臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討雅美語雙及物結構是否也有與英文，及其他語言如日語、希臘語、國語，一樣有與格轉換的語言現象。雅美語有一特別的強調系統可將名詞組移到主詞的位置上。在探討雅美語的雙及物結構前，必須先探討幾個問題。首先，研究名詞組的格位標記是否會因動詞的性質（動詞的及物性、動詞的論元結構）不同而有所改變，其次，提出論證證明強調系統並不適用於形容雅美語特殊的移位系統，而語態系統較能更進一步的形容此一名詞移位現象。最後，提出雅美語並不是一個作格語言，而是一個valency-neutral的語態系統。解決這些問題後，發現雅美語中也有類似英文中的與格轉換的語言現象，此一發現也驗證了Harley的提案，擁有“有”動詞的語言就會有與格轉換的現象。

The aim of the present study is to examine the existence of dative alternation in Yami, a language with a rich case marking system, that is similar to Japanese and Greek which are both reported to have dative alternation, as well as very unique ‘focus’ systems that can promote any argument into the subject position. Several issues have to be addressed: first, the case marking on the nominal is investigated in four most commonly observed ‘focus’ constructions from various aspects including degree of transitivity, thematic structure, and event classes,…etc; second, the term ‘focus’ is misleading and is identified as ‘voice’; third, arguments against Yami as an ergative language and supports for a valency-neutral voice system are provided.　Once these basic linguistic properties have been clarified, an examination of trivalent verbs shows positive evidence of dative alternation in Yami. Dative alternation is found with the two trivalent Yami verbs meaning ‘distribute out/give out’ and ‘mail’. This finding is in accordance with Harley’s proposal of the co-existence verbal HAVE and dative alternation, and also suggests that dative alternation is not a language-specific property.

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………....v
Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………..viii
Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………………ix
English Abstract……………………………………………………………………….x
Chapter
1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….1
2 Literature Review………………………………………………………………….4
3 A Descriptive Study of Yami Focus Constructions……………………………...17
3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………17
3.2 Literature Review…………………………………………………………...18
3.3 Focus Constructions………………………………………………………...22
3.3.1 Agent Focus………………………………………………………….23
3.3.1.1 Transitivity……………………………….………...………...24
3.3.1.2 Thematic Structure…………………………………………...27
3.3.1.3 Vendler event classes – stative, activity, achievement, and accomplishment………………………………………………30
3.3.2 Patient Focus………………………………………………………...33
3.3.2.1 Transitiviy…………………………………………….............34
3.3.2.2 Thematic Structure…………………………………………...35
3.3.2.3 Vendler event classes – stative, activity, achievement, and accomplishment………………………………………............38
3.3.3 Location Focus………………………………………………............39
3.3.3.1 Transitivity…………………………………………………...39
3.3.3.2 Thematic Structure…………………………………………...40
3.3.3.3 Vendler event classes – stative, activity, achievement, and accomplishment………………………………………………41
3.3.4 Instrument Focus…………………………………………………….42
3.3.4.1 Transitivity…………………………………………………...42
3.3.4.2 Thematic Structure…………………………………………...44
3.3.4.3 Vendler event classes – stative, activity, achievement, and accomplishment………………………………………………45
3.3.5 Summary…………………………………………………………….45
3.4 Possible explanations for exceptions and a re-examination of case system………………………………………………..………………..…….47
3.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..50
4 Yami Ditransitive Constructions………………………………………………...51
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………51
4.2 Focus or Voice? …………………………………………………………….52
4.2.1 Chang’s Analysis (1997) ……………………………………………53
4.2.2 Other Analysis……………………………………………………….55
4.2.3 Yami Voice System……………………………………………..........57
4.2.4 Comparison of the Yami Voice System and the English Active-Passive Voice………………………………………………………………..59
4.2.5Arguments against ergative and antipassive analysis…………..........62
4.2.6 Summary……………………………………………………….........69
4.3 Ditransitive Verbs…………………………………………………………...69
4.4 Further justification for dative alternation in Yami…………………………79
4.5 Limitations and Implications………………………………………………..84
4.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..85
5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...…….87
References…………………………………………………………………………...90

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2000. Two classes of double object verbs: the role of zero morphology. In Progress in Grammar. Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, M. van Oostendorp and E. Anagnostopoulou (eds.).
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from clitics.
Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives. To appear in Melita Stavrou and Arhonto Terzi (Eds.).
Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik. 1986. A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347-354.
Chang, Claire H. (張郇慧) 1997. On Thematic Structure of Yami Verbs. NSC Report 85-2418-H-004-001.
Chang, Claire H. (張郇慧) 2000. Yami Reference Grammar. (雅美語參考語法). 遠流出版公司.
Chang, Yung-li. 1997. Voice, case and agreement in Seedip and Kavalan. Ph.D. Dessertation, National Tsing-Hua University.
Chen, L. H. (陳麗雪) 2005. Ditransitive Constructions in Southern Min: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. MA Thesis. National Cheng-Chi University.
Deng, Dun-Hong. (鄧敦弘). 2005. Argument-Function Linking in Yami:An Optimality-Theoretic Account. MA Thesis. National Cheng-Chi University.
Foley, William, A. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategorialtiy in Philippine languages. University of Sydney.
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 29-68.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: an update. The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems. Australia: The Australian National University.
Ho, Arline Y. L. (何月玲) 1990. Yami Structure: A Descriptive Study of the Yami Language. (雅美語結構). MA Thesis. National Tsing-Hua University.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251-299.
Huang, Huei-ju, and Shuanfan Huang. 2006. Verb semantics, focus type and split O in Tsou. Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistic, Puerto Princesa City.
Huang, Jing-Shin (黃景星). 1977. Double-Object Construction in Taiwanese (閩南語的雙賓結構). MA Thesis. Fu-Jen Catholic University.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (3): 427-456.
Jung, Y. J. & Miyagawa, S. 2004. Decomposing ditransitive verbs. In Proceedings of SICGG, Summer 2004, pp. 101-120.
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry
19:335-391.
Larson, Richard. 1990. Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4): 589-632.
Levin, Beth., and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Cruyter.
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object construction. In Mchombo (ed.) Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, pp. 113-150.
Miyagawa, Shigeru & Takae Tsujioka. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguisitcs 13, 1 -38.
Peng, Yu-Hsin (彭瑜心). 1998. Double Object Construction in Mandarin Chinese. (漢語的雙賓結構). MA Thesis. National Tsing-Hua University.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rau, D. Victoria. (何德華) and Ma-nyu. Tung. (董瑪女) 2000. Yami language teaching material. (雅美語教材). Taipei: Crane Publishing Company. 台北: 文鶴出版社.
Rau, D. Victoria. (何德華) 2003. Dau Dictionary: grammar, data, and dictionary. (達悟語典:參考語法、語料與詞典).
Shih, Louise. (施玉勉) 1996, Yami Word Structure. MA Thesis. Providence University.
Starosta, Stanley. 2001. Austronesian ‘focus’ as derivational: evidence from nominalization. Language and Linguistics 3 (2): 427-478.
Wang, C. Y. 2000. (王晶瀅) Double-object Construction in Taiwanese Southern Min. MA Thesis. National Tsing-Hua University.