Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:06:41.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Degree achievements, telicity and the verbal prefix meN- in Malay1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2014

HOOI LING SOH  and
HIROKI NOMOTO
HOOI LING SOH*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
HIROKI NOMOTO*
Affiliation:
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
*
Authors' addresses: (Soh) Institute of Linguistics, University of Minnesota, 75 E River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USAsohxx001@umn.edu
(Nomoto) Department of Southeast Asian Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 3-11-1 Asahi-cho, Fuchu, Tokyo 183-8534, Japannomoto@tufs.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One issue in the analysis of degree achievements is whether or not what are called degree achievements are in fact achievements (Hay, Kennedy & Levin 1999, Kearns 2007, Rothstein 2008a). In this paper, we offer evidence from Malay that they are. Our evidence involves findings about the aspectual effect of the verbal prefix meN- in degree achievement sentences, which may receive a natural account under an approach where degree achievements are lexically specified as achievements, but are difficult to explain if they are not. We propose that meN- merges with a verbal projection (VP) that describes eventualities with stages, in the sense of Landman (1992, 2008). This requirement explains meN-'s apparent effect on telicity in degree achievement sentences and the absence of such an effect in non-degree achievement sentences. It also accounts for the restricted distribution of meN- in stative sentences (Soh & Nomoto 2009) and regular achievement sentences. While certain aspectual parallels exist between the verbal prefix meN- and the English progressive, we argue that meN- is not a progressive marker, and that the parallels with the English progressive are due to the subcategorization requirement of meN-, which makes event stages more prominent in sentences with meN- compared to ones without. Our analysis supports the treatment of meN- as a light verb (v) (Aldridge 2008; Nomoto 2008, 2011; Sato 2012), rather than a marker of voice (Voice) (Cole, Hermon & Yanti 2008).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 147 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

[1]

The current research is supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Graduate School, University of Minnesota (awarded to Hooi Ling Soh) and by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (#23720199 awarded to Hiroki Nomoto). An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 14th International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics, Minneapolis, MN, USA (April–May 2010). We thank the audience at the meeting for comments. We are grateful to the three anonymous JL referees for helpful comments. All remaining errors are ours.

References

REFERENCES

Abusch, Dorit. 1985. On verbs and time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Adelaar, Alexander (ed.). 2013. Voice variation in Austronesian languages of Indonesia. Jakarta & Tokyo: Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya & Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118, 1440–1469.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1984. Two observations on British English do. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 155–157.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2012. Deletion versus pro-forms: An overly simple dichotomy? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30, 381–423.Google Scholar
Binder, Richard. 1971. The semantic basis of do so. Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 110–132. Honolulu, HI: Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga. 2006. Aspect and reference time. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2010. Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1976. On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic, 57–99. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter & Hermon, Gabriella. 1998. The typology of wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1, 221–258.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella & Yanti, . 2008. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118, 1500–1553.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8, 81–120.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 347–385.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fortin, Catherine. In press. Reconciling meng and NP movement in Indonesian. To appear in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2002. The prefixes di- and N- in Malay/Indonesian dialects. In Wouk, Fay & Ross, Malcom David (eds.), The history and typology of Western Austronesian voice systems, 241–283. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithene, Hung, Henrietta & , Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10, 375–414.Google Scholar
Haddican, Bill. 2007. The structural deficiency of verbal pro-forms. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 539–547.Google Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2004. Constituency and agency in VP. In Schmeiser, Benjamin, Chand, Vineeta, Kelleher, Ann & Rodriguez, Angelo (eds.), 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 23), 101–114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, , ChristopherKennedy, & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In Matthews, Tanya & Strolovitch, Devon (eds.), 9th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 9), University of California, Santa Cruz, 127–144. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistic Circle Publications.Google Scholar
Imran Ho, Abdullah. 1993. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries of Malay. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2007. Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua 117, 26–66.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Levin, Beth. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In , McNally & Kennedy, (eds.), 156–182.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. [Published as Irregularity in syntax, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.]Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2008. 1066: On the difference between tense-perspective-aspect system in English and Dutch. In , Rothstein (ed.), 107–166.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappapport, Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liaw, Yock Fang. 1999. Malay grammar made easy: A comprehensive guide. Singapore: Times Books International.Google Scholar
Mashudi, Kader. 1981. The syntax of Malay interrogatives. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
McNally, Louse & Kennedy, Christopher (eds.). 2008. Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moens, Marc & Steedman, Mark. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14, 15–28.Google Scholar
Nomoto, Hiroki. 2008. A unified analisis of funny control. Presented at the 12th International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL).Google Scholar
Nomoto, Hiroki. 2011. Analisis seragam bagi kawalan lucu [A unified analysis of funny control]. In Nomoto, Hiroki, Ahmad, Zaharani & Ridhwan, Anwar (eds.), Isamu Shoho: Tinta kenangan “Kumpulan esei bahasa dan linguistik” [Isamu Shoho: A Festschrift “Essays on language and linguistics”], 44–91. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
Nomoto, Hiroki. 2013. On the optionality of grammatical voice markers: A case study of voice marking in Malay/Indonesian. In , Adelaar (ed.), 121–143.Google Scholar
Nomoto, Hiroki & Shoho, Isamu. 2007. Voice in relative clauses in Malay: A comparison of written and spoken language. In Kawaguchi, Yuji, Takagaki, Toshihiro, Tomimori, Nobuo & Tsuruga, Yoichiro (eds.), Corpus-based perspectives in linguistics, 353–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2008. Aspectual composition with degrees. In , McNally & Kennedy, (eds.), 183–219.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Searching for the Malay copula. Presented at the 14th International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL).Google Scholar
Ross, John R., 1972. Act. In Davidson, Donald & Harman, Gilbert (eds.), Semantics of natural language, 70–126. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan., 2008a. Two puzzles for a theory of lexical aspect: Semelfactives and degree achievements. In Dölling, Johannes, Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana & Schäfer, Martin (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 175–198. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2008b. Telicity, atomicity and the Vendler classification of verbs. In , Rothstein (ed.), 43–78.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (ed.). 2008c. Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, Yosuke. 2012. Successive cyclicity at the syntax-morphology interface: Evidence from standard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese. Studia Linguistica 66, 32–57.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1999. Activities: States or events? Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 479–508.Google Scholar
Soekarno, Yono. 2010. Derivational syntax: A Minimalist approach to affixation in Bahasa Indonesia predicates. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2013. Voice and aspect: Some notes from Malaysian Malay. In , Adelaar (ed.), 159–173.Google Scholar
Soh, Hooi Ling & Kuo, Jenny Yi-Chun. 2005. Perfective aspect and accomplishment situations in Mandarin Chinese. In Verkuyl, Henk J., de Swart, Henriëtte & van Hout, Angeliek (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, 199–216. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Soh, Hooi Ling & Hiroki, Nomoto. 2009. Progressive aspect, the verbal prefix meN-, and stative sentences in Malay. Oceanic Linguistics 48, 151–175.Google Scholar
Soh, Hooi Ling & Hiroki, Nomoto. 2011. The Malay verbal prefix meN- and the unergative/unaccusative distinction. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20, 77–106.Google Scholar
Son, Minjeong & Cole, Peter. 2008. An event-based account of -kan constructions in Standard Indonesian. Language 84, 120–160.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas S. 2001. On the light verb hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 362–369.Google Scholar
Tham, Shiao-Wei. 2010. Change of state in Malay and the meN- prefix again. Presented at the 14th International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL).Google Scholar
Thompson, Ellen. 2006. The structure of bounded events. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 211–228.Google Scholar
Vlach, Frank. 1981. The semantics of the progressive. In Tedeschi, Philip & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Tense and aspect (Syntax and Semantics 14), 271–292. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Voskuil, Jan E. 1993. Verbal inflection in Indonesian. In Reesink, Ger P. (ed.), Topics in descriptive Austronesian linguistics (Semaian 11), 159–180. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van ZuidoostAzie en Oceanie, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden.Google Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro. 1998. Aspect shift. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar, 349–370. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar