Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:15:02.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct Object Definiteness Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Carol Georgopoulos
Carol Georgopoulos*
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the effects of direct object definiteness in Austronesian (AN) and relates these effects to marking for transitivity. Definite objects often correlate with a high degree of transitive marking in the verb phrase, while indefinite objects correlate with or trigger intransitive marking, even in transitive sentences. The primacy of goal/object orientation over actor/subject orientation is another widespread tendency in AN languages. In some languages, a definite goal/object must be marked as the focus of the clause, either overtly or via the obligatory indefiniteness of other arguments, or by making it the syntactic subject, or in other ways. The article thus shows how definiteness restrictions on various arguments in AN languages can be explained against the background of historical focus systems. Data come primarily from Muna (Celebes), in which, it is argued, the historical object focus function is continued in verb forms marked explicitly for definite objects.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine les effets de la définitude de l’object direct dans des langues austronésiennes et relie ces effets à la morphologie de la transitivité. Les objets directs définis correspondent souvent à un marquage de transitivité élevé dans le syntagme verbal, alors que les objets indéfinis correspondent ou déclenchent le marquage intransitif, même dans les phrases transitives. La primauté de l’orientation vers l’objet-but sur celle vers le sujet-agent se présente aussi comme tendance répandue dans la famille austronésienne. Dans certaines langues, l’objet-but défini se présente obligatoirement comme focus de la phrase, soit de façon visible, soit par le marquage indéfini d’autres arguments, ou par sa montée à la position sujet, ou par d’autres voies. Cet article montre aussi que les restrictions sur la définitude de différents arguments dans les langues austronésiennes s’expliquent en termes des systèmes historiques de focus. Les données examinées proviennent principalement de la langue muna (îles Célèbes) où la fonction historique de focus objet est encore attestée dans les formes verbales qui sont marquées de façon explicite pour des objets directs définis.

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. 307 - 340
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

Anderson, Stephen. 1980. On the development of morphology from syntax. In Historical morphology, ed. Fisiak, Jacek, 51–70. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1992. On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23:517–555.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1996. Passive types and the theory of object assymetries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 673–723.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1995. The poly synthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Otto Chr. 1977. Proto-Austronesian. 2nd rev. ed. Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series No. 15. Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Otto Chr. 1986. Focus in Malagasy and Proto-Austronesian. In Focal I: Papers from the fourth international conference on Austronesian linguistics, ed. Geraghty, Paul, Carrington, Lois, and Wurm, Stephen A., 21–42. Pacific Linguistics C-93, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enç, Murvet. 1987. Specificity. Ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Finer, Daniel L. 1997. Contrasting A’-dependencies in Selayarese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 677–728.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerrold, and Sag, Ivan. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5:355–398.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki, and Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and projections. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8:128–172 Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A′ binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1992. Another look at object agreement. Proceedings of NELS 22:165–177.Google Scholar
Gibson, Jeanne, and Raposo, Eduardo. 1986. Clause union, the stratal uniqueness law and the chomeur relation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:295–331.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1987. Unaccusatives — an overview. Proceedings of NELS 17:244–258.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 10:375–413.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M., and Duranti, Alessandro. 1982. On the object relation in Bantu. In Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, ed. Hopper, Paul and Thompson, Sandra A., 217–240. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, y. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56:251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. CSLI Dissertations in Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not. Linguisticae Investigationes 12:1–47.Google Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1990. On V-V compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8:177–207.Google Scholar
Mills, R.F. 1975. Proto South Sulawesi and Proto Austronesian phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nay lor, Paz Buenaventura. 1986. On the pragmatics of focus. In Focal I: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. Geraghty, Paul, Carrington, Lois, and Wurm, Stephen A., 43–57. Pacific Linguistics C-93, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Paw ley, Andrew, and Reid, Lawrence. 1976. The evolution of transitive constructions in Austronesian. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 8.2:51–74.Google Scholar
Ramos, Teresita. 1971. Tagalog structures. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric, and Meulen, Alice ter, eds. 1987. The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. A guide to the world’s languages. Volume 1: Classification. Stanford: Stanford University Press.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
Troike, Rudolph C. 1981. Subject-object concord in Coahuilteco. Language 57:658–673.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, René. 1989. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, René. 1996. The demise of focus and the spread of conjugated verbs in Sulawesi. In Papers in Austronesian Linguistics 3, ed. Steinhauer, H., 89–114. Pacific Linguistics A-84, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, René. 1995. Verb classes, transitivity, and the definiteness shift in Muna: A counterexample to the transitivity hypothesis. Oceanic Linguistics 34:161–189.Google Scholar
Wade, Mark. 1994. The Austronesian language of Muna. Ms., University of Utah.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen, and Arka, I Wayan. 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: An argument structure based theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:387–441.Google Scholar