臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本篇論文從語言類型的觀點，探討雅美語動詞的及物性及動詞價位轉換 。 從句子及物性區分，雅美語包含四種句型：不及物句，延伸不及物句，及物句和延伸及物句。本文基於兩個理由，採用及物性分析法，而非傳統的語態分析法。 第一，語態標記會增加論元。 第二，語態標記會改變動詞的意思。本文將語態標記改為及物性標記。所謂的主事者語態動詞標為不及物動詞 (INTR)，所謂的非主事者語態動詞標為及物動詞 (TR)，所謂的處所語態動詞標為處所施用動詞(LA)，所謂的受惠者/工具/伴同語態動詞標為施用動詞 (BA)。處所及受惠者/工具/伴同施用動詞皆為及物動詞。
不及物詞綴包括mi-，om-/<om>，ma-三個不及物詞綴，彼此表現互補的意義。分別是起始，進行及終點之意思。mi- 和 om-/<om> 只能衍生成不及物動詞，但ma- 也可以衍生成及物動詞。詞綴ma- 和 ka- -an 同時可當及物和不及物。
及物動詞詞綴包括 ma- 及 –en、處所施用結構詞綴 –an、及受惠者/工具/伴同施用結構詞綴 i-。從句法特性顯示，ma- 是非典型及物動詞詞綴，主要表示靜態的終點，但 -en 表現及物動詞的特性，是典型及物動詞詞綴。
雅美語動詞價位轉換包含三種：論元數目改變 (論元減少或增加)，論元數目不變，但語法關係改變，和及物與不及物動詞之間的轉換。
雅美語使用三種機制形成使役結構，即詞彙，構詞及句法。其中以使役結構詞綴 pa- 使用最廣。典型的使役結構，表達使役者有意圖地，以直接或間接方式，引起使役的事件。非典型的使役結構，如標有詞綴 ma-、ka- -an、i-、i-paci-、 及i-paka- 的形式，指被使役者被動地表現一種行為或造成一種狀態。使役結構 pa-動詞會形成直接或間接使役事件的關鍵在於pa-動詞是否有相對等的使役動詞形式。原則上，pi- 及 pa- 的動詞形式，在動詞功能、衍生關係、分佈、論元結構、及表現直接或間接使役事件等方面，皆有差異性。
雅美語有典型的及非典型的施用結構。典型的施用結構，包含受惠者、伴同、
工具、及處所、目標、來源、接受者等施用結構，其動詞詞綴引介一個新的論元。
非典型的施用結構，不引進新論元，如 給予的動詞，並非由不及物句衍生而來
本身即是及物句，又如 語意角色為客體和受事者之句子。以及物性而言, 典型
的施用結構皆由不及物句衍生成為及物句。
本文根據Levin (1993)之及物和雙及物變換句型探討雅美語的三元述語的論元體現。雅美語的三元述語動詞可以帶著施用結構詞綴或及物動詞詞綴，以施用結構形式標示受惠者或工具論元，以及物動詞形式標示客體。本文發現雅美語沒有雙賓結構，三個論元有一個必須以斜格或處所格出現。雅美語為作格語言-及物句的賓語和不及物句的主格標記相同。雅美語的二元及物句有作格名詞組與黏著作格代名詞互相呼應，一元不及物句及二元及物句有第三人稱複數自由代名詞與S/O名詞組互相呼應。

This study deals with transitivity by examining morphosyntactic and semantic properties of verbs and their derivations in Yami from typological perspectives. Yami has five transitivity classes of verb: intransitive, extended intransitive, transitive and extended transitive and ambitransitive. This thesis adopts transitivity analysis instead of the traditional focus/voice analysis based on two reasons. First, the so-called voice markers increase the valence of a verb. Second, the so-called voice markers create meaning shift. The so-called voice markers are treated as transitivity markers in this study.
Intransitive affixes such as mi-, om-/<om>, and ma- represent three complementary semantics. The affix mi- refers to an inchoative action; om-/<om> expresses on-going action or state; ma- indicates a result state. The affixes mi- and om-/<om> occur as intransitive verbs. The intransitive form ma- includes four subtypes: a denominal marker, a nominalizer, a habitual emotion affix, occurring with the marker -en (ma- -en), and an ambitransitive.
Transitive affixes include ma- and -en, and the applicative affixes -an and i-. The transitive form ma- does not occur with an agent-oriented adverbial or an instrumental phrase, which is regarded as a non-canonical transitive verb. The main function of the transitive form ma- is to express a telic result state. By contrast, the transitive form -en exhibits typical transitive properties and is regarded as a canonical transitive form.
Yami employs three types of valency-related derivations: valency-changing including valency-reducing and valency-increasing, valency-transposing and valency-encoding derivations.
Yami uses three causative mechanisms to express causative constructions: lexical, morphological and periphrastic, among which the morphological affix pa- is the most productive. Canonical causative verbs express that a volitional causer is, either directly or indirectly, involved in bringing about a causative event while non-canonical causative verbs imply that a causee is passively caused to perform an action or achieve a state. The correlation between the causative morpheme pa- /pi- and the causation type i.e. direct or indirect depends on whether the Yami language has the corresponding causative form or not. The forms pi- and pa- exhibit different properties with respect to derivation, distribution, argument structure and relations to causation types.
There are two applicative affixes i- and -an in Yami. Canonical applicative
constructions promote a peripheral argument to an absolutive argument indicating
semantic roles such as benefactive, comitative, instrumental, cause, percept, causand, location, recipient, goal and source while non-canonical applicative constructions, e.g. the ‘give’-type verb, do not.
A triadic verb that can take an applicative affix and a transitive affix will mark a beneficiary/ instrument argument in its applicative form and an absolutive theme in its transitive form. The encoding of a triadic event in Yami is normally by employing a transitive or applicative device. Yami does not have double object constructions. A triadic verb in Yami usually involves two core arguments and an oblique or a locative argument.
Yami is an ergative language. The third person bound ergative pronouns agree in person, number and case with the ergative-marked NP in dyadic transitive clauses. There is also a free third person plural absolutive pronoun semantically agreeing with the absolutive-marked NP in monadic intransitive and dyadic transitive clauses.

Chapter 1 Introduction….……………………………….………….....………. 1
1.1 Background Information……………………………………………… 1 1.2 Data Sources and Language Consultants…………………………….. 2
1.3 Motivation of the Study……………………………………………… 3
1.4 Goal of the Study …..………………………………………………… 3
1.5 Research Questions…………………………………………………… 4
1.6 A Sketch of Yami Grammar………………………………………….. 5
1.6.1 Phonemic Inventory……………………………………….. 5
1.6.2 Orthographic System………………………………………. 6
1.6.3 Word Order………………………………………………… 7
1.6.4 Case Marking System……………………………………… 9
1.6.5 Pronominal System …………………………………………10
1.6.6 Verbal Clause Types……………………………………….. 15
1.7 Tense-Aspect-Modality System in Yami……………………………… 17
1.8 Organization of the Dissertation……………………………………… 24

Chapter 2 Literature Review ………………………………………………… 26
2.1 The Notion of Transitivity…………………………………………… 26
2.2 Theoretical Orientation………………………………………………. 27
2.2.1 Core vs. Peripheral Argument……………………………… 28
2.2.2 Valency versus Transitivity………………………………… 28
2.2.3 Canonical vs. Non-canonical Marking of Core Argument… 30
2.3 Previous Studies on Transitivity in Formosan Languages…………… 30
2.4 Previous Studies on Transitivity in Yami…………………………….. 33
2.5 Summary……………………………………………………………… 36



Chapter 3 Intransitives in Yami………………………………………………. 37
3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………… 37
3.2 Multiple Uses of the Affix maINTR - ………………………………… 38
3.3 Syntactic Properties of the Verb Form maINTR - …………………….. 39
3.3.1 Types and Argument Structure of the Verb Form maINTR - .. 39
3.3.2 Distribution of the Intransitive Form maINTR -……………. 44 3.3.3 Co-occurrence of maINTR- with Tense-Aspect-Modality
Affixes……………………………………………………… 45
3.3.4 Co-occurrence of maINTR- with Other Verbal Affixes …….. 46
3.3.5 maINTR - as a Comparative Affix…………………………... 46
3.3.6 maINTR - Alternating with mipa-, mi-, ika-, ka- -an…….….. 47
3.3.6.1 The Affixes ma INTR - vs. mipa-………………….. 47
3.3.6.2 Stative and activity Affixes maINTR - vs. mi- ……. 49
3.3.6.3 Psychological Verbs with maINTR - vs. i-ka-…….. 50
3.3.6.4 maINTR – alternating with ka- -an ……………….. 51
3.4 Semantic Properties of the Intransitive Affix ma INTR - ……………… 56
3.4.1 maINTR- Denoting Stative, Frequency/Manner, and
Emotional Events…………………………………………... 56
3.4.2 maINTR-Denoting Dynamicity, Spontaneity, and
Anticausative……………………………………………..... 58
3.4.3 maINTR- Denoting Naturally Collective/Non-translational
Motion…………………………………………………….. 61
3.4.4 Generalization of the Intransitive Form maINTR - ………… 62
3.5 Multiple Uses of the Affix mi- ………………………………………. 65
3.6 Syntactic Properties of the Verb Form mi- …………………………… 66
3.6.1 Derivation of the Verb Form mi- ………………………….. 66
3.6.2 Argument Structure and Distribution of the Verb Form mi-. 67
3.6.3 mi- as an Intransitive Marker……………………………… 68
3.6.4 The Form mi- Alternating with pi- ………………………… 69
3.6.5 Co-occurrence of mi- with the Causative Affix pa-……….. 69
3.6.6 mi- as a Denominal Affix………………………………….. 70
3.6.7 Unergative vs. Unaccusative Verb Forms m- vs. maINTR-…. 71
3.7 Semantic Properties of the Affix mi-…………………………………. 72
3.7.1 mi- Denoting Physical Activity and Spontaneous Events…. 72
3.7.2 mi- Denoting Reciprocal Relation and Kinship Relation….. 73
3.7.3 mi- Denoting Inchoative Dynamicity and Change of State.. 73


3.8 mi- Alternating with Other Affixes…………………………………… 74
3.8.1 Activity Forms mi- vs. om- ……………………………….. 74
3.8.2 State Verb Forms mi- vs. om- ……………………………… 77
3.8.3 Properties of the Form om-/<om> ………………………… 78
3.8.4 The Verb Forms mi- vs. mipa- ……………………………. 79
3.8.5 The Forms maTR /maINTR- vs. mi- ………….……………… 80
3.8.5.1 The forms maTR- vs. mi- …………………........ 81
3.8.5.2 Activity forms maINTR- and mi- ………………. 82
3.8.5.3 Body parts nominal with maVBLZ- vs. mi- ……. 83
3.8.5.4 Subjunctive maINTR- vs. indicative mi- ………. 83
3.8.5.5 The forms maINTR-pa- vs. mi-pa- …………….. 85
3.8.5.6 Psychological state/physical activity maINTR-
vs. mi- …………………………………………85
3.9 Summary……………………………………………………………… 86

Chapter 4 Valency-changing Derivations in Yami…………..………….......... 89
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………… 89
4.2 Voice Affixes as Transitivity Markers ……………………………….. 90
4.3 Verb Structure in Yami ………………………………………………. 94
4.3.1 Primary Affixes……………………………………………. 94
4.3.2 Verb Stem Formative………………………………………. 95
4.3.3 Other Affixes………………………………………………. 96
4.4 Transitivity Classes of Verb and Clausal Transitivity in Yami……….. 97 4.5 Transitivity Markers in Yami…………………………………………. 100
4.5.1 Dyadic Transitive Verbs……………………………………. 101
4.5.1.1 Dyadic transitive affix –en …………………… 102
4.5.1.2 Dyadic transitive affix maTR- and ka- -an…….. 104
4.5.2 Canonical/Non-canonical Transitive Forms maTR- vs. -en… 107
4.6 Triadic Constructions in Yami……………………………………….. 114
4.6.1 The Locative Applicative Verbal Affix –an1 and –an2…….. 114 4.6.2 The Locative Goal/Theme/Patient Verbal Affix –an …….. 115
4.6.3 The Benefactive Applicative affix i- ……………………… 117
4.6.4 Dyadic Applicative Verbal Affix i- ……………………….. 117
4.6.5 Triadic Applicative Verbal Affix i-…………. ……………… 118




4.7 Different Types of O in Yami and in English ………………………… 120
4.8 Valency-related Derivations in Yami ……………………………… 123
4.8.1 Valency-reducing Derivations……………………………… 124
4.8.2 Valency-increasing Derivations …………………………… 125
4.8.2.1 Causativization………………………………… 125
4.8.2.2 Applicativization……………………………… 126
4.8.3 Valency-transposing Derivations………………………….. 127
4.8.4 Valency-encoding Derivations…………………………….. 128
4.9 Types of Constructions in Yami…………………………………….. 130 4.9.1 Reflexive Constructions ………………………………….. 132
4.9.2 Reciprocal/Comitative Constructions……………………… 133
4.9.3 Affective and Accidental Constructions ………………….. 134
4.9.3.1 Volitional vs. non-volitional actor…………….. 135
4.9.3.2 Volitional vs. non-volitional actor in Yami……. 136
4.9.4 Modal Constructions ……………………………………… 138
4.10 Summary……………………………………………………………. 139
Chapter 5 Causative Constructions in Yami…………………………………. 141
5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….. 141
5.2 Causative and Inchoative Alternations………………………………. 142
5.2.1 A Typology of Causative-Inchoative Alternations………… 143
5.2.2 Causative-inchoative Alternations Cross-linguistically…… 145
5.2.3 Causative and Inchoative Verb Alternations in Yami……… 147
5.2.4 Causative-intransitive Verbal Affixes in Yami…………….. 148
5.2.4.1 pa- vs. ma- ......................................................... 148
5.2.4.2 pi- vs. mi- …………………………………….. 149
5.2.4.3 -en/-an vs. ma- ……………………………….. 149
5.2.4.4 pa- vs. <om> …………………………………. 150
5.2.4.5 pa- vs. m-……………………………………… 150
5.2.4.6 ma- vs. ma and ka- -an vs. ka- -an…………….. 150
5.3 Coding of Types of Causative Verb in Yami ………………………… 152







5.4 Syntactic Properties of the Causative Affixes pa- and pi- …………… 156
5.4.1 Derivations of the Causative Affixes pa- and pi- ………..... 156
5.4.1.1 pa-/pi- as causative denominal affixes………… 156
5.4.1.2 Causative verbs derived from pa- and pi-…….. 158
5.4.2 Distribution of the Affixes pa- and pi- …………………..... 158
5.4.3 Functions of the Verb Forms pa- vs. pi-…………………… 162
5.4.3.1 pa- as a causative affix/a verb stem formative… 162
5.4.3.2 pi- as a transitive affix/a causative marker.. ……164
5.4.4 The Dual Function of the Form pi- ………………………... 166
5.4.5 Argument Structure of the Verb Forms pa- vs. pi- ………… 167
5.4.6 A Correlation of the Forms pa- and pi- to Causation Type… 169
5.4.6.1 Direct/indirect causative verb form pa-……….. 169
5.4.6.2 Direct verb form pi-…………………………… 169
5.5 Co-occurrence of the Causative Affix pa- with Voice Affixes ………. 171
5.5.1 pa- Co-occurring with Other Affixes………………………. 172
5.5.2 pi- Co-occurring with Other Affixes………………………. 173
5.5.3 pa-/pi- Alternating with Other Affixes…………………….. 173 5.5.3.1 pa- alternating with i-ka- ………………………174
5.5.3.2 pa- alternating with i-pa- ……………………... 175
5.5.3.3 pi- alternating with pa- ……………………….. 176
5.6 Canonical and Non-canonical Causative Verb Marking ……………... 176
5.6.1 Causative Verbs with Canonical Marking ………………… 176
5.6.1.1 Lexical causatives -en/-an and pi-…………….. 177
5.6.1.2 Morphological causatives …………………….. 179
5.6.1.2.1 Transitive causative verbs pa- …… 180
5.6.1.2.2 Intransitive causative verbs ma-pa-. 180
5.6.1.3 Periphrastic causatives ………………………. 181
5.6.2 Causative Verbs with Non-canonical Marking ……………. 182
5.6.2.1 Psychological verbs i-(ka-)- ………………….. 183
5.6.2.2 Ambitransitive verb forms ma- vs. ka- -an …… 183
5.6.2.3 The verb form i-paci- ………………………… 185
5.6.2.4 The verb form i-paka- ………………………… 186
5.6.3 Canonical vs. Non-canonical-marked Causative Verbs …… 188
5.7 Constructions with Causative Verb Forms pa- and pi- ………………. 189
5.7.1 Inchoative Constructions with the Causative Affix pa- …… 189



5.7.2 Imperative Constructions with Causative Affixes pa- /pi-… 190
5.7.3 Benefactive Constructions with the Causative Affix i-pa-… 190
5.7.4 Predicative Constructions with the Causative Affix ma-pa-. 190
5.7.5 Relative Constructions with the Causative Affix ma-pa- …. 192
5.7.6 Co-existence of Periphrastic and Morphological Causatives 192
5.7.7 The Causative Form pa- with the Instrument NP …………. 193
5.8 Valency Relations between Non-causative and Causative verbs…….. 194
5.8.1 Causatives of Intransitive Verbs …………………………… 196
5.8.1.1 One-argument causatives ………………………196
5.8.1.2 Two-argument causatives ……………………. 197
5.8.2 Causatives of Transitive Verbs ……………………………. 199
5.8.3 Causatives of Transitive Verbal Affix i-pa- ……………….. 201
5.8.3.1 Causative verb i-pa- with a theme argument…. 202
5.8.3.2 Causative verb i-pa- with a recipient argument.. 202
5.8.4 Causatives of Triadic Verbs ……………………………….. 203
5.9 Semantics of Causative Constructions …………………………..…… 205
5.9.1 Semantic Types of Causatives ……………………………. 205
5.9.1.1 Direct physical causation …………………….. 205
5.9.1.2 Indirect physical causation …………………… 207
5.9.1.3 Inducive causation ……………………………. 208
5.9.1.4 The enablement/permission type ……………... 209
5.9.2 Direct vs. Indirect Causation ……………………………… 211
5.9.2.1 Definition of direct vs. indirect causation…….. 211
5.9.2.2 Direct/ indirect causation cross-linguistically… 211
5.9.2.3 Causative verbs in relation to causation types… 212 5.9.2.4 Causative verbs in relation to causation types
in Yami… …………………………………… 214
5.9.2.4.1 Direct vs. indirect causatives ………. 214
5.9.2.4.2 Morphological/periphrastic causative 217
5.9.2.4.3 Lexical vs. periphrastic causatives…. 218
5.9.3 Case Marking of the Causee NP…………………………… 219
5.10 Discussion and Explanation ………………………………………… 224
5.10.1 Language Gap …………………………………………… 225
5.10.2 A Comparison with Other Formosan Languages………… 229
5.11 Summary …………………………………………………………… 230


Chapter 6 Applicative Constructions in Yami……………………………….. 232
6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….. 232
6.2 Definition of Applicative Construction………………………………. 232
6.3 Applicative Constructions in Yami ………………………………….. 234
6.3.1 The Applicative Affix i- ………………………………….. 234
6.3.2 The Applicative Affix -an ………………………………… 236
6.4 Canonical Applicative Constructions ………………………………… 237
6.4.1 Instrumental, Benefactive, and Comitative Applicatives….. 238
6.4.2 Cause, Percept, and Causand Applicatives ………….…….. 240
6.4.3 Locative Applicatives……………………………………… 243
6.4.4 Subtypes of Comitative Applicative Constructions……….. 245
6.4.4.1 Motion and stance comitatives i-……………… 245
6.4.4.2 Speech and malfactive comitatives i-paci- …… 246
6.4.4.3 Potential applicative form i-paka-…………….. 247
6.5 Non-canonical Appplicative Constructions ………………………...... 248 6.6 Split of the O Argument ……………………………………………… 250
6.6.1 The Transported Theme……………………………………. 251
6.6.2 The Recipient ……………………………………………… 251
6.7 Co-occurrence of the Applicative Affix i- with Other Affixes……….. 252
6.7.1 Marking of Benefactive Applicative Constructions……….. 253
6.7.1.1 Verbal benefactive marking…………………… 253 6.7.1.2 Possessive-benefactive marking……………… 255
6.7.1.3 The possessive-benefactive relation ………….. 256
6.8 Applicative/causative Isomorphism………………………………….. 257
6.8.1 Applicative/causative Relation in Yami……………………. 258
6.8.2 Semantic Relation between Causative and Applicative. …... 260
6.9 Summary……………………………………………………………. 261

Chapter 7 Triadic Encoding in Yami…………………………………………. 263
7.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….. 263
7.2 Non-core Arguments in Yami………………………………………… 264
7.3 The Encoding of Agent, Theme, and Message ………………………. 266
7.3.1 The Agent ………………………………………………… 266
7.3.2 The Transported Theme…………………………………… 268




7.3.2.1 In the oblique case……………………………. 268
7.3.2.2 In the absolutive case ………………………… 269
7.3.3 The Transported Theme and Transitive Marking ………… 270
7.3.4 The Transported Theme and Applicative Marking ………. 271
7.3.5 The Conveyed Message ………………………………….. 272
7.3.5.1 In the locative/oblique case ………………….. 272
7.3.5.2 In the absolutive case ………………………… 273
7.4 Location and Its Related Roles………………………………………. 273
7.4.1 The Recipient……………………………………………… 273
7.4.1.1 In the locative case……………………………. 274
7.4.1.2 In the genitive case …………………………… 276
7.4.1.3 In the absolutive case ………………………… 276
7.4.2 The Source ………………………………………………. 278
7.4.2.1 In the genitive case …………………………… 278
7.4.2.2 In the locative case …………………………… 279
7.4.3 The Goal ………………………………………………….. 280
7.4.3.1 In the locative case …………………………… 280
7.4.3.2 In the absolutive case………………………… 281
7.4.4 The Location ………………………………………………. 281
7.4.4.1 In the locative case …………………………… 282
7.4.4.2 In the absolutive case…………………………. 283
7.5 The Beneficiary and the Instrument …………………………………. 284
7.5.1 The Beneficiary ……………………………………………. 284
7.5.1.1 In the absolutive case ………………………… 285
7.5.1.2 In the dative case ………………………… ….. 286
7.5.1.3 Restrictions on applied object …………………286
7.5.2 The Instrument ……………………………………………. 287
7.5.2.1 In the instrument case…………………………. 288
7.5.2.2 In the absolutive case …………………………. 290
7.5.2.3 In the oblique case…………………………….. 290
7.6 The ‘Give’-type Verb and Its Extended Uses………..………………. 291







7.7 Recipient and ‘Give’-type Verb Constructions in Yami……………… 295
7.8 Generalizations and Implications ……………………………………. 298
7.8.1 Generalizations…………………………………………….. 299
7.8.2 General Tendencies………………………………………… 302
7.8.3 Typological Implications…………………………………... 302 7.9 Summary …………………………………………………………… 303



8 Conclusion………………………………………………………… 305
8.1 Concluding Remarks………………………………………………… 305
8.2 Contributions and Implications …………………………………….. 309
8.3 Suggestions for Future Studies………………………………………. 311

References……………………………………………………………..…… 312
Appendix: The Applicative Affix i- and Its Absolutive Argument ….. …… 323






















LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 The Batanic Languages ……………………………… 2
Table 1.2 Consonants in Yami……………………………………. 6
Table 1.3 Vowels in Yami…………………………………………. 6
Table 1.4 Orthographic System in Yami…………………….. 7
Table 1.5 Case-Marking System in Yami………………………. 9
Table 1.6 Personal Pronominal System in Yami………….. 11
Table 3.1 The Nominalized Affix ma- in Yami …………… 41
Table 3.2 Stative Verbs Alternating with Affixes maINTR- vs. mipa- ....................................49
Table 3.3 Nominal Affixed with ka- -an in Formosan
Languages.................................. 51
Table 3.4 Nominal Affixed with ka- -an in Yami… .... 52
Table 3.5 The Verb Form ka- -an Denoting Inadvertent
Events in Yami ..............................56
Table 3.6 Types of the Intransitive Form maINTR- in
Yami ..................................... 62
Table 3.7 Intransitive Form ma- Denoting Change of State
and Stativity............................. 63
Table 3.8 Intransitive Form ma- Denoting Activity
........................................... 63
Table 3.9 Derivation of the Intransitive Verb Forms
maINTR- and ka- -an........................ 65
Table 3.10 mi- as a Denominal Verbal Marker ......... 66
Table 3.11 mi- as an Intransitive Verbal Marker........67
Table 3.12 Denominal Verb Forms ma- and mi- in Yami ...70
Table 3.13 Unergative and Unaccusative Verbs with Distinct
Affixes .................................. 71
Table 3.14 Verb/Nominal with mi- Denoting a Dual
Relationship …………… 73
Table 3.15 Semantic Contrast of mi- and om-/<om> with the Same Verb Root. 78
Table 3.16 Intransitive Verb Form om-/<om> ………………………………... 78
Table 3.17 Semantic Contrast of ma- vs. mi- with the Same Verb Root ……… 84
Table 3.18 Syntactic and Semantic Properties of Verb Forms ma- vs. mi-……. 88
Table 4.1 Primary Affix in Yami …………………………………………….. 94 Table 4.2 Verb Stem Formative in Yami ……………………………………. 96
Table 4.3 Clausal Transitivity Type and Case Assignment in Yami …………. 100
Table 4.4 Transitive Form maTR- Denoting a Telic Result State in Yami ……. 105
Table 4.5 Transitive Form maTR-/ka- -an Denoting an Involuntarily Caused
Event……………………………………………………………… 106
Table 4.6 Transitive Form ka- -an Denoting A Cognitive Event ……………. 106
Table 4.7 Aspectual Distinction Indicated by maTR- vs. mi- in Yami ……….. 106
Table 4.8 Functions of Transitive (Dyadic and Triadic) Affixes in Yami …… 119

xv

Table 4.9 Yami O vs. English O …………………………………………….. 123
Table 4.10 Anticausative and Its Transitive Verb Form in Yami……………… 124
Table 4.11 Intransitive and Transitive Verbs in Yami ………………………… 128
Table 4.12 Types of Valence-related Derivation in Yami ………………….. 130
Table 4.13 Construction Type in Terms of Transitivity Value in Yami ……….. 139
Table 5.1 Five Types of Causative-Inchoative Alternations ………………… 143
Table 5.2 Inchoative Derivations in Yami……………………………………. 146
Table 5.3 Types of Causative-inchoative Alternation in Yami ……………… 148
Table 5.4 Causative-intransitive Alternations in Yami ………………………. 152
Table 5.5 Coding Patterns of Causatives in Yami …………………………… 156
Table 5.6 Denominal Affixes pi- vs. pa- in Yami …………………………… 157
Table 5.7 Nominal and Types of Verb with the Causative Affix pa-………… 161
Table 5.8 The Affix pa- as a Verb Stem Formative in Yami ………………… 163
Table 5.9 A Dual Function of the Form pi- …………………………………. 167
Table 5.10 Syntactic Properties of the Verb Forms pi- vs. pa- ……………….. 171
Table 5.11 Co-occurrence of pa- with Transitivity Markers ………………….. 172
Table 5.12 Lexical Causatives and Morphological Causative Counterparts….. 178
Table 5.13 Canonical-marked vs. Non-canonical-marked Causative Verbs ….. 187
Table 5.14 Valency Relations between Noncausative and Causative Verbs…... 195
Table 5.15 Reassignment of Grammatical Relations of Causatives of
Intransitive Verb…………………………………………………… 199
Table 5.16 Reassignment of Grammatical Relations of Causatives of
Transitive Verbs …………………………………………………… 201
Table 5.17 Derivation of the Verb Form i-pa-………………………………… 201
Table 5.18 Valency Relations between Noncausative and Causative Verbs …. 204
Table 5.19 Semantic Types of Causation in Yami ……………………………. 210
Table 5.20 Causative Forms pi- / pa- Denoting Direct vs. Indirect Causation...215
Table 5.21 Causative Forms –en/ pa- Denoting Direct vs. Indirect Causation.. 217
Table 5.22 Causative Verbs in Relation to Causation Types in Yami ………… 219
Table 5.23 Case Marking of the Causee in Relation to Causation Type
Cross-linguistically ……………………………………………………… 224
Table 6.1 Correlation of Semantic Roles with Applicative Affixes …………. 237
Table 6.2 Case Marking of Instrument/Benefactive/Comitative Applicatives. 238
Table 6.3 Case Marking of Cause, Percept, and Causand Applicatives …….. 243
Table 6.4 Case Marking of Locative Applicative Constructions ……………. 245


xvi
Table 6.5 Split of the O Argument with Applicative Affix i- ………….......... 252
Table 6.6 Applicative and Causative Isomorphism in Yami………………… 259
Table 7.1 Case Marking of the O Argument of ‘Give’-type Verbs in Yami … 294
Table 7.2 Triadic Encoding in Yami ………………………………………… 298































xvii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 The Continnum of Formal Fusion of the Predicate of Cause and
Effect …………………………………………………………….. 225


































LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1S First person singular
2S Second person singular
3S Third person singular
1P First person plural
2P Second person plural
3P Third person plural
ABS Absolutive
AUX Auxiliary verb
BA Applicative
CAUS Causative
CMT Comitative
CON Conjunction
DAT Dative
DO Direct object
ERG Ergative
EXCL Exclusive
GEN Genitive
IDO Indirect object
IMP Imperative
INCH Inchoative
INC Inceptive
INCL Inclusive
INST Instrument
INTR Intransitive
LA Locative applicative
LNK Link
LOC Locative
MV Middle Voice
NMLZ Nominalization
NP Noun phrase
OBL Oblique
PA Particle
xix

PFV Perfective
PLN Place name
PN Personal name
POSS Possessive
PP Prepositional phrase
RCP Reciprocal
RCPT Recipient
RED Reduplication
SOC Social
TR Transitive
TT Transported theme
VBLZ Verbalizer
VF Verb stem affix

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Minimalist analysis of ergativity. Sophia Linguistica 55:123-142.
Amberber, Mengistu. 2000. Valency-changing and valency-encoding devices in Amharic. In Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A.Y. 312-332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asai, Erin. 1936. A study of the Yami language: An Indonesian language spoken on Botel Tobago Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteitsboekhandel en Antiquariaat J. Ginsberg, Leiden.
Baker, M. 1988b. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 353-389.
Blust, Robert A. 1991. The Greater Central Philippines hypothesis. Oceanic Linguistics 30 (2): 73-129.
Blust, Robert A. 2003. Three notes on early Austronesian morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 42 (2): 438-478.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chang, Chih-Wei Hugh. 2008. Causative constructions in Tsou. M.A.thesis. Chia-yi: National Chung Cheng University.
Chang, Claire H. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Yami. Introduction to Formosan
Languages. Series No. 13. Taipei: Yuan-liu Publishing Co.


Chang, Henry. Y. 2004. AF verbs: transitive, intransitive, or both. In Papers in honor
of Professor Hwang-Cherng Gong on his seventieth birthday. Language and Linguistics monograph Series Number 4, ed. by Lin et al. 95-120. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Chang, Henry Y. 2011. Transitivity, ergativity and status of O in Tsou. Language and cognition: Festschrift in Honor of James H-Y. Tai on his 70th birthday, ed. by Jung-hsing Chang &; Jenny Y.-C. Kuo. 277-308. Taipei: Crane.
Chang, Yu-jing. 2011. A discussion of syntax and semantics on ma-verbs in Yami.
M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels &; Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chung, Sandra, and Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon,
Vol. 3, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 202-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities and divergences. In Syntax and Semantics 6: the Grammar of Causative Constructions. ed. by Shibatani, M. pp. 261-312
Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Comrie, B. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III. ed. by Timothy Shopen. 309-348.
Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Cole, Peter. 1983. The Grammatical Role of the Causee in Universal Grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 115-133.
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: Chicago University of Press.
Croft, William, C. Taoka &; E. J. Wood. 2001. Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian and Japanese. Language Sciences 23: 579-602.
Deng, Duen-hun. 2005. Argument-function linking in Yami: An optimality-theoretic account. M.A. thesis. Taipei: National Cheng-Chi University.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55.1: 59-138.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. and Aikhenvald, A.Y. (ed.) 2000. Changing valency: case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, D. R. 1979. Word meaning and montague grammar. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Evans, Bethwyn and Ross, Malcolm. 2001. The history of Proto-Oceanic *ma-. Oceanic Linguistics 40 (2): 269-290.
Foley, W. A. 1991. The Yimas languages of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gibson, Jeanne. D and Starosta, Stanley. 1990. Ergativity east and west. In Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology. ed. by Philip Baldi, 195-210. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grimes, C. E. 1991. The Buru language of eastern Indonesia. Ph.D. thesis. Australian National University.
Haas, M. 1941. ‘Trumai’, pp. 351-3 of The Amazonian languages, Vol. IV. New York: JJ. Augustin.
Haiman J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59.781-819.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity, ed. by Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky, 87-120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hetzron, R. 1976. On the Hungarian causative verb and its syntax, In Syntax and semantics 6: the grammar of causative constructions. ed. by Shibatani, M. pp. 371-98.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and John U. Wolff. 1999. Toratán (Ratahan). Languages of the World/Materials 130. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Ho, Arlene, Y. L. 1990. Yami Structure: A descriptive study of the Yami Language. M.A. thesis, Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Ho, Arlene, Y. L. 1993. Transitivity, focus, case and the auxiliary verb systems in Yami. Taipei: Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 62(1): 83-147.
Hopper, Paul, J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56 (2): 251-299.
Huang, Lillian M. 2000. Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39 (2): 364-390.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2005. Split O in Formosan languages. Language and Linguistics
6 (4): 783-806.
Hsieh, Fuhui, and Huang, Shuanfan. 2006. The pragmatics of case marking in Saisiyat. Oceanic Linguistics 45(1): 91-109.
Huang, Huei-ju, and Shuanfan Huang. 2007. Lexical perspectives on voice construction in Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics 46(2): 424-455.
Huang, Shuping, and Li-May Sung. 2008. The undergoer focus ma- in Kavalan. Oceanic Linguistics 47(1):159-184.
Huang, Wan-tin. 2006. Yami voice system revisited: with particular reference to the ditransitive constructions. M.A. thesis, National Cheng-Chi University, Taipei.
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ichihashi, Kumiko. 1996. The “applicative” in Hualapai: Its functions and meanings. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 227-239.
Jeng, Heng-hsiung. 1981. Yami verbal classification and the cooccurrences of cases. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 12 (1): 29-55.
Kachru, Y. 1976. On the semantics of the causative construction in Hindi-Urdu. In Syntax and semantics 6: the grammar of causative constructions. ed. by Shibatani, pp. 353-69.
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001. Verbal reflexives and the middle voice. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard, König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgand Raible (eds.)
Language Typology and Language Universals, 916-927. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Keenan, Edward L. and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63-99.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kemmer, S. and Verhagen, A. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5 (2), 115-156.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
LaPolla, Randy J. 2000. Valency-changing derivations in Dulong/Rawang. In Changing valency: case studies in transitivity. ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A.Y. 282-311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335-391.
Lee, Amy Pei-Jung. 1997. The case marking and focus systems in Kavalan. M.A. thesis, Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth and Hovav, Malka Rappoport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lee, Gregory. 1971. Subjects and Agents II. Working Papers in Linguistics # 7, Department of Linguistics, the Ohio State University, Columbus.
Li, Chao-Lin. 2010. The syntax and semantics of eventuality in Paiwan and Saaroa.
Ph D dissertation. National Tsing Hua University.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1973. Rukai structure. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Special Publication No. 64.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 2000. Subgrouping of the Batanic languages. In The Fifth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, Hochiminh City, pp. 175-176. Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City: University of Social Sciences and Humanities.
Liao Hsiu-chuan. 2002. The interpretation of tu and Kavalan ergativity. Oceanic Linguistics 41(1): 140-158.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2004. Transitivity and ergativity in Formosan and Philippine languages. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai ‘i.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2011. On the development of comitative verbs in Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics 12 (1):205-237.
Maran, L. R. and Clifton, J. R. 1976. The causative mechanism in Jinghpaw. In Syntax and semantics 6: the grammar of causative constructions. ed. by Shibatani, M. pp. 443-58.
Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).
Mithun, Marianne. 2000. Valency-changing derivation in Central Alaskan Yup’ik. In Changing valency: case studies in transitivity. ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A.Y. 84-114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moriguchi, Tsunekazu. 1980. “The Yami language.” Nihonminzoku to Kuroshio-bunka, 308-386. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.
Nedyalkov, Vladimir P. and G. G. Silnitsky. 1973. The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics, ed. by Ference Kiefer, 1-32. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, D. and Barnes, Jonathan. 2004.Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguisitc Typology 8: 149-211.
Onishi, Masayuki. 2000. Transitivity and valency-changing derivations in Motuna. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. ed. Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. 115-144. Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. 1994. Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambrige University of Press.
Payne, Thomas E. 1982. Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ip Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language 6 (1): 75-106.
Payne, Thomas. E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguistics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perlmutter, David M. and Postal, Paul M. 1984. The I-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In David M. Perlmutter &; Carol G. Rosen (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 81-125.
Peterson, David A. 2006. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Theory 23:381-457.
Rau, D. Victoria, and Maa-Neu Dong. 2006. Yami texts with reference grammar and dictionary. Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Rau, Der-Hwa Victoria. 2005. Iconicity and tense, aspect, and mood morphology in Yami. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 31(1): 65-94.
Reid, Lawrence A., and Hsiu-chuan, Liao. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics 5 (2): 433-490.
Ross, Malcolm D. 2005. The Batanic languages in relation to the early history of the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup of Austronesian, Journal of Austronesian Studies 1(2): 1-23.
Ross, Malcolm and Stacy Fang-cing Teng. 2005. Formosan languages and linguistic typology. Language and Linguistics 6(4): 739-781.
Saeed, John I. 2009. Semantics. 3rd edition. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Saksena, A. 1982. Contact in causation. Language 58: 820-31.
Shih, Louise Y. M. 1997. Yami Morphology. M.A.thesis. Taichung: Providence University.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. Lexical versus periphrastic causatives in Korean. Journal of Linguistics 9: 281-97.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. (ed.) 1976. Syntax and semantics 6: the grammar of causative constructions. New York : Academic Press:.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: a cognitive account. In
Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning. ed. by Shibatani, M. and
Thompson, Sandra A. 157-194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology: morphology and syntax. Longman Linguistic Library. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Song, Jae Jung. 1998. Benefactive marking in Oceanic languages: from possessive classifiers to benefactive markers. In Case, typology and grammar in honor of Barry J. Blake. ed. by Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song. 247-276. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin
Song, Nam Sun 1993. Thematic relations and transitivity in English, Japanese and Korean. The Center for Korean Studies, University of Hawai ‘i.
Starosta, Stanley. 1997. Formosan clause structure: Ergativity, transitivity, and case marking. In Chinese languages and linguistics IV: Typological studies of languages in China, ed. by Chiu-yu Tseng, 125-154. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Starosta, Stanley. 1998. Ergativity, transitivity and clitic coreference in four western Austronesian languages. In Case, typology and grammar, ed, by Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song, 277-307. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sung, Li-May and Chia-chi Shen. 2006. Reciprocals in Kavalan and a typological comparison. In Streams converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on his 70th birthday, ed. by Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang, and Dah-an Ho, 239-77. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Talmy, L. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Shibatani, Masayoshi. ed. Syntax and semantics 6: the grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Thomas, D. D. 1971. Chrau grammar. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 7.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Thepkanjana, K. and Uehara, S. 2008. The verb of giving in Thai and Mandarian Chinese as a case of polysemy: A comparative study. Language Sciences 30: 621-651.
Tsuchida, Shigeru, Yukihiro Yamada, and Tsunekazu, Moriguchi. 1987.Lists of selected words of Batanic languages. Tokyo: Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo.
Tsuchida, Shigeru, Ernesto Constantino, Yukihiro Yamada, and Tsunekazu, Moriguchi
1989. Batanic languages: Lists of sentences for grammatical features. Tokyo: Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1999. Transitivity and intransitivity. Journal of Asian and African Studies 57: 1-9.
Tuggy, David. 1988. Nahuatl causative/applicatives in Universal Grammar. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 587-618.
Van Valin, R. D. and Lapolla, R. J. 1997. Syntax structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Voorst J. 1995. The semantic structure of causative constructions. Studies in Languages 19 (2): 489-523.
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wang, Shan-shan. 2004. An ergative view of Thao syntax. Ph.D dissertation, University of Hawai ‘i.
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology. The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predications. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1): 203-238.
Wu, Joy Jing-Jan. 2007 “Voice” markers in Amis: A role and reference grammar analysis. Language and Linguistics 8:95-142.
Yamada, Yukihiro, comp. 2002. Itbayat-English dictionary. Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim (ELPR) Publications Series A3-006. Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University.
Yami New Testament. 1994. Taipei: The Bible Society in the R.O.C.
Yeh, Marie M. 2003. The syntax and semantics of verbs in Saisiyat. Ph.D dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1996. The temporal, aspectual, and modal systems of some Formosan languages: A typological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics, 35(1): 21-56.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth and Lillian M. Huang. 2000. Concerning ka-, an overlooked marker of verbal derivation in Formosan languages, Oceanic Linguistics 39(2): 391-414.