7 Please see C hapter 5 for a discussion on the movement of the absolutive DP to TopP to check the uninterpretable [D] and [op] features on Top

PAGE 377

377 which forms two nontrivial chains with the copy in vP 2 and the In each chain, the copies are the same non distinct DP and the higher copy c commands the lower copy. Therefore, the formation of the three chains is appropriate. At PF, Chain Reduction applies for the purpose of linearization. Th e lower copy of each chain is deleted. The highest copy in Spec, TopP survives because it has most interpretable features and does not have uninterpretable features. Note that there are also non distinct copies of the theme DP within the TP in Spec, FocP b ecause they move along with the TP to this position. These copies will still be deleted at PF via Chain Reduction because the formation of a chain not only identifies the content of a syntactic object, but also takes into account its local structural confi guration (Nunes 2004). There are three chains of the theme DP in total. The copy that is deleted in each chain has the following structural configurations respectively: The complement of tanian nubi 2 and the s pecifier of TP. After the structure in (113) is sent to PF, Chain Reduction will delete all the instances of the theme DP that occupies any of the above three structural positions. This results in the deletion of all the copies of the theme DP in both copi es of the TP, except for the one in Spec, TopP. Finally, we have to explain why tanian ni = buya ERG ya = kelisiw ta ABS =money 1 IPL GEN deward movement from K (103). As Merge is a less costly operation than Move, which comprises other independent operations, the Economy consideration should be able to prevent the DP ya = kelisiw ta ABS =money 1 IPL GEN erging with tanian

PAGE 378

378 However, merging tanian with ni = buya ERG result in a structure that could not converge at LF. Suppose we allow tanian to merge with ni = buya ERG longer an independent syntactic object and it becomes a syntactic island out of which no extraction is allowed. The theme DP in the lexical verb phrase is thus unable to move out of this island to Spec, TP for Case checking. A n unchecked Case feature on the theme DP will incur a violation of Full Interpretation and hence the derivation crashes. On the assumption that the computation of Economy should be restricted to convergent derivations from the same numeration, Merge takes precedence over Move only if both can derive a convergent structure. As the merger of tanian with ni = buya ERG sideward movement operation in terms of Economy. The analysis delin eated above can further account for the empirical observation IVSC must be case marked absolutive. An example is repeated below. (114) Kavalan tanian an su m nubi ya/*tu kelisiw ta where PV 2 SG ER G AV hide ABS / OBL money 1 IPL GEN The fact that the theme argument cannot receive oblique case suggests that it is not allowed to stay in the lexical verb phrase, which is headed by an AV marked verb. In other words, it must move to Spec, TP, which licenses absolutive Case. This syntactic behavior finds a natural explanation in our system, which adopts Form Chain and Chain Reduction for linearization purposes. After the theme DP undergoes sideward

PAGE 379

379 movement and t is derived. (115) If neither of the two copies of the theme DP moves to a higher structural position at the later stages of the derivation, these two copies cannot form a chain. Neither of them c commands the other. If they do not form a chain, Chain Reduction cannot apply at PF. The failure to apply Chain Reduction will lead to the derivation of a PF structure where the theme DP precedes and follows itself. This PF structure contradicts the Linear Correspondence Axiom and is not linearizable. Therefore, one of the two copies of the theme DP must move to a higher structural position so that each of them can form a chain with the c commanding higher copy. The lexical verb phrase has been ad joined to position of tanian that moves to a c commanding position, i.e., Spec, TP, which is in charge of the checking of absolutive Case. As shown in the preceding discussio n, these IVSC thus never receives the default oblique case. IVSC can be attributed to the complement struct IVSC does not belong to the argument structure of the interrogative verb. Instead, it is

PAGE 380

380 merged with the lexical verb as its complement. The lexical verb phrase, in turn, is lement clause. Unless the theme DP has an absolutive Case feature, there is no trigger for its movement out of the complement clause. The naquni or maan does not possess a theme theta feature that has to be checked by th e theme DP, so feature checking does not constitute a motivation for movement. The theme DP does not need to move to salvage a non IVSC enters the derivation without any Case feature it just stays in its base generated position and receives the default oblique case marker. Only when it possesses an absolutive Case feature does it need to move to Spec, TP to check its Case feature. Both derivations converge. The alternation between ab solutive case and oblique case in IVSC thus arises. To summarize, it is not necessary to resort to PRO in order to explain the fact that IVSC share a theme argument. This empirical observation follows from the sideward movement of the theme argument from the lexical verb phrase to the complement position of the interrogative verb. The theme argument checks the theme theta feature on both verbs and acquires two theme th eta roles. Moreover, the movement analysis does not invoke PRO and thus is not faced with the theoretical and empirical problems associated with the PRO analysis. All the mechanisms that are responsible for the IVSC are independently required operations like Copy and Merge. It is more parsimonious than the PRO analysis.

PAGE 381

381 However, whether this analysis of the IVSC can be extended to other cases of adjunct control in Kavalan and Amis is a separate issue and we leav e this for future research. 7.4.5 Summary or IVSC involve distinct syntactic operations concerning the surface realization of the theme DP. The interrogative verb in IVSC does not have a theme argument, but the theme argument of the lexical verb can undergo DP raising to the matrix Spec, TP, resulting in syntax ol, which results from the sideward movement of the theme argument from the lexical verb phrase to the complement position of the interrogative verb. 7.5 Conclusion This chapter has elaborated on the syntactic structure of the Interrogative Verb Sequencin g Construction (IVSC) in Kavalan and Amis. The grammatical properties of this construction suggest that the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb is not coordination, but subordination. The interrogative verb serves as the main verb of the construction, whereas the lexical verb occurs in a reduced non finite clause. First of all, the linear order of the interrogative verb and the lexical verb cannot be reversed. The interrogative verb must precede the lexical verb. Secon dly, the case marking pattern of the nominal arguments is determined by the voice marker on the interrogative verb. Moreover, the lexical verb is structurally defective as it manifests properties of a non finite verb form. Its tense and aspect interpretati on is dependent on the interrogative verb. Tense and aspect markers, if any, must be attached to the

PAGE 382

382 interrogative verb. Finally, the fact that the lexical verb must observe the AV restriction also shows that it is a defective non finite verb. Although su bordination is characteristic of IVSCs in general, not all IVSCs exhibit the same structural relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb and not all of them are derived from the same syntactic operation. IVSCs can be classified into tw o types on the basis of their thematic features and morphosyntactic properties. naquni in Kavalan and maan in Amis. The IVSC can saturate an argument position discharged by the interrogative verb on both the semantic level and the syntactic level. It is a complement to the interrogative verb. Moreover, the theme DP is not an argument of the main interrogative verb, but it can undergo movement from the embedded clause to the matr ix clause to check absolutive Case feature. The second type of IVSC is headed interrogative verb phrase. The lexical verb and the interrogative verb share a single th eme argument, which undergoes sideward movement from the adjoined clause to the matrix clause for theta feature checking and then moves to Spec, TP for Case checking and linearization. In conclusion, IVSCs encompass at least two different structural config urations. The results are summarized in the following table. Table 7 1. Two IVSCs in Kavalan and Amis Properties IVSC IVSC Type of verb sequencing subordination subordination Argument sharing Theme Agent The syntactic status o f the lexical VP Adjunct Complement Derivation Adjunct Control Sideward Movement Raising Restructuring

PAGE 383

383 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION AND IMPLI CATIONS 8.1 Summary This dissertation has elaborated on the properties and constraints of the interrogative constructi ons in Kavalan and Amis and offered theoretical explanations for the descriptive generalizations. From a descriptive perspective, t here are three primary question formation strategies in Kavalan and Amis i.e., wh in situ construction wh initial construct ion and the use of interrogative words as verbs. Empirical facts have been presented to show that the wh initial construction exhibits a pseudo cleft structure. The interrogative phrase in the wh initial construction does not undergo wh movement to Spec, CP, and nor does it occupy the focus position of a cleft sentence. Instead, it serves as the non verbal predicate of the construction, which takes a headless relative clause as the subject. We have also discussed t he constraints on the in situ question and the wh initial construction, or the pseudo cleft question, in relation to the grammatical function or case marking of an interrogative word or phrase. In both Kavalan and Amis, the wh initial construction is only available for questions where an absolutiv e argument is questioned. This constraint results from the predicate initial derivation of Kavalan and Amis. As the predicate phrase is moved to the specifier of a higher functional projection, FocP, it constitutes a syntactic island out of which nothing c an be extracted. The absolutive DP has moved out of the predicate phrase before the raising of the predicate phrase, so it is the only DP that is available for further extraction. Kavalan and Amis differ in the distribution of their in situ interrogative p hrases. While Amis allows all types of interrogative phrases to stay in situ regardless of their

PAGE 384

384 grammatical function or case marking, Kavalan interrogative phrases that receive absolutive case cannot stay in situ, except for mayni = ay REL presented two analyses that can account for the discrepancies between Kavalan and Amis. The wh in in situ in other Austronesian languages, which resorts to the formal marking of subjects as an ex planation. This requirement on the formal marking of subjects arises from the EPP feature on T, which is checked by overt D in Amis. By contrast, the Kavalan pattern Austr onesian languages as topics and attributes the ban on in situ subject interrogatives to this property. As for mayni=ay REL situ in the subject position because of its D linking status, which results from its syn tactic structure of restrictive modification that involves DP internal Predicate Inversion. Another primary and significant component of this dissertation is concerned with the analysis of interrogative verbs. The use of interrogative words as verbs is typ ologically rare and has not received due attention from linguists. We have identified the range of meanings that the interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis can encode. In morphol ogically simple verb in most Formosan languages, Kavalan and Amis are unique in utilizing interrogative verbs to inquire about location and quantity. It has also been found that the interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis can show up as intransitive, trans itive, and ditransitive verbs. Some of them can also occur in the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVSC).

PAGE 385

385 Moreover, there are restrictions on the type of location and quantity that can be questioned with interrogative verbs. Only when a question concerns the location of the theme argument in a ditransitive event can Kavalan tanian and Amis icuwa used as a verb and affixed with the patient voice marker. By contrast, when a question inquires about the location where an event takes place, these two interrogative words do not exhibit any verbal properties. When Kavalan tani and Amis pina / hakuwa argument, but not an agent argument, and the question where they o ccur is always associated with an implication that the quantity might change. We have argued for a syntactic approach to the derivation of interrogative verbs. The possibility or impossibility of using an interrogative word in Kavalan and Amis as a verb is motivated by syntactic and semantic principles/constraints, either universal or language specific. There is no need to stipulate the syntactic categories of interrogative words in the lexicon. Once the assumption that derivational morphology, e.g., the Ka valan and Amis voice system, must operate in the lexicon is abandoned, the syntactic behaviors of interrogative verbs find a uniform explanation in Syntax. Interrogative words are not lexically specified for syntactic categories. Their syntactic categories and the relevant grammatical patterns follow from the interaction of the following factors: The inherent semantics of interrogative words, the available interpretation of the question where they occur, the verbal structures of the voice markers, and the s yntactic principles and constraints that are crosslinguistically valid, e.g., the ECP or the Transparence Condition. Interrogative verbs are not unconstrained

PAGE 386

386 lexical idiosyncrasies. Instead, their derivations are systematically conditioned in Syntax. Fina lly, we have offered a syntactic analysis of the Interrogative Verb Sequencing Construction (IVSC) in Kavalan and Amis. The grammatical properties of this construction suggest that the syntactic relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical v erb is not coordination, but subordination. The interrogative verb serves as the main verb of the construction, whereas the lexical verb occurs in a reduced non finite clause. Although subordination is characteristic of IVSCs in general, not all IVSCs exhi bit the same structural subordinate relationship between the interrogative verb and the lexical verb and not all of them are derived from the same syntactic operation. IVSCs can be classified into two types on the basis of their thematic features and morph naquni in Kavalan and maan IVSC can saturate an argument position discharged by the interrogative verb on both the semantic level and the sy ntactic level. It is a complement to the interrogative verb. Moreover, the theme DP is not an argument of the main interrogative verb, but it can undergo movement from the embedded clause to the matrix clause to check absolutive Case feature. The second ty IVSC is adjoined to the interrogative verb phrase. The lexical verb and the interrogative verb share a single theme argument, which undergoes sideward movement from the adjoined clause to the matrix clause for theta feature checking and then moves to Spec, TP for Case checking and linearization. In conclusion, IVSCs encompass at least two different structural configurations.

PAGE 387

387 8.2 Implications and Future Research 8.2.1 Pre dicative Use of Interrogative Phrases The research findings of this dissertation suggest that the preferred question formation strategy in Kavalan and Amis is the use of interrogative phrases as predicates, either verbal or nonverbal. B oth pseudo cleft que stions and verbal interrogatives involve the use of interrogative phrases as predicates. It should be noted that Kavalan and Amis do not utilize wh movement as a question formation strategy. Even if non verbal interrogatives occur in the sentence initial p osition, it still functions as a predicate in a pseudo cleft structure, which is in stark contrast to sentence initial non predicative wh phrases in Spec, CP after wh movement. What typically occurs first in a declarative sentence in Kavalan and Amis is al so a predicate, either verbal or non verbal. In other words, in both declarative and interrogative sentences, Kavalan and Amis prefer that the sentence initial position be filled by a phrase with some predicative feature. The utilization of pseudo cleft qu estions and interrogative verbs is thus correlated with the verb initial word order of the two languages in terms of the constraint on what can occur sentence initially in these languages. This partly reflects here is a close relationship between how a verb initial language derives its word order and the availability of a cleft structure to form questions. Therefore, one possible determinant of interrogative predicates as the preferred strategy in verb initial l anguages like Kavalan and Amis is the structure of the left periphery in these languages. Such an analysis is adopted by Massam (2003) for Niuean. Based on the data from Niuean, a predicate initial Oceanic language, Massam (2003) suggests that the correlat ion between cleft as a question formation strategy and

PAGE 388

388 verb initial languages can be explained by the nature of the left periphery in such languages. She argues that as focused DPs and wh DPs are predicates in Niuean, the structure of the left periphery of this language differs from the structure proposed by Rizzi (1997) for Italian. What follows is the structure Massam (2003: 101) advances for the left periphery of Niuean. (1) Top Force Neg Mod Pred T [Q/Int] T here are no focused DPs in this structu re and the Topic position is base generated The left periphery of Niuean is thus a domain without any D features or elements. This can account for the fact that Niuean can utilize either wh in situ strategy or cleft structure to form interrogative constructions but not wh movement. of interrogative phrases as verbal predicates, i.e., interrogative verbs, and as non verbal predicates in pseudo clef t questions might be motivated by the predicative feature in the left periphery of Kavalan and Amis clause structure. The advantage of this approach is that it can unify pseudo cleft questions and int errogative verbs and might reveal the core structural di fferences between languages with interrogative verbs and languages without interrogative verbs Research along this line is thus worth undertaking. In Chapter 6, we showed that the syntactic approach to the derivation of interrogative verbs can be extended to non interrogative words as well, e.g., non interrogative location verbs and manner verbs. The syntactic structure of location verbs in Kavalan and Amis exhibits nontrivial similarities and differe nces compared with Hale

PAGE 389

389 The crucial difference lies in the presence or absence of a prepositional phrase in ojection of P is obligatory even though there is no overt P. The reason is probably that an NP must be the complement of P to be interpreted as a location, or N must move to P to acquire the denotation of a location before moving to V. By contrast, the str ucture of Kavalan and Amis location verbs does not contain a PP. While English possesses a rich inventory of prepositions, the inventory of prepositions in Formosan languages is extremely impoverished and some of them might lack this class of words complet ely. The inventory of prepositions might be a parameter that can contribute to the cross linguistic differences in the formation of location verbs, as the presence of P can block the head movement of a location noun to the little v due to the Head Movement Constraint. Our syntactic approach is thus a promising way to conduct further research on the typology of location verb derivations. 8.2.3 Control Structure in Kavalan and Amis One motivation for our analysis of adjunct control in IVSC as sideward movemen t is it does not fit in the general pattern of how control relationship is achieved in Kavalan and Amis. However, it remains to be seen whether the Actor Sensitivity Constraint proposed by Chang and Tsai (2001) also holds in more usual adjunct control sent ences. Moreover, it is still unclear whether it is the PRO analysis or the Movement Theory of Control that can better account for the empirical facts of obligatory control in Kavalan and Amis. The research findings of this theoretical syntactic study can s hed light on whether a language can utilize both mechanisms of obligatory control and whether both mechanisms should be incorporated into the core components of the syntactic theory we have been using. Van Urk (2010) suggests that both mechanisms are requi red and

PAGE 390

390 they derive different structures of obligatory control. An in depth syntactic analysis of the different types of obligatory control structure in Kavalan and Amis is necessary to shed light on this issue. 8.2.4 Argument Structure The analysis on the structure of IVS Cs has significant implications to the theory of argument structure and the syntactic representations of heads, compl e ments, and adjunct IVS C is a transparent realization of its semantic structure as pe r Parsons (1990) in that a modif ier is a head and a modifiee is a complement both syntactically and semantically in this particular construction. However, none of the current proposals on the structure of ditransitive sentences can account for the syntacti c structure of a IVS C where a location argument is syntactically realized as a verbal head with a ditra n sitive verb as an adjunct modifier. We thus offered a semantic type derivation for this structure instead However, a full discussion on how an d whether the current theories of argument structure and syntactic headedness can be mod ified to accommodate the Kavalan and Amis data presented here, esp e is beyond the scope of the present study, but this research direction is definitely worth pursuing

PAGE 391

391 L IST OF REFERENCES Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase and its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Adger, David, and Gillian Ramchand. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34:325 359. Adger, David, and Gillian Ramchand. 2005. Merge and move: Wh dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36:161 193. Aldridge, Edith. 2002. Nominalization and wh movement in Seediq and Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 3:393 426. Aldridge, Edith 2006. The heterogeneity of VOS and extraction in Austronesian languages. Ms., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1:149 168. Alexiadou, Artermis. 2001. Functional structures in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen hui Audrey Li. 1993. Wh elements in situ: Syntax of LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24:199 238. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20:513 553. Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectiv es New York: Cambridge University Press. Baltin, Mark. 2010. The nonreality of doubly filled Comps. Linguistic Inquiry 41:331 335. Basilico, David. 1998. Object position and predication forms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:541 595. Bauer, Wini fred. 1993. Maori New York: Routledge. Bayer, Josef, and Ellen Brandner. 2008. On wh head movement and the Doubly Filled Comp Filter. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics ed. by Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie, 87 95. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Bernstein, Judy. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages. Lingua 102:87 113.

PAGE 392

392 Bierwisch, Manfred. 2003. Heads, complements, adjuncts: Projection and saturation. In Modifying adjuncts ed. by Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius Hansen, 113 159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Blust, Robert. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In Selected p apers from th e Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics ed. b y Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen kuei Li, 31 94. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Blust, Robert. 2002. Notes on the history of focus in Austronesian languages. In The h istory and t y pology of Wes tern Austronesian voice s ystems ed. by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 63 78. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo skeletal vs. endo skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In The nature of explanation in linguistic theo ry ed. by John Moore and Maria Polinsky, 31 67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Studia Linguistica 51:235 277. Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24:591 656. Cable, Seth. 2008. Q particles and the nature of wh fronting. In Quantification, A cross linguistic perspecti ve ed. by Lisa Matthewson, 105 178. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Carnie, Andrew. 2007. Syntax: A generative introduction Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Chang, Melody Ya yin. 2000. On Tsou wh questions: Movement or in situ? Language and L inguistics 1:1 18. Chang, Yung li. 1997. Voice, case and a greement in Seediq and Kavalan Doctoral dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu. Chang, Yung li. 2 000. A reference g rammar of Kavalan Taipei: Yuan Liu. Chang, Yung li. 2006. The guest playing host: Adverbial modifiers as matrix verbs in Kavalan. In Clause s truc ture and adjuncts in Austronesian l anguages ed. by Grtner Hans Martin, Paul Law, and Joachim Sabel, 43 82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chang, Yung li. 2010. On the syntax of For mosan adverbial verb constructions. In Austronesian and theoretical linguistics ed. by Raphael Mercado, Eric Potsdam, and Lisa Travis, 183 211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Chang, Yung li, and Wei tien Dylan Tsai. 2001. Actor sensitivity and obligatory control in Kavalan and some other Formosan languages. Language and Linguistics 2:1 20.

PAGE 393

393 Chen, Cheng fu. 1999. Wh thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei. Chen, Cheng fu, and Li May Sung. 2005. Interrogatives as polarity items in Kucapungan Rukai. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 31:95 117. Chen, Tingchun. 2010. Restructuring in Mayrinax Atayal. BA honors thesis, McGill University, Montreal. Chen, Yi Ting. 2008. A minimalist approa ch to Amis structure and complementation. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Phoenix. Cheng, Lisa Lai Shen. 1997. On the typology of wh q uestions New York: Garland Publishing. Cheng, Lisa Lai Shen, and Norbert Corver, eds. 2006. Wh movement: Moving o n Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chierchia, Gennaro, and Raymond Turner. 1988. Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11:261 302. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar e d. by Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum, 184 221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh movement. In Formal syntax ed. by Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71 132. New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lect ures on Government and Binding Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of language New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from B uilding 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1 52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. Bare phrase structure. In Governmen t and Binding theory and the minimalist p rogram ed. by Ge rt Webelhuth, 383 439. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The minimalist program Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik ed. b y Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89 115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

PAGE 394

394 Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Beyond explanatory adequacy MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL. Chomsky Noam. 2001b. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1 52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + recursion = tax semantics ed. by Uli Sauerland and Hans Martin Grtner, 1 29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and M aria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133 166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research ed. by Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang, a nd Theo Vennemann, 506 569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chung, Sandra. 2006. Properties of VOS languages. In The Blackwell companion to syntax ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 685 720. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Citko, Barbara. 2005. O n the nature of merge: External merge, internal merge, and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36:475 496. Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2008. VP raising in a VOS language. Syntax 11:144 197. Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, Kozue Inoha, and Yassir Tjung 2003. A constraint on WH in situ in Javanese. In MIT working papers in linguistics 4 4 ed. by Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards, 91 106. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics. Collins, Chris. 1997. Argument sharing in serial verb construction. Linguistic Inquiry 28:461 497. Crowley, Terry. 2002. Serial v erbs in Oceanic Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cysouw, Michael. 2004. Interrogative words: An exercise in lexical typology. Paper presented at Bantu Grammar: Description and Theory Workshop 3 ZAS Berlin, 13 February. Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky. 2001. Functional architecture and the distribution of subject properties. In Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality ed. by Willi am D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 247 279. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

PAGE 395

395 Delahunty, Gerald. 1982. Topics in the syntax and semantics of English cleft sentences Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. den Dikken, Marcel, and Pornsiri Singhapreecha. 2004. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7:1 54. Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal l anguage of North Q ueensland London: Cambridge University Press. Dowty, David. 2003. The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in Categorial Grammar. In Modifying adjuncts ed. by Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius Hansen, 33 66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74:235 273. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic i nterfaces ed. by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289 324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferrell, Raleigh. 1982. Paiwan d ictionary Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pac ific Studies, Australian National University. Franois, Alexandre. 2005. A typological overview of Mwotlap, an Oceanic language of Vanuatu. Linguistic Typology 9:115 146. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of l anguage ed. by Greenberg Joseph, 73 113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Languag e and Linguistic Theory 10:375 414. Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding theory Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hawkins, John. 1983. Word order universals New York: Academic Press. Hagge, Claude. 2003. A paradox in linguisti c typology: Rogoverbs, or WHATed we to interrogative verbs? Paper presented at The Association of Linguistic Typology V, Sardinia, Italy.

PAGE 396

396 Hagge, Claude. 2008. Towards a typology of interrogative verbs. Linguistic Typology 12:1 44. Hale, Kenneth, and Samue l Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53 109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111 176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, M orris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In MIT working papers in linguistics 21 ed. by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Tony Bures, 275 288. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10:41 53. Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalization and the syntax of vP. In Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization ed. by Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rather t, 321 343. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76:891 920. Higginbotham, James. 1996. The semantics of questions. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory ed. by Shalom Lappin, 361 383. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Higgins, Roger. 1979. The pseudocleft construction in English New York: Garland. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in Western Austronesian: An update. In The history and t y pology of Western Austronesian voice s ystems ed. by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 7 15. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Hiraiwa, Ken, and Adams Bodomo. 2008. Object sharing as symmetric sharing: Predicate clefting and serial verbs in Dgr. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:795 832. Hirose, Tom io. 2003. The syntax of D linking. Linguistic Inquiry 34:499 506. Holmer, Arthur. 2005. Antisymmetry and final particles in a Formosan VOS language. In Verb first: On the syntax of verb initial languages ed. by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley, 175 201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

PAGE 397

397 Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69 96. Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist theory of construal Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hornstein, Norb ert. 2003. On control. In Minimalist syntax ed. by Randall Hendrick, 6 81. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2005. Und erstanding M inimalism New York: Cambridge University Press. Hsieh, Fuhui. 20 11. The functions of an and =ay in Kavalan. In Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological p erspectives ed. by Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow Hrsta, and Janick Wrona, 500 522. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hsieh, Fuhui, and Chihsin Chen. 2006. Nominalization and relativization constructions in Kavalan revisited. Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, 17 20 January. Hsieh, Fuhui, and Shuanfan Huang. 20 07. Documenting and revitalizing Kavalan. In Documenting and revitalizing Austronesian languages ed. by Victoria Rau and Margaret Florey, 93 Huang, C. T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the the ory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Huang, M. Lillian. 1996. Interrogative constructions in Mayrinax Atayal. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University 41:263 96. Huang, M. Lillian. 1997. Serial verb constructions in some Formosan languages: A typological view. Paper presented at the 8 th International Conf erence on Austronesian Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 28 30 December. Huang, M. Lillian, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1999. Interrogative c onstructions in some Formosan languages. In Chinese languages and linguistics V: Interactions in l anguage ed. by Yun mei Yin, Yi Li Yang, and Huei Chen Chang, 639 680. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Huang, Shuanfan. 2002. The pragmatics of focus in Tsou and See diq. Language and Linguistics 3:665 694. Huang, Shuanfan. 2005. Split O in Formosan languages A localist interpretation. Language and Linguistics 6:783 806. Huang, Shuanfan, and Michael Tanangkingsing. 2011. A discourse explanation of the transitivity ph enomena in Kavalan, Squliq, and Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics 50:93 119.

PAGE 398

398 Idiatov, Dmitry, and Johan van der Auwera. 2004. On interrogative pro verbs. In 16 th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions ed. by Ileana Comorovski, 17 23. Nancy: The European Association for Logic, Language and Information. Ishii, Toru. 2006. A nonuniform analysis of overt wh movement. Linguistic Inquiry 37.155 167. Jiang, Haowen. 2006. Taiwan University, Taipei. Jones, Charles. 1991. Purpose clauses: Syntax, thematics, and semantics of English purpose c onstructions Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Karttunen, Lauri. 19 77. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:3 44. Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35:1 49. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax Cambridg e, MA: MIT Press. Keenan, Edward. 1978. The syntax of subject final languages. In Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann, 267 328. Austin: University of Texas Press. Keenan, Edward, and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63 99. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109 137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. La ndau, Idan. 2007. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38:485 523. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335 391. Law, Paul. 2006. Argument marking and the distribution of wh phrases in Malagasy, Tagalog, and Tsou. O ceanic Linguistics 45:153 190. Law, Paul. 2007. The syntactic structure of the cleft construction in Malagasy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:765 823. Lefebvre, Claire, ed. 1991. Serial verbs: Grammatical, comparative, and cognitive approaches Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

PAGE 399

3 99 Li, Paul Jen kuei. 2001. The dispersal of the Formosan aborigines in Taiwan. Language and Linguistics 2:271 278. Li, Paul Jen kuei. 2002. Nominalization in Pazih. Language and Linguistics 3:227 239. Li, Paul Je n kuei. 2004. Origins of the East Formosans: Basay, Kavalan, Amis, and Siraya. Language and Linguistics 5:363 376. Li, Paul Jen kuei. 2009. Coordination and comitativity in Kavalan. Paper presented at the Workshop on Coordination and Comitativity in Austro nesian Languages, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 7 8 November. Li, Yafei. 1993. Structural head and aspectuality. Language 69:480 504. Liao, Hsiu chuan. 2002. The interpretation of tu and Kavalan e rgativity. Oceanic Linguistics 41:140 158. Liao, Hsiu chuan. 2004 Transitivity and e rgativ ity in Formosan and Philippine l anguages Doctoral dissertation, The University of Hawai Manoa. Lin, Chiao Chun Beryl. 2005. Interrogatives in Squliq Atayal. Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu. Lin, Dong yi 2010. A syntactic account of nominalization in Kavalan. Paper presented Lyon, 23 26 September. Lin, Dong yi, and Jing lan Joy Wu. 2008. Nominalization and complementation in Kav alan and Amis. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Grouping and Dispersal of Austronesian People, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 3 January. Lin, Michelle Hsueh o. 1995. Two Amis suffixes: ay and an Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 21:159 173. Liu, Dorinda Tsai Taiwan University, Taipei. Liu, Emma En National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu. Marantz, Alec. 1997. N privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics 4 ed. by Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek Clark, and Alexander Williams, 201 225. Philad elphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Linguistics.

PAGE 400

400 Massam, Diane. 2003. Questions and the left periphery of Niuean. Cornell working papers in l inguistics 19 ed. by Anastasia Riehl and Thess Savella, 94 106. Ithaca: Cornell University. Matushan sky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37:69 109. Mikkelsen, Line. 2004. Specifying who: On the structure, meaning, and use of specificational copular clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Mil ler, Amy. 2001. A g rammar of Jamul Tiipay Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mller Gotama, Franz. 2001. Sundanese Mnchen : Lincom Europa. Muysken, Pieter, and Tonjes Veenstra. 2006. Serial verbs. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax IV ed. by Martin Everaert a nd Henk van Riemsdijk, 234 270. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Nicolae, Andreea, and Greg Scontras. 2010. What Austronesian tells us about who Paper presented at the 17 th Meeting of Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, Stony Brook University, N ew York, 7 9 May. Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32:303 344. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Oda, Kenji. 2005. V1 and wh questions: A typology. In Verb f irst: On the sy ntax of verb initial l anguages ed. by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley, 107 134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics London: Kluwer. Partee, Barbara H. 19 86. Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers ed. by Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof, 115 143. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Paul Ileana. 2008. On the topic of pseudoclefts. Syntax 11:91 124. Paul, Ileana. 2009. On the presence versus absence of determiners in Malagasy. In Determiners: Universals and variation ed. by Jila Ghomeshi, Ileana Paul, and Martina Wiltschko, 216 241. Amst erdam: John Benjamins. Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.

PAGE 401

401 Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. In Proceedings of NELS 27 ed. by Kiyomi Kusomoto, 337 351. Amherst, MA: GLSA. P esetsky, David. 1987. Wh in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The r epresentation of (in)definiteness ed by Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, 98 129. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin Cambrid ge, MA: MIT Press. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9:171 192. Potsdam, Eric. 2006. More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the clausal typing hypothesis. Lingua 116:2154 2182. Potsdam, Eric. 2 007. Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:577 613. Potsdam, Eric. 2009. Austronesian verb initial languages and wh question strategies. Natural Language and Linguistic Th eory 27:737 771. Potsdam, Eri c, and Maria Polinsky. 2011 Questions and word order in Polynesian. In Topics in Ocean ic morphosyntax ed. by Claire Moyse Faurie and Joachim Sabel 107 134 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rachowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2 005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36:565 599. Rackowski, Andrea, and Lisa Travis. 2000. V initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In The syntax of verb initial languages ed. by Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, 117 141. New York: Oxford University Press. Reeve, Matthew. 2011. The syntactic structure of English clefts. Lingua 121:142 171. Rett, Jessica. 2006. Pronominal vs. determiner wh words: evidence from the copy construction. In Empirical is sues in formal syntax and semantics 6 ed by Olivier Bonami an d Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 355 374. Available at http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambr idge, MA. Richards, Norvin. 1998. Syntax vs. semantics in Tagalog wh extraction. In UCLA occasional papers in linguistics 21: Recent papers in Austronesian linguistics ed. by Matthew Pearson, 259 276. Los Angeles: UCLA, Department of Linguistics. Rizzi, L uigi. 1990. Relativized m inimality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

PAGE 402

402 Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of g rammar ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281 337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ross, Malcolm, and Stacy Fang ching Teng. 2005. Formosan languages and linguistic typology. Language and Linguistics 6:739 781. Rullmann, Hotze, and Sigrid Beck. 1998. Presupposition projection and the interpretation of which questions. In Semantics and linguistic theory VIII ed by Devon St rolovitch and Aaron Lawson, 215 232. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Sabel, Joachim. 2003. Wh questions and extraction asymmetries in Malagasy. In MIT working papers in linguistics 4 4 ed. by Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards, 304 319. Cambridge, MA: MI T, Department of Linguistics. Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. Clausal equations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:157 214. Sebba, Mark. 1987. The syntax of serial v erbs Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ecial about D linking? Paper presented at NELS 39, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 8 November. Shih, Cindy Peiru. 2008. Interrogative c onstructions in Plngawan Atayal. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. Siemund, Peter. 2001. Interr ogative constructions. In Language typology and language universals: An international h andbook ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Knig, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible, 1010 1028. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Simpson, Andrew. 2001. Definiteness agr eement and the Chinese DP. Language and Linguistics 2:125 156. Chinese DP. In On the formal way to Chinese languages ed. by Sze Wing Tang and Chen Sheng Luther Liu, 74 101. St anford: CSLI Publications. nominalization. Language and Linguistics 3:427 479. Sung, Li May, Lily I wen Su, Fuhui Hsieh, and Zhemin Lin. 2008. Developing an online corpus of Formosa n languages. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6:79 118 Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In Syntax and semantics 27: The syntactic structure of Hungarian ed. by Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin Kiss, 179 274. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

PAGE 403

403 Tanangkingsing, Mic hael. 2009. A functional reference g rammar of Cebuano Doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University Taipei Tang, Chih Chen Jane. 2006. Demonstratives and DP structure in Formosan languages. Language and Linguistics 7:935 990. Teng, Stacy Fang ching. 2007. A reference g ram mar of Puyuma, an Austronesian l anguage of Taiwan Doctoral dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra. Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Tsai, Dylan Wei Tien. 1997a. On the absence of island effects. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 27:125 149. Tsai, Dylan Wei study of Kavalan, Tsou, and Seediq. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Stu dies 27:381 422. Tsai, Dylan Wei Tien. 2007. Conjunctive reduction and its origin: A comparative study of Tsou, Amis, and Squliq Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 46:585 602. Tsai, Dylan Wei Tien, and Melody Yain Chang. 2003. Two types of wh adverbials: A typolo gical study of how and why in Tsou. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3:213 236. Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1988. Amis. The Sanseido encyclopedia of l ingui stics Vol. 1: Languages of the world, part o ne ed. by Takashi Kamei, Rokuro Kono, and Eiichi Chino, 447 449. Tok yo: Sanseido Press. van der Does, Jaap, and Helen de Hoop. 1998. Type shifting and scrambled definites. Journal of Semantics 15:393 416. van Urk, Coppe. 2010. On obligatory control: A movement and PRO approach. Ms., Utrecht University Available at http:/ /web.mit.edu/cvanurk/www/onobligatorycontrol.pdf Wei, Ting Chi. 2009. Wh interrogatives in Amis. Language and Linguistics 10:315 374. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11:203 238. Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categori es. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:423 446. Wu, Joy Jing Normal University, Taipei.

PAGE 404

404 Wu, Joy Jing lan. 2000. A reference grammar of Amis Taipei: Yuan Liu. Wu, Joy Jing lan. 2006. Verb cla ssification, case marking, and g rammatic al r elations in Amis Doctoral dissertation, SUNY, Buffalo. Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Yeh, Marie Meili. 1997. Pivotal constructions in some Formosan languages. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Languages, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 28 30 December.

PAGE 405

405 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dong yi Lin was born in Tainan, Taiwan He earned a B.A. in English at the National Taiwa n Normal University in 2003 and received an M.A. in Linguistics at the National Taiwan University in 2006. His M.A. thesis described the language of emotion in Kavalan and received the Best Thesis Award from the Linguistic Society of Taiwan in 2007. In the spring of 2013, he received his Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Florida. His research focuses on both theoretical linguistics, especially morphosyntax and semantics, and descriptive linguistics of endangered languages, especially indigenous Au stronesian languages in Taiwan, or Formosan languages. One primary goal of his research agenda is to show that the inquiry into the unique morphosyntactic and semantic features of Formosan languages can advance our understanding of language universals and differences and further contribute to the current linguistic theories His specific research interests include the structure and typology of wh questions in Formosan languages, especially the syntax and semantics of interrogative verbs, and also the struct ure of obligatory control in these languages.