Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Labeling and verb-initial word order in Seediq

  • Published:
Journal of East Asian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes an analysis of VP fronting in the VOS Austronesian language Seediq in the theory of Labeling. In the same vein as Massam (Nat Lang Linguist Theory 19:153–197, 2001), I propose that verb-initial word order results at least in part from fronting the verb and object together in the VP when the object is indefinite and nonspecific, but the object vacates the VP when it is specific or definite in order to value case. Following this, either verbal head movement or remnant VP fronting takes place. However, I depart from Massam’s approach when it comes to the motivation for VP fronting. First, I argue that VP movement does not target [Spec, TP] but rather moves no higher than the edge of the clause-medial phase. Consequently, the motivation cannot be satisfaction of the EPP, as Massam claims. Secondly, I show that whether verb-initial word order is obtained through verbal head movement or phrasal VP fronting is a consequence of Labeling. In particular, I go beyond Massam’s approach and account for the fact that when the VP contains more than one internal argument, one of them must move to the case-checking position and the other must be pied-piped with the verb to the phase edge. Otherwise, it will not be possible to label the original VP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: ABS ‘absolutive’, APPL ‘applicative’, AV ‘active voice’, CAUS ‘causative’, DAT ‘dative’, DEF ‘definite’, EMPH ‘emphatic’, ERG ‘ergative’, GEN ‘genitive’, IRR ‘irrealis’, NOM ‘nominative’, PAST ‘past’, PFV ‘perfective, PL ‘plural, PRES ‘present’, Q ‘question particle’, SG ‘singular’, TR ‘transitive’.

  2. Unless otherwise indicated, the Seediq examples in this paper come from fieldwork I conducted on multiple trips to the village of Qingliu in Nantou Prefecture in Taiwan. The dialect spoken in Qingliu is Tgdaya.

  3. The term “Formosan” refers collectively to Austronesian languages spoken in Taiwan. Taiwan is commonly accepted to be the homeland of Proto-Austronesian, and several Austronesian subgroups are represented there. However, the Formosan languages as a whole do not constitute a subgroup, while all extra-Formosan languages do belong to the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup.

  4. This type of alignment is also often characterized as a special type of voice system, specifically a “symmetrical” voice system, in which different arguments are assigned nominative case without demotion of the external argument (cf. Himmelmann 2005 and references therein). This term is generally invoked to refer to the type of (split-)ergativity manifested by Austronesian languages spoken in Taiwan and the Philippines. I adopt the term “split-ergative” on the basis of its broader typological applicability. Substantively, there is little—if any—difference between the two views, since both characterize a language as possessing multiple transitive clause types depending on which argument surfaces with nominative case.

  5. The other applicative is -an. When a finite verb takes this suffix, nominative case appears on a goal or locative DP. The use of -an as an applicative in verbal contexts, however, is relatively rare in Seediq, but I do discuss one example of this applicative in Sect. 3.2. More frequently, -an serves as a nominalizer forming relative clauses on either theme or goal/locative gaps. The predominant use of this suffix in nominalizations may be due to its historical origin as a nominalizer in Proto-Austronesian (Ross 2009; Aldridge 2015, 2016). It continues to be used in nominalized relative clauses with theme or goal/locative gaps in Rukai and Puyuma. Ross (2009) proposes that the applicative -an was innovated when clausal nominalizations were reanalyzed as verbal and finite in Proto-Nuclear Austronesian. This subgroup includes all Austronesian languages except Rukai, Puyuma, and Tsou. However, it is possible that the reanalysis from nominalizer to applicative is not yet complete in Seediq.

  6. In more recent Minimalist terminology, C-T Inheritance does not take place, so [Spec, CP] is the position for nominative DPs.

  7. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that Aldridge’s (2004) analysis could be translated into a split-CP approach.

  8. For this reason, Aldridge glosses the particle ka, which marks nominative DPs and clause-external topics, as a topic marker rather than as a nominative case marker.

  9. As suggested by an anonymous reviewer, the ungrammaticality of this example could also be due to the fact that the nominative DP must occupy a topic or other position reserved for referential DPs. Consequently, a non-referential NPI cannot occupy this position. Either explanation is compatible with my analysis that the nominative DP moves to a position for referential DPs in the left periphery of the clause.

  10. See also Lasnik and Saito (1991), Johnson (1991), Koizumi (1993, 1995), Runner (1993, 1998), Lasnik (1995, 1999), Travis (2010), and others for analyses of VP-internal accusative case-checking positions.

  11. Note that movement is not forced to take place when the argument in question is base merged as sister to a head, as in the case of a theme subject in an unaccusative construction. This is because the head √+ v itself is able to project a label for this syntactic object. Chomsky (2013, 2015) proposes a different mechanism, discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper, to ensure that movement of internal argument subjects takes place in languages like English which require it. Incidentally, the fact that heads can project labels in the absence of feature sharing also accounts for the possibility of long distance agreement under c-command with a nominative object. Since the verbal head √+ v can project its label without entering into an Agree relation with the object, the object can remain in its base position inside vP and need not be in a sister relation with the c-commanding head that it shares features with.

  12. Medeiros (2013) adopts a Massam-style VP fronting approach to pseudo-noun incorporation in Hawaiian but opts for a different approach to remnant VP creation. His approach crucially relies on morphological incorporation of the object to the verb in the derivation of VOS order and consequently cannot be adopted for Seediq, given that not only the direct object but also an adverb can be contained in the fronted VP in Seediq.

  13. The verb *Si ‘wear, carry’ is reconstructed by Teng (2014), who also claims that it grammaticalized into a bound verbal form expressing instrumental and possessive functions. Teng does not claim that this verb is the origin of the applicative *s-, though she also does not offer arguments against such a connection. Furthermore, the form *Si- is identical to the universally acknowledged reconstruction of the applicative. The semantic and syntactic plausibility also strongly suggests that this verb could easily have grammaticalized into the applicative.

  14. The theme DP can value case under c-command, since the V-v head will project the label for the syntactic object where it resides.

  15. The status of inu as projecting a DP is also suggested by the prefix i-, which is identical to the prefix appearing on free form, non-clitic personal pronouns, e.g. isu ‘2sg’. See Ross (2006) for a reconstruction of *i as a case-neutral determiner in Proto-Austronesian.

  16. I leave exploration of this possibility to future research. However, if it eventually pans out, then it would constitute evidence against an alternative analysis of Seediq DP positions as rightward specifiers rather than following predicates as the result of VP and TP fronting. I offer additional evidence against positing rightward specifiers in (50a).

  17. This specific problem does not arise for Niuean, because the instrument cannot be selected as a DP in this language. But both direct and indirect objects can be merged as DPs in Seediq.

  18. An anonymous reviewer asks why verbal head movement is able to strand internal arguments in any language, for instance in the derivation of V2 order in Germanic languages. The answer to this question is precisely the same as the explanation suggested above for Tagalog VSO order. Such languages have morphological case.

References

  • Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

  • Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and morphology 2(5): 966–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, Edith. 2014. Predicate, subject, and cleft in Austronesian languages. Sophia Linguistica 61: 97–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, Edith. 2015. A Minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages. Linguistics Vanguard 1(1): 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, Edith. 2016. Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. Language and Linguistics 17(1): 27–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X15613499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. 2003. Reply to “Control is not movement”. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. 2004. Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. 2006. Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 591–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Željko. 2016. On the timing of Labeling: Deducing comp-trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunct condition, and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review 33(1): 17–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagri, Ilhan Merih. 2005. Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Chang, Yung-li. 1997. Voice, case and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin et al., 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of J-R. Vergnaud, ed. Robert Friedin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, Lauren Eby. 2014. Prosodic noun incorporation and verb-initial syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

  • Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2008. VP raising in a VOS language. Syntax 11(2): 144–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, James N. 2016. Samoan predicate initial word order and object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35(1): 1–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9340-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger. 2014. The role of case in A’-extraction asymmetries. Linguistic Variation 14(2): 179–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly. 1996. Semantic variables and object shift. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax II, ed. Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel David Epstein, and Steve Peter, 66–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 355–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–181. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. MIT dissertation.

  • Holmer, Arthur. 1996. A parametric grammar of Seediq. Lund: Lund University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmer, Arthur. 2005. Antisymmetry and final particles in a Formosan VOS language. In Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, ed. Andrew Carnie, Sheila Ann Dooley, and Heidi Harley, 175–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, Paul, and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Minimalist syntax, ed. R. Hendrick, 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis. In Papers on case and agreement I, MIT working papers in linguistics 18, ed. Colin Phillips and Jonathan Bobaljik, 99–148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1995. A note on pseudogapping. In Papers in minimalist syntax, ed. R. Pensalfini and H. Ura, 143–163. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 27: 324–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeaux, David S. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Legate, Julie. 2003. Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Legate, Julie. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legate, Julie. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, Anoop. 1989. Agreement and agreement projections. In Functional heads and clause structure, ed. Itziar Laka and Anoop Mahajan, 217–252. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In The syntax of verb initial languages, ed. Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massam, Diane. 2010. Deriving inverse order. In Austronesian and theoretical linguistics. Austronesian and theoretical linguistics, ed. Raphael Mercado, Eric Potsdam, and Lisa de Mena Travis, 271–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Massam, Diane. 2013. Nuclear complex predicates in Niuean. Lingua 135: 56–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros, David J. 2013. Hawaiian VP-remnant movement: A cyclic linearization approach. Lingua 127: 72–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, Andrew Ira. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29: 939–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9388-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, Matthew. 2000. Two types of VO languages. In The derivation of VO and OV, ed. Peter Svenonius, 327–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.

  • Pearson, Matthew. 2018. Predicate raising and perception verb complements in Malagasy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36: 781–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, ed. S. Karimi, V. Samiian, and W.K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rackowski, Andrea, and Lisa Travis. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In The syntax of verb initial languages, ed. A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle, 117–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Malcolm. 2006. Reconstructing the case-marking and personal pronoun systems of proto Austronesian. In Streams converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on his 70th birthday, ed. Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang, and Dah-an Ho, 521–563. Taipei: Language and Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, ed. Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runner, Jeffrey T. 1993. Quantificational objects and Agr-o. In Papers from the fifth student conference in linguistics (SCIL-V), University of Washington, ed. V. Lindblad and M. Gamon, 209–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runner, Jeffrey. 1998. Noun phrase licensing. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, Mamoru. 2016. (A) case for labeling: Labeling in languages without ϕ-feature agreement. The Linguistic Review 33: 129–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2014. Grammaticalization of predicative possession in Nanwang Puyuma and as a basis for reconstruction in PAn. Oceanic Linguistics 53(1): 136–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2001. Object shift and scrambling. In A handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin et al. New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, Lisa de Mena. 2010. Inner aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uriagereka, J. 1988. On government. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11: 679–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

First, I am indebted to my Seediq consultants Umanokan and Iwan Iban of Qingliu village in Nantou Prefecture, Taiwan. I am also grateful to feedback provided on this manuscript by two anonymous reviewers. Additionally, I would like to thank Masatoshi Koizumi for organizing the International Workshop on Seediq and Related Languages on May 12, 2018, at Harvard University, where this work was first presented. Further thanks go to the other participants in the workshop for their feedback on the oral version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, 128 Section 2, Academia Road, Nangang, Taipei, 115, Taiwan, ROC

    Edith Aldridge

Authors
  1. Edith Aldridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edith Aldridge.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aldridge, E. Labeling and verb-initial word order in Seediq. J East Asian Linguist 28, 359–394 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-019-09199-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-019-09199-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation