29.245, Diss: Formosan; Historical Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Syntax; Typology: Haowen Jiang: ''Nominalization and Possession in Formosan Languages''

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-245. Tue Jan 16 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.245, Diss: Formosan; Historical Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Syntax; Typology: Haowen Jiang: ''Nominalization and Possession in Formosan Languages''

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sarah Robinson <srobinson at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:27:18
From: Haowen Jiang [haowen at ricealumni.net]
Subject: Nominalization and Possession in Formosan Languages

 
Institution: Rice University 
Program: Department of Linguistics 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2016 

Author: Haowen Jiang

Dissertation Title: Nominalization and Possession in Formosan Languages 

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics
                     Linguistic Theories
                     Morphology
                     Syntax
                     Typology

Subject Language(s): Amis (ami)
                     Atayal (tay)
                     Bunun (bnn)
                     Kavalan (ckv)
                     Paiwan (pwn)
                     Puyuma (pyu)
                     Rukai (dru)
                     Saaroa (sxr)
                     Saisiyat (xsy)
                     Taroko (trv)
                     Thao (ssf)
                     Tsou (tsu)

Language Family(ies): Formosan


Dissertation Director(s):
Masayoshi Shibatani
Suzanne Kemmer

Dissertation Abstract:

This dissertation investigates nominalization and possession in Formosan
languages from a functional-typological perspective, where nominalization is a
metonymic process of creating denoting expressions. Verbal-based and
nominal-based nominalization are each the topic of the two primary parts of
this study. Special attention is paid to nominalizations lacking a lexical
status, covering constructions traditionally called relativization and
possession.

In almost all Formosan languages, the semantic role of an argument
nominalization is determined by a small set of affixes on a class of
morpho-lexical word forms called Focus-words. Conservative languages
demonstrate up to four grammatical categories of Focus-words, marked by two
broad sets of affixes (Set I and II) reconstructable in Proto-Austronesian
(PAn). Focus-words with Set II affixes predominantly have both predicate and
argument functions, which has been explained in terms of a historical
reanalysis whereby erstwhile nominalizations were reinterpreted as default
verbs, thus marginalizing the use of those with Set I affixes, which are
considered verbal throughout the Austronesian history. However, it is argued
that Focus-words with both Set I and II affixes can equally constitute
argument nominalizations, both subject to the same grammatical restrictions,
be it within or across languages. The new analysis suggests PAn was a language
employing the gap strategy for argument nominalizations, thus rendering
superfluous the question of how or when the nominalization-into-verb
reanalysis took place. Consequently, the result casts doubt on any genetic
subgrouping based on such a syntactic reanalysis.

The second part explores possessive NPs, and identifies three structural types
that are constructionally and paradigmatically defined. The literature shows
vigorous interest in the possessor-possessum syntagm, but generally overlooks
possessive substantives, or phrases including the possessor but denoting the
possessum instead. Possessive substantives in Formosan are important because
they expose different syntactic functions of so-called genitive markers across
languages even when reflexes of PAn *ni and *nu are involved. Moreover,
distributions of these reflexes across the three types have implications on
which type PAn might belong to, which in turn helps reveal how modern
languages might have diversified from that prototype.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-245	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/