(3.232.129.123) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/06 02:10
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:黃惠如
研究生(外文):Huei-Ju Huang
論文名稱:鄒語言談語句詞組之語法與語用分析
論文名稱(外文):The syntax and pragmatics of clausal constituents in Tsou discourse
指導教授:黃宣範黃宣範引用關係
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:語言學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:英文
論文頁數:292
中文關鍵詞:鄒語台灣南島語句法語用詞組序voice /焦點名詞指涉形
外文關鍵詞:referential expressionvoiceconstituent orderpragmaticssyntaxTsouFormosan languageclausecase markerverb
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:349
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究旨在觀察鄒語語法中,句子裡的主要結構成分,包含詞組(constituent),單詞(words)以及語法標記,在實際口語言談語料的分佈情形,進而探討這些語法成分與標記,在傳達言談訊息時所扮演的角色與功能。
過去文獻關於鄒語語法方面的研究已描繪出鄒語語法構詞結構的輪廓。鄒語語法中特有的語法標記方式,如焦點詞綴,代名詞詞綴,助動詞,時式標記,以及格位標記等。本研究進一步觀察這些語法構詞成分在自然言談語料中發揮的作用。
鄒語名詞在語句中必定伴隨一個名詞前格位標記。此語法標記在鄒語言談中同時扮演有多樣工作。其一,在鄒語語法獨特的焦點系統(本文稱Voice)下,名詞詞組必須以下列兩種標記方式:標記為主格名詞組或標記為斜格名詞組。其二,鄒語的格位標記標示該指涉物與說話者之間的空間距離或是心理距離。這樣的標記指涉物體遠近的標記,幫助說話者及聽者確認該指涉物體在言談文本的敘事空間中,或是對話真實場景裡的相對位置,因此該物體的指涉性(referentiality)或定指性(definiteness)得由對話進行的上下文進一步推論而得。
此外,在鄒語言談文本中,三種名詞的指涉形(referring expression),也就是完整詞彙形(lexical NPs),零形(zero form)及代名詞形,有獨特的分佈模式:代名詞只能代表A或S論元名詞,而完整詞彙在鄒語言談中,不僅用來表示言談進行新出現的new information,也經常用來指涉given information。這種獨特的名詞指涉模式是受到鄒語的構詞語法的限制,因為鄒語代名詞只出現在謂語詞組前面的助動詞。另一方面,依照一般語言言談進行的特性,A/S論元名詞在言談中通常容易一再被提及,換言之,A/S名詞是比較傾向作為言談文本的主題。鄒語語法構詞上,代名詞只用在表示A/S名詞的限制,進一步證實鄒語的言談語用與語法上對訊息處理的安排,有密切的交互作用。鄒語的語法,反映了一般言談行為的實際語用特性。
本文也描述謂語詞組的助動詞的語用分佈情形。鄒語的謂語前助動詞主要用來標記事件的時態。在實際言談文本中,不論是在過去情境或現在情境,最常出現的助動詞是標示近時間距離的助動詞。由此可見,其他語言常見的,運用『近距離時態標記』來標示久遠前發生的事件的,拉近時間點讓事件更生動呈現這種語用上的特殊處置,在鄒語不適用,因為鄒語一向以近距離助動詞標示已實現事件,遠距離助動詞在言談文本,只用來強烈的強調過去和現在已實現事件發生時間點的不同。
接著本文進一步探討Voice (或焦點系統標記)與動詞論元結構間的關係。經過對近百個鄒語動詞的論元結構的觀察,單一鄒語動詞最多有四種Voice結構。這些Voice標記是鄒語特有的標記論元結構的方式。沒有Voice標記時,鄒語動詞只與事件的命題(proposition)語意相關;動詞有了Voice詞綴標記才能指示在有這個動詞的語句裡,其句法結構包含幾個論元,以及那個語意角色的論元名詞應該標記為主格。
最後,本文討論幾種在語料庫以及田野調查筆記觀察到的,在鄒語謂語詞組中擔任『主要動詞』的幾種複雜類型。鄒語『主要動詞』分佈在謂語詞組的最右邊的位置。在鄒語語句中,單一的動詞詞彙不是唯一能擔任謂語中的『主要動詞』的語法成分。我們在語料庫中發現,出現在『主要動詞』位置的有許多不同類型的組合,包括兩個動詞詞彙連結的『主要動詞』,非論元名詞與動詞詞彙組合成特定『主要動詞』,特定詞綴與動詞結合,但改變原動詞的論元結構的『主要動詞』,還有兩個動詞詞彙一起組成一『主要動詞』,但第二個動詞實際上是第一個動詞的補語等。這些特有的不同類型的『主要動詞』,其語意通常也包含複雜的事件結構。而這些『主要動詞』內的各組合成分的之間,也呈現不同的語意連結關係,因此在結構上有不同的呈現方式。



This study concerns various syntactic constituents in Tsou and the roles they play in information transmission in discourse. Since one of the prominent functions of languages has to do with communication between people, we intend to show how the grammar of Tsou serves this function, especially how the grammatical markers in Tsou are recruited for producing and interpreting in talks in interaction.
Based on careful examinations to natural discourse data, some frequently co-occurring linguistic elements are grouped as a constituent. Tsou indicative clauses have a rather fixed constituent order: predicate phrase occurs first, and lexical NPs occur on the right of the clauses. The constituents are sedimented patterns composed of various linguistic elements, which have gradually become the grammatical formatives, represent a processing unit for particular in discourse, and further make up clauses in Tsou.
Not just identifying these grammatical formatives, this study also show the functions of some grammatical elements in natural discourse. Linguists have not yet reached a consensus on the functions of many grammatical markers in Tsou, like ‘voice’, ‘case markers’, ‘auxiliary verb’, etc. This study provided some discourse-based observations to enhance our understanding on the pragmatic uses of these various grammatical markers.
Case markers in Tsou are multi-exponential markers. Given that having a unique grammatical device—voice system operating in clauses of Tsou, all NPs in a clause of Tsou can be divided into two groups: NP marked with nominative markers, and NPs marked with oblique markers. Based on their distribution in texts of natural discourse, the main function of case markers in clauses of Tsou tends to locate the relative distance, either visually/spatially or psychologically, between the speaker and the referents in a text. Aside from locating various spatial and psychological distances, they also serve to certain discourse functions. As for the definiteness and referentiality, case markers do not directly encode the information; whether an NP is definite must be inferred from context.
On the other hand, based on careful observations on the corpus of natural discourse, this study also shows that, the occurrences of the three referential expressions (lexical NPs, pronominal forms, and zero) show skewing distributions: pronominals only occur in A role and S role NPs, and lexical NPs in this language are also largely recruited to express activated information. This typological uniqueness can be ascribed to the language-specific morpho-syntactical requirements on the form of referential expression in Tsou discourse: A/S role NPs obligatorily occur in bound pronominals attached to the auxiliary verbs.
The morpho-syntactic A/S role constraint in Tsou also regulates the occurrences of discourse topics in a particular position in clauses. NPs in A/S position of clauses tend to be mentioned several times, so as to maintain their high topicality. In addition, animate nouns have priority over inanimate nouns in their ability to assume the A/S roles. In light of this, the syntax and pragmatics of Tsou can be treated as mutually affecting each other, and thus reflects a discourse universal that a discourse topic tends to be in A/S roles in clauses.
This study also shows the pragmatic use of auxiliary verbs in Tsou discourse. The auxiliary verbs in Tsou encode TAM information of events. Their distributions in discourse attest that using proximate auxiliary verbs in Tsou clauses is the prototypical use, not a pragmatic manipulation for special effects like historical present.
Moreover, this study shows how voice has to do with the argument structure of the verbs in Tsou. The syntactic valence of verbs in Tsou has at most four voice alternatives, signaling different ways of syntactic marking on the argument NPs. The semantic nature of a verb in Tsou only gives propositional context of an event; it is one’s knowledge of the voice alternatives that tells how the argument NPs of a verb are syntactically realized.
Lastly, this study shows different types of ‘main verb’ in Tsou found in the corpus of natural discourse and fieldwork notes. In Tsou, what the ‘main verb’ constituent in a clause is made of is quite complex. Not only verbs may occur as the main verb, it is also possible for multiple linguistic forms working together revealing a single clausal reading to function as the main verb in clauses. Semantically, these various structures of a main verb encode complicated event structures. The semantic relation between each element in such complicated verb phrases includes an event with its modifying expressions (in portmanteau verbs), reason or cause of an event (in synthesized verbs), an action and its non-referential affectee (in noun-incorporated verb phrase), serialized actions (juxtaposed verb pairs), etc. These verb phrases may go through different kinds of morpho-syntactic operations.


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….iii
Chinese abstract……………………………………………………………………v
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………..vii
Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………xi
Symbols for discourse coding……………………………………………………...xii
List of tables……………………………………………………………………….xiii
List of figures………………………………………………………………………xiv

Chapter 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………1
1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………….1
1.1 General information on Tsou………………………………………………..2
1.2 Overview of previous research on Tsou…………………………………….4
1.3 Grammatical characteristics of Tsou………………………………………..7
1.3.1 Tense, Aspect and Modality…………………………………………...8
1.3.2 Voice …………………………………………………………………10
1.3.2.1 Grammatical marking on verbs……………………………..10
1.3.2.2 Syntactic and pragmatic behaviors of voice………………...14
1.3.2.3 Why four Focus (Voice) constructions?..................................16
1.3.3 Pronominals in Tsou…………………………………………………...20
1.4 Methodology………………………………………………………………..21
1.5 Data for analyses……………………………………………………………26
1.6 Terminologies……………………………………………………………….27
1.7 Organizations…………………………………………………………….....31

Chapter 2 Linear order of elements and constituents in the clause……………...33
2.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………33
2.1 Order of elements in indicative clauses……………………………………..33
2.1.1 Elements occurring in regular positions in clauses………………….33
2.1.2 Linear order of a modifier and its head in predicate phrases and noun prases……………………………………………………………….37
2.1.2.1 Distribution of adverbials in the predicate phrase…..37
2.1.2.2 Linear order of nouns and their modifiers…………...41
2.1.2.2.1 Relative clause as a noun modifier………………42
2.1.2.2.2 Attribute as a noun modifier……………………. 43
2.2 Frequency of elements in the clause………………………………………...46
2.2.1 Obligatoriness of elements in the clause…………………………….46
2.2.2 Constituents as a unit for information processing…………………...49
2.3 Indicative clause as the basic structure for constructing other types of clauses
………………………………………………………………………………51
2.4 Summary………………………………………………………………….54

Chapter 3 The pragmatics of case markers……..………………………………..56
3.0 Introduction………………………………………….……………………..56
3.1 case markers, the polyexponential markers in Tsou …..................................56
3. 2 case markers of Tsou vs. definiteness and referentiality…………………...66
3.3 The pragmatics of nominative markers ………………………………….... 68
3.3.1 Nominative marker ‘o in discourse…………………………………68
3.3.2 Nominative marker na in discourse…………………………………75
3.3.3 Nominative marker ‘e in discourse………………………………….79
3.3.4 Nominative marker si/co in discourse……………………………….84
3.3.5 Nominative marker ta in discourse………………………………….90
3.3.6 Interim summary…………………………………………………….92
3.4 The pragmatics of oblique markers………………………………………...94
3.4.1 Patterns of distribution of oblique marker to, ta, no in discourse……94
3.4.2 The pragmatics of oblique marker to/ta/no in Tsou discourse………..96
3.4.2.1 Oblique markers in the Pear texts……………………………97
3.4.2.2 Oblique markers in Frog texts………………………………..97
3.4.2.3 Oblique markers in the spontaneous monologues, Snake and
Bear…………………………………………………………102
3.4.2.4 Oblique marker in conversation texts……………………….107
3.4.2.5 Interim summary……………………………………………110
3.5 Summary……………………………………………………………………111

Chapter 4 The pragmatics of referential expressions in discourse …………….115
4.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………115
4.1 Lexical NPs…………………………………………………………………116
4.1.1 Syntactic positions of lexical NPs in clauses………………………116
4.1.2 Modification of lexical NPs………………………………………..117
4.2 Pronominals in clauses……………………………………………………...118
4.3 Zero occurrences of NPs in clauses ………………………………………...123
4.4 Noun-referring in Tsou discourse…………………………………………...129
4.4.1 The interfaces of NP forms and information processing in Tsou…..130
4.4.2 How is the valency role an NP takes in a clause is related to the form this NP is mentioned in discourse?...................................................133
4.5 Actor-oriented perspective on organizing a discourse inTsou………………140
4.5.1 Actor-oriented perspective narration as a cohesion device in discourse………………………………………………………….141
4.5.2 Animacy of topical NPs in Tsou discourse………………………144
4.5.3 Topic selection hierarchy in Tsou………………………………...149
4.6 summary …………………………………………………………………..151

Chapter 5 Auxiliary verbs and adverbial verbs…………………………………153
5.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………..153
5.1 Auxiliary verbs…………………………………………………………….153
5.1.1 Basic information…………………………………………………..153
5.1.2 Unequal distributions of auxiliary verbs in discourse……………...155
5.1.3 Habitual vs. non-habitual dichotomy on auxiliary verbs…………..156
5.1.4 Encoding temporal remoteness and proximity in discourse………..161
5.1.4.1 Remote past vs. proximate past……………………………..161
5.1.4.2 Habitual events ……………………………………………..166
5.1.4.3 Future……………………………………………………….166
5.1.4.4 Hypothetical and counterfactual……………………………172
5.1.4.5 Interim summary……………………………………………174
5.2 ‘Adverbial’ verbs vs. verbs……………………………………………...175
5.3 Summary………………………………………………………………..184

Chapter 6 Voice, argument structure, and lexical semantics of verbs………….186
6.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………..186
6.1 Voice on verbs……………………………………………………………..186
6.1.1 Terminology………………………………………………………..187
6.1.2 General observations……………………………………………….188
6.1.3 CV constructions…………………………………………………...192
6.2 Verb valence and argument structure……………………………………...196
6.2.1 Valence structure of verbs of time and weather……………………197
6.2.2 Valence structure of state, property, emotion and motion verbs…...198
6.2.2.1 Valence structure of motion verbs and location verbs………199
6.2.2.2 Valence structure of emotion verbs…………………………204
6.2.2.3 Valence structure of verbs of state………………………….211
6.2.3 Valence structure of verbs of action, perception, cognition, sociative
action and saying…………………………………………………212
6.2.4 Valence structure of ditransitive verbs and placement verbs……. 223
6.2.5 Summary and analyses……………………………………………225

Chapter 7 Types of ‘main verb’ constituent………………………………….…233
7.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………….233
7.1 Beyond verb ‘types’ in Tsou……………………………………………234
7.2 Portmanteau verbs………………………………………………………238
7.3 Noun incorporation and appositional non-argument NP complement…. 240
7.4 Complement-taking verbs………………………………………………. 244
7.4.1 Complememt clauses as full-fledged clauses………………………246
7.4.2 Complement-taking verbs with no-complement………………...…250
7.4.3 Dependent clausal complement without any complementizer……..255
7.5 Juxtaposed verbs constituting a unit of main verb......................................260
7.6 synthesized verb phrases ………………………………………………...267
7.6.1 noa clause………………………………………………………….268
7.6.2 poa clause………………………………………………………….271
7.7 Summary………………………………………………………………….278

Chapter 9 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………280

References…………………………………………………………………………286


References

Abbott, Barbara. 2005. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Laurence R. Horn &
Gregory Ward, (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics, 122-151. Oxford: Blackwell.
Arka, I Wayan, and Malcolm Ross (eds.). 2005. The many faces of Austronesian voice
systems: some new empirical studies. Canberra: the Australian National University.
Blust, Robert. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in
Austronesian comparative linguistics. In E. Zeitoun and Paul Li (eds.) Selected papers from 8ICAL, 31-94, Academia Sinica.
Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper (eds). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic
Structure. John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan and Sandra Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in Syntax.
BLS 23:378-388.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects
of narrative production, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: The University of
Chicago press.
Chang, Henry Yungli. 2004. The syntax of adverbial modification in Kavalan and
Tsou. Paper presented in the 9th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-9). Taipei, November 21-23.
Chang, Henry Yungli. 2006a. The guest playing host: Adverbial modifiers as matrix
verbs in Kavalan. In Hans-Martin Gaertner et al.(ed.), Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, 43-82 . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chang, Henry Yungli. 2006b. Rethinking the Tsouic subgroup hypothesis: A
morphosyntactic perspective. In Chang, Henry Yungli, Lillian M. Huang, and
Dah-an Ho (eds.), Streams converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of
Professor Pau Jen-Kuei Li on his 70th birthday, 565-583. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Chang, Henry Yungli. 2007a. On the structure of Formosan adverbial verbs
constructions. Paper present at AFLA-14 . McGill University.
Chang, Henry Yungli. 2007b. On the syntax of Formosan adverbial verb
constructions. Talk given at the Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, June 14.
Chang, Henry Yungli. 2009. Adverbial Verbs and Adverbial Compounds in Tsou: A
Syntactic Analysis. Oceanic linguistics 48.2:439-476.-
Chang, Melody Ya-yin. 2002. Nominalization in Tsou. Language and Linguistics
3.2:335-348.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On definiteness: A study with special reference to English
and Finnish. Cambridge University Press.
Coorman, Ann. 1994. A functional typology of antipassives. In Barbara Fox a Paul J.
Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and Function. 49-87. John Benjamins.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language
similarities and divergences. In Masayoshi Shibatani, ed.: The Grammar of Causative Constructions (Syntax and Semantics 6), 261–312. New York: Academic Press.
Cumming, Susanna. 1988. Syntactic function and constituent order change in Malay.
Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 1997. A typology of argument-
determined construction. In Bybee, Joan, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, (eds.) Essays on language function and language type: dedicated to T. Givon, 71-113. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. 2000. Changing valency:
case studies in transitivity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, Matthew. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Essays on language
function and language type, eds. by Joan Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 115-143. John Benjamins.
Dryer, Matthew. 2007. Word order. In Language typology and syntactic description.
2nd edition , Vol. 1, ed. by, Timothy Shopen, 61-130. Cambridge University Press.
Du, Bois, John, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, and Danae Paolino.
1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Talking data: Transcription and coding for language research, ed. by Jane Edwards and Martin Lampert, 45-89. Hillsdale: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ewing, Michael. 2005. Hierarchical constituency in conversational language: the case
of Cirebon Javanese. Studies in language 29.1:89-112.
Fincke, Steven Charles. 2002. Sto. Domingo Bikol verbal portmanteau morphemes:
Transitivity in conversation. UCSB Ph.D. dissertation.
Ferrell, Raleigh J. 1982. Paiwan Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research
School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
Fox, Barbara, Makoto Hayoshi, and Robert Jasperson. 1996. In Resources and repair: a crosslinguistic study of syntax and repair. Interaction and Grammar, ed. By Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Shegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 185-237. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Barbara and Robert Jasperson. 1995. A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In Davis, Philip W. (ed.), Alternative Linguitics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes, 77-134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele E., and Farrell Ackerman. 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77.4:798-814.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2004 . Pragmatics and Argument Structure. In Horn, Larry & Gregory Ward (eds). Handbook of Pragmatics, 427-441. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Co.
Kibrik, Aleksandr. E. 1997. Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive
relational typology. Language Typology 1: 279-346.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar:
typological characteristics. In Nikolaus Himmelmann and Alexander Adelaar,
(eds.), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110-181. London:
Routledge.
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 13, 139-157.
Hopper, Paul. 1998. Emergent Grammar. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.) The new psychology of language, 155-175. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hopper, Paul and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse.
Language 56.1:251-299.
Hsieh, Fuhui. 2007. Language of emotion and thinking in Kavanlan and Saisiyat.
Ph.D. dissertation. National Taiwan University.
Huang, Huei-ju. 2003. The tense, aspect and reality in Tsou and Saisiyat. Master
Thesis. National Taiwan University.
Huang, Huei-ju and Michael Tangangkingsing. 2005. Repair in verb-initial languages.
Language and Linguistics 6.4:575-597.
Huang, Huei-ju and Shuanfan Huang. 2007. Lexical perspectives on voice constructions in Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics 46.2:424-455.
Huang, Huei-ju and Shuanfan Huang. 2008. Peripheral participants as obligatory arguments:
The preferred argument realization patterns in Tsou. Paper presented at 18th International Congress of Linguists (CIL 18). Seoul, July 21-26.
Huang, Huei-ju and Shuanfan Huang. 2009. Beyond preferred argument structure: the discourse pragmatics of NPs in Tsou. Studies in Language 33.3:499-257.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2002a. Tsou is different: A cognitive perspective on language,
emotion, and body. Cognitive Linguistics 13:2, 167–186.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2002b. The pragmatics of focus in Tsou and Seediq. Language and
Linguistics 3.4:665-694.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2005. Split O in Formosan languages—A localist interpretation.
Language and Linguistics 6.4:783-806.
Huang, Shuanfan. To appear. Transitivity as an emergent category in Formosan
Languages. In Peter Austin (ed.), Linguistics of the endangered languages. Oxford University Press.
Huang, Shuanfan and Huei-ju Huang. 2003. On the status of reality marking in Tsou.
Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 1.2:1-34.
Huang, Shuanfan and Huei-ju Huang. 2005. Causative and applicative: their split and
syncretism in Formosan languages. Paper presented at Taiwan-Japan Joint workshop on Austronesian languages. Taipei, June 23-24.
Huang, Shuanfan, Lily I-wen Su and Li-May Sung. 2002. A reference grammar of
Tsou. NSC Technical Report.
Huang, Shuanfan, Lily I-wen Su and Li-May Sung. 2004. Discourse and Cognition in
Saisiyat. NSC Technical Report.
Huang, Shuanfan and Michael Tanangkingsing. 2005. Reference to motion events in
six Western Austronesian languages: Toward a semantic Typology. Oceanic Linguistics: 44.2:307-340.
Keenan, Edward L. and Matthew S. Dryer. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages. In
Shopen, Timothy (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edition, 325-361.
Li, Chao-Ling. 2009. The syntax of prefix concord in Saaroa: Restructuring and
multiple agreement. Oceanic Linguistics 48.1:172-212.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1972. On comparative Tsou. Bulletin of the Institute of History &
Philology (BIHP). 44.2:311-338.
Li, Paul Jen Kuei. 1979. Variations in the Tsou dialects. BIHP 50.2:273-300.
Li, Paul Jen Kuei. 1997. A syntactic typology of Formosan languages—Case markers
on nouns and pronouns. In Tseng, Chiu-yu (ed.), Chinese Languages and
Linguistics, Vol. 4, 343-379. Academia Sinica.
Lin, Gu-jing. 2002. The complementation of Tsou: Toward a cognitive account of
syntactic structure. MA Thesis. National Taiwan University.
Mayer, Mercer. 1980. Frog, Where are You? NY: Dial Books.
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system.
In Fox, Barbara and Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice form and function, 251-277. John Benjamin.
Nevskij, N.A.1935 .Materaly po govoram jazyka cou. Moskva-Leningrad: Trudy
Instituta Vostokovedenija. Translated by白嗣宏,李福清,浦忠成 (1993) T''ai-wan chou tsu yü tien (Language materials of Tsou). Taipei : Taiyuan (臺原出版).
Nojima, Motoyasu. 1996. Lexical prefixes of Bunun verbs. Journal of the Linguistic
Societyof Japan 110:1-27.
Noonan, Michael. 2007. Complementation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language
typology and syntactic description, 2nd edition, Vol. 2:52-150. Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interaction and
grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information status. In
W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson, (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295-326. John Benjamins,
Reid, Lawrence A. 2002. Determiners, nouns or what? Problems in the analysis of
some commonly occurring forms in Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics 41(2):295-309.
Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and
voice-marking. In Wouk, Fay, and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, 17-62. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Ross, Malcolm. 1995. Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology. In Li, Paul Jen-kuei et
al. (eds) Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, 729-765. Taipei:Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.
Ross, Malcolm and Stacy Fang-ching Teng. 2005. Formosan Language and Linguistic
Typology. Language and Linguistics 6.4:739-781.
Schachter, Paul. 1993. Tagalog. In Jacobs, Joachim, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang
Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax. An international handbook of contemporary research, 1418-1430. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Shen, Wen-chi. 2008. Sakizaya Syntax: With Special Reference to Negative,
Interrogative, and Causative Constructions. Master Thesis. National Taiwan University.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1988. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 2007. Language typology and syntactic description.
2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
Starosta, Stanley. 1974. Causative verbs in Formosan languages. Oceanic
Linguistics 13.1-2:279-369.
Starosta, Staneley. 2002. Austronesian ‘Focus’ as derivation: evidence from
nominalization. Language and Linguistics 3.2:427-479.
Starosta, Staneley. 1997. Formosan clause structure: transitivity, ergativity, and
case marking. In Chiu-yu, Tseng (ed.) Chinese languages and linguistics IV: Typological studies of language in China, 125-154. Taipei:Academia Sinica.
Starosta, Stanley. 1998. Ergativity, transitivity, and clitic coreference in four Western
Austronesian languages. In Siewierska, Anna and Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case, Typology and Grammar, 277-307. John Benjamins.
Starosta, Stanley. 1974. Causative verbs in Formosan languages. Oceanic linguistics
13, 279-369.
Sung, Li-May, Lily I-wen Su, Fuhui Hsieh and Zhemin Lin. 2008. Developing an
Online Corpus of Formosan Languages. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6.2,
79-118.
Szakos, Joseph. 1994. Die Sprache de Cou:Untersuchungen zur Synchronie einer
Austronesischen Sprache auf Taiwan. Ph.D dissertation. Bonn: University of
Bonn.
Taihoku Teikoku Daigaku Gengo-gaku Kenkyu-shitsu (Linguistics Study Center at
Taihoku Imperial University (ed). 1935. 《原語による台灣高砂族傳說集》(The Myths and Traditions of the Formosan Native Tribes)。台北:台北帝國大學言語學研究室 (Taihoku: Taihoku Teikoku Daigaku Gengo-gaku Kenkyu-shitsu (Linguistics Study Center at Taihoku Imperial University)。
Tanangkingsing, Michael. 2009. A Functional Reference Grammar of Cebuano. Ph.D. dissertation. National Taiwan University.
Thompson, Sandra A., and Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation. In Joan L. Bybee and Paul J. Hopper, eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27-60.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai. 2006. A formal study of grammaticalization in Tsou. In
Chang, Henry Yungli, Lillian M. Huang, and Dah-an Ho (eds.), Streams converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Pau Jen-Kuei Li on his 70th birthday, 323-340. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1976. Reconstruction of proto-Tsouic phonology. Tokyo: Gaikoku
Daigaku.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 2000. Lexical prefixes and prefix harmony in Siraya.De Guzman,
Videa P. and Byron W. Bender, eds., Grammatical analysis: Morphology, syntax and semantics: Studies in honor of Stanley Starosta, 109-128. Honolulu: University of Howaii Press.
Tung, T’ung-ho. 1964. A descriptive study of the Tsou language, Formosa. Taipei:
Academia Sinica.
Van Valin, Robert D. and Randy J. Lapolla. 2002. Syntax: Structure, meaning and
function. Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, Stephen. 1982. Figure and ground: The interrelationships of linguistic
categories. In Hopper, Paul (ed.) Tense-aspect: between semantics & pragmatics. 201-223. John Benjamins.
Wouk, Fay. 1996. Voice in Indonesian discourse and its implications for theories of
the development of ergativity. Studies in Language 20:361-410.
Wouk, Fay. 2004. The status of clause and VP in spoken Indonesian. Language,
culture, and mind, ed. by Michel Archard and Suzanne Kemmer, 67-78. Standford:CSLI.
Wouk, Fay, and Malcolm Ross (eds). 2002. The history and typology of western
Austronesian voice systems. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Wu, Joy Jing-lan. 2006 The analysis of Pa- Verbs in Amis.. In Henry Y Chang, Lillian
M. Huang, and Dah-an Ho, (eds.) Stream Converging Into an Ocean. 279-321. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Yang, Gloria Fan-pei. 2001. Evidentiality in Tsou. MA Thesis. National Taiwan
University.
Yeh, Marie M. 2000. A reference grammar of Saisiyat (in Chinese). Taipei: Yuan-Liou.
Yeh, Marie M. 2003. A syntactic and semantic study of Saisiyat verbs. Ph.D.
dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 1992. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Tsou Focus System. MA
Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 1996. The Tsou temporal, aspectual and modal system revisited.
Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 67.3:503-31.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth.2000. A reference grammar of Tsou (in Chinese).
Taipei: Yuan Liu.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2005. Tsou. In Nikolaus Himmelmann and Alexander Adelaar,
eds, The Austronesian Languages of Asia and. Madagascar, 259-290. London:
Routledge.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth and Lillian M. Huang. 1997. Toward a typology of tense, aspect
and modality in Formosan languages: a preliminary study. In Tseng, Chiu-yu (ed.) Chinese language and linguistics 4:595-618. Taipei:Academia Sinica.
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.
何大安. 1976. 〈鄒語音韻〉. 《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》. 47.2:245-274.







QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔