Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:43:59.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The syntax of correlatives in Isbukun Bunun

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2016

Hsiao-hung Iris Wu
Hsiao-hung Iris Wu*
Affiliation:
National Taiwan Normal University
*
iriswu@ntnu.edu.tw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the correlative construction in Isbukun Bunun, an Austronesian language spoken in Taiwan. I show that in this language the correlative clause and its associated anaphoric element do not form a constituent at any point in the derivation. Drawing on evidence from island-insensitivity, the absence of Condition C effects and non-constituency facts, I propose that the syntactic relation between the correlative clause and the nominal correlate is derived by a base-generated adjunction structure. Moreover, I argue that the correlative clause, which behaves as a generalized quantifier, binds the nominal correlate phrase in the matrix clause, which is construed as a bound variable. The proposed quantificational binding view is further shown to capture the types of correlate phrases allowed in Isbukun Bunun correlatives.

Résumé

Cet article étudie la construction corrélative de l'Isbukun Bunun, une langue austronésienne parlée à Taiwan. Je démontre que la proposition corrélative et l’élément anaphorique avec lequel elle est associée ne forment pas un constituant dans cette langue. En raison de l'absence de la sensibilité aux ilots, de l'absence des effets de la Condition C et de l'absence de la constitution syntaxique, je propose que la relation entre la corrélative et le corrélat nominal est dérivée par l'adjonction dans une position de base. En outre, je propose que la corrélative, dont le comportement est similaire à celui d'un quantificateur généralisé, lie le corrélat nominal dans la proposition principale lequel est interprété comme une variable liée. Cette analyse explique les types de corrélats qui sont autorisés dans la langue.

Keywords

correlativesIsbukun BununAustronesian languagesbase-generationadjunctioncorrélativeIsbukun Bununlangues austronésiennesposition de baseadjonction
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 190 - 210
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

My deepest gratitude goes to Taupas Tansikian for his kind and unfailing assistance over these years. I greatly appreciate his patience in teaching me his language and culture. Special thanks are also due to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments upon earlier drafts of this paper. All remaining errors are my own.

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban. 2009. {Relative {conditional {correlative}} sentences. In Correlatives cross-linguistically, ed. Lipták, Anikó, 131–156. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6(2): 197–219.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Locality in correlativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 485–541.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh and Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Conditionals. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. 1. ed. Everaert, Martin, van Riemsdijk, Henk, Goedemans, Rob, and Hollebrandse, Bart, 638–687. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 2001. Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. In Proceedings from SALT XI, ed. Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan and Zvolensky, Zsofia, 36–55. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2007. Wh-in-situ does not correlate with wh-indefinites or question particles. Linguistic Inquiry 38(1): 139–166.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2009. The syntax of the Tibetan correlative. In Correlatives cross-linguistically, ed. Lipták, Anikó, 195–222. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chang, Henry Y.-L. 1997. Voice, case and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Doctoral dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Huang, C.-T. James. 1996. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics 4(2): 121–163.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara 2009. What don't wh-questions, free relatives and correlatives have in common? In Correlatives cross-linguistically, ed. Lipták, Anikó, 49–79. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter and Hermon, Gabriella. 1998. The typology of wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1(3): 221–258.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter and Hermon, Gabriella. 2000. Partial wh-movement: Evidence from Malay. In Wh-scope marking, ed. Lutz, Uli, Müller, Gereon, and von Stechow, Arnim, 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1995. Quantification in correlatives. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara. H., 179–205. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in wh-quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce. 1973. Correlative relative clauses and universal grammar. Minnesota Working Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 2: 1–17.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander and Landman, Fred. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6(2): 125–170.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Hung, Henrietta, and Travis, Lisa. 1992. Spec of IP and spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10(3): 375–414.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Haudry, Jean. 1973. Parataxe, hypotaxe et correlation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris 68: 147–186.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1976. The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. Dixon, Robert M.W, 78–105. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
He, Rufen, Zeng, Siqi, Li, Wensu, and Lin, Qingchun. 1986. Gaoshanzu yuyan jianzhi: Bunenyu [A handbook of the mountain indigenous peoples: Bunun]. Beijing: Minzu Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Lillian M. 1997. Gaoxiongxian de Bunongyu [Bunun in Kaohsiung county]. In Gaoxiongxian nandao yuyan [The Austronesian languages in Kaohsiung county], ed. Li, Paul J.-K., 351‒409. Kaohsiung: Kaohsiung County Government.Google Scholar
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1996. The syntax and semantics of correlative preforms. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. Kusumoto, Kiyomi, 133–147. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4(2): 63–93.Google Scholar
Jeng, Hengsyung. 1999. Bunun tense and aspect. In Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. Zeitoun, Elizabeth and Li, Paul J.-K., 455–487. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Relative clauses. In Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2, ed. Shopen, Timothy, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In The generic book, ed. Carlson, Gregory N. and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1998. Where does the binding theory apply? Technical Report 98-044, NEC Research Institute, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language: Papers from a colloquium sponsored by the King's College Research Center, Cambridge, ed. Keenan, Edward L., 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Paul J.-K. 1988. A comparative study of Bunun dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 59: 479–508.Google Scholar
Li, Paul J.-K. 1997. Nantouxian de Bunongyu [Bunun in Nantou county]. In Gaoxiongxian nandao yuyan [The Austronesian languages in Kaohsiung county], ed. Li, Paul J.-K., 300–350. Kaohsiung: Kaohsiung County Government.Google Scholar
Li, Y.-H. Audrey. 1992. Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1(2): 125–155.Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó, ed. 2009. Correlatives cross-linguistically. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 2004. Remarks on adsentential, adnominal and extraposed relative clauses in Hindi. In Clause Structures in South Asian Languages, ed. Dayal, Veneeta and Mahajan, Anoop, 291–311. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Pearson, Matt. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A' element. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(2): 381–457.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Definite NP-anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12(4): 605–635.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Natural Language Semantics 6(1): 29–56.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: Specificity, voice, and the distribution ofarguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea and Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–599.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, ed. Paul, Ileana, Phillips, Vivianne, and Travis, Lisa, 105–116. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2004. Some remarks on superiority and crossing. In Generative Grammar in a broader perspective, ed. Yoon, Hang-Jin, 571–595. Seoul: Hankook.Google Scholar
Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(4): 637–686.Google Scholar
Suh, Cheong-Soo. 1989. Interrogatives and indefinite words in Korean: With reference to Japanese. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III, ed. Kuno, Susumu, Lee, Ik-Hwan, Whitman, John, Bak, Sung-Yun, Kang, Young-Se, and Kim, Young-joo, 329–340. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1994. On nominal islands and LF extraction in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12(1): 121–175.Google Scholar
Wu, Hsiao-hung Iris. 2014. Complex noun phrases and formal licensing in Isbukun Bunun. Oceanic Linguistics 53(2): 207–224.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000. Bunongyu cankaoyufa [A reference grammar of Bunun]. Taipei: Yuanliou Publishing.Google Scholar