Shuanfan Huang & Hueiju Huang, National Taiwan University
Tsou, a moderately endangered Austronesian language spoken in the highlands of Southwest Taiwan, is a predicate-initial language with a basically two-case system ( nominative and oblique), and has a Philippine-style voice ( focus)system. This is a system of verbal affixation which allows different arguments to be placed in ‘subject’ position and which signals a particular semantic role associated with the subject. Four voice constructions are usually distinguished: actor voice (AV), patient voice (PV), locative voice (LV) and benefactive voice (BV). Sentences in (l) illustrate the uses of these voice forms. The verb in (la) takes the affix –a and is in PV; in (lb) it takes the affix –i and is in LV and in (lc) it takes the affix –neni and is in BV.
Very few verbs in Tsou carry a full set of voice affixes and it remains to be investigated how lexical meaning of a verb influences constructional variability (Starosta 2001). Different types of verbs will be shown to have different patterns of acceptable voice forms, suggesting that lexical meaning of a verb indeed influences, though it does not completely determine, what voice forms it can take. In this study we focus on the grammar of the more complex BV construction and argue that both lexical meaning and constructional meaning interact in licensing BV clauses such that verbs not allowed in some BV clauses can in certain contexts be extended to occur in these clauses leading to construals that are well motivated.
The BV verbal suffix -neni has multiple functions. It occurs in clauses in which the nominative NP encodes a beneficiary (lc), an instrument (2a), a transported theme (2b), a cause (2c), a source of motion (2d) or a comitative (2e). In (3), the nominative argument is ‘o tegami ‘ letter’, and yet the verb engha-neni appears in BV form. In this sentence, however, the act of reading is for the benefit of Mo’o’s mother, the recipient of the letter.In (4a) the verb eutotaveia-neni ‘instruct’ appears in BV form, but the nominative NP paicU is the recipient of the act of instruction, and recipient nominatives typically have their verbs occurring in LV or PV form, as in (4b). Tsou apparently distinguishes between (4b), a more matter-of-fact statement, from (4a), a more empathetic formulation. Again, the use of a BV verb here is determined not by the nominative NP alone, but the construction as a whole. Evidence from the behavior of causative constructions will be provided to further erode the viability of predicting the BV form based on verb meaning alone, or from the nominative NP alone.
We argue that the BV verbal suffix –neni is not an applicative affix, as standardly understood (cf. Mithun 2005). ‘Peripheral’ arguments like benefactive, instrument, comitative are subcategorized arguments and can never be introduced through oblique case in Tsou ( Huang 2005). Second, whether a given verb can appear in BV and take an appropriate nominative NP is lexically constrained, unlike truly ‘peripheral’ arguments, which are often syntactically free and optional. Third, BV can also be used to introduce ‘core’ arguments such as transported theme and content of message ( with verbs of saying) and object of mental experience ( with emotion verbs)(not illustrated in the data).
Data
(l) a. i-si teapha to khago 'o peisu
AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN fill.in-PV OBL basket NOM money
'Mo'o put money in the basket.
b. i-si teaphi to peisu 'o khago
AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN fill.in.LV OBL money NOM basket
'He filled the basket with money.'
c. i-si teaph-neni to khago to peisu 'o amo-si
AUX.NAF-3SG.GEN fill.in-BV OBL basket OBL money Nom father-3SG
'He put money in the basket for his father.'
(2)a b. c. os-’o faeni ta yangui ‘o bUnUvhU
AUX.NAV-1SG.GEN give.BV OBL PN NOM fruit
'I gave Yangui the fruit.'
c. . la-'u na'na ta'tutumz-eni ho la-ta maica
HAB-1SG.NOM very.PV frustrated.at-BV when HAB-3SG.NOM like.AV
'His behaving this way makes me frustrated.'
d. os’o i’miz-neni ta mato ho aiti ne mi-ta sucaefi
AUX.NAV-1SG.GEN from-BV NOM window Conj see.LF when AF-3SG pass
‘ I saw him passing by through the window.’
d. os-‘o noteuyunu-neni ‘o mo’o ne veiyo
AUX.NAV-1SG.GEN gather-BV NOM PN LOC PN
‘ I gathered with Mo’o in Veiyo.’
(3) i-si engha-neni to mo’o ‘o tegami to ino-si
AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN read-BV OBL PN NOM letter OBL mother-3SG.GEN
‘Mo’o read his mother’s letter for her.’
(4)a. i-si eutotaveia-neni to ino ‘o paicU ho eainca
AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN instruct.BV OBL mom NOM PN CONJ say.PV
so’sohnga ’o i-si poezi honci c’u mUchU
keep.dry.PV NOM AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN dry.in.the.sun.LV if PFV rain.AV
‘Mother instructed PaicU to move the laundry in the sun to some drier place if it rained.’
b. i-si eutotavei-a to ino ‘o paicU ho eainca
AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN instruct-PV OBL mom NOM PN CONJ say.PV
so’sohnga ’o i-si poezi honci c’u mUchU
keep.dry.PV NOM AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN dry.in.the.sun.LV if PFV rain.AV
‘Mother instructed PaicU to move the laundry in the sun to some drier place if it rained.’
References cited
Huang, S. 2005. Split O in Formosan languages. Language and Linguistics 6.4:783-806.
Mithun, M. 2005. Beyond the core: Typological variation in the identification of
participants. IJAL 71.4: 445-472.
Starosa, S. 2001.Austronesian ‘focus’ as derivational: evidence from nominalization.
Language and Linguistics 3.2:427-478.
