Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T11:32:45.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theta-Positions and Binding in Balinese and Malagasy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Lisa DeMena Travis
Lisa DeMena Travis*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, an argument is made for representing theta-positions structurally through a UTAH-like mapping onto articulated VP structures. Further, an argument is made for giving these positions a distinct status. It is argued, using data from binding in Balinese and Malagasy, that binding may be sensitive to theta-positions (T-positions), which are a subset of A-positions. Specs of lexical categories must be T-positions, Specs of functional categories cannot be T-positions. It is argued further that, once it can be shown that binding may be sensitive to T-positions, one is forced to revise what can count as a T-position in order to account for raising constructions. Categories which bind event variables (such as Aspect) are seen to be non-distinct from lexical categories and from functional categories. As such, their Specs may count as T-positions, explaining why an NP in a derived position may act as an antecedent.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article propose de représenter les positions-thêta structurellement au moyen d’un appariement de type UTAH sur des structures VP articulées. Il est aussi proposé de donner à ces positions un statut distinct. Il est démontré, en utilisant des données portant sur le liage en balinais et en malgache, que le liage peut être sensible aux positions-thêta, qui constituent un sous-ensemble des positions-A. Les spécifieurs des catégories lexicales constituent nécessairement des positions-thêta contrairement aux spécifieurs des catégories fontionnelles. Cette sensibilité du liage aux positions-thêta doit entraîner une reformulation de ce qui compte comme position-thêta afin de rendre compte des constructions à montée. Les catégories qui lient des variables d’événement (e.g., Aspect) sont non-distinctes à la fois des catégories lexicales et des catégories fonctionnelles. Ceci explique pourquoi leur spécifieur peut se comporter comme une position-thêta et ainsi permettre qu’un NP dans une position dérivée agisse comme un antécédent.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 43 , Special Issue 3-4: Arguments and Structure in Austronesian Languages , December 1998 , pp. 435 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1998

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.)

References

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1996. On the structural position of themes and goals. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 7–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bell, Sarah. 1976. Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, and Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:291–352.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In University of Massachusetts Working Papers in Linguistics, ed. Benedicto, Elena, 19–47. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Campana, Mark. 1992. A movement theory of ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Chen, Dongdong. 1995. UTAH: Chinese psych verbs and beyond. In Sixth North American conference on Chinese linguistics, ed. Camacho, José and Choueiri, Lina, 15–29. GSIL, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1996. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1983. An aspectual distinction in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 22/23:175–206.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 1989. On the typology of syntactic positions and the nature of chains. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1990. Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8:41–80.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra. 1984. Toward a theory of long distance anaphor: A GB approach. The Linguistic Review 3:307–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.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 10:375–414.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16:547–594.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:577–636.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Subject and topic, ed. Li, Charles N., 247–301. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. In Press. Morphology is structure: A Malagasy test case. In Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, ed. Paul, Ileana, Phillips, Vivianne, and Travis, Lisa. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Stowell, Tim. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22:687–720.Google Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1990. X0-binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21:399–426.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Masanori. 1993. An economy account of wh-extraction in Tagalog. In Proceedings of the 14th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Duncan, Eric, Farkas, Donka, and Spaelti, Philip, 405–420. CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana. 1998. Focus movement and WH-questions in Malagasy. In Proceedings of WECOL 1998, vol. 10, ed. Gelderen, Elly van, 383–396. California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
Pearson, Matthew. 1996. Pied piping into the left periphery. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 27, ed. Kusumoto, Kiyomi, 321–335. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657–720.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1993. Tagalog and the typology of scrambling. Honours thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. In Press. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, ed. Paul, Ileana, Phillips, Vivianne, and Travis, Lisa. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? In Subject and topic, ed. Li, Charles N., 491–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. In Press. Raising and the order of clausal constituents in the Philippine Languages. In Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, ed. Paul, Ileana, Phillips, Vivianne, and Travis, Lisa. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1990. Movement, agreement, and Case. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1994. Event phrase and a theory of functional categories. In 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association, ed. Koskinen, Päivi, 559–570. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. In Press. Event structure in syntax. In Events as grammatical objects, ed. Pustejovsky, James and Tenny, Carol. CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 327–360. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen, and Arka, Wayan. 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:387–441.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne, and Mbolatianavalona, Liliane. 1996. On grammatical deficiency: Evidence from Malagasy personal pronouns. Ms., Université Paris 8.Google Scholar