Article published In:
Language and Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Verbal marking, intransitivity, and argument structure

The case of Budai Rukai

| University of Mississippi

This paper provides an intransitive analysis for an array of predicates which exhibit specific marking patterns in Budai Rukai. Contra previous lexical approaches, it is argued that a verbal prefix found on the predicates instantiates a functional head v, which constructs an intransitive vP. Its spell-out form is conditioned by its interaction with other higher functional categories, including tense, causative, passive, and complementizer. With respect to intransitivity, the resulting vP does not admit an accusative object, and it exhibits unergative, unaccusative, and anticausative properties. Regarding argument structure, these predicates are mostly one-place predicates. The sole argument is the grammatical subject which usually denotes an affected theme or an experiencer.

Keywords: intransitivity, argument structure, functional category, Formosan, Austronesian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Budai Rukai and some basic patterns
  • 2.Predicate type and related characteristics
  • 3.Basic marking patterns
    • 3.1The paradigm and tense marking patterns
    • 3.2Negation
    • 3.3Modality
  • 4.Marking patterns and clause structure
    • 4.1Causative
    • 4.2Complementizer phrases
      • 4.2.1 La ‘and (then); therefore; so (that)’
      • 4.2.2 Lu ‘as; if; when’
      • 4.2.3 Sa ‘when’
      • 4.2.4 Sana ‘whenever; if’
    • 4.3Other constructions
      • 4.3.1Coordination
      • 4.3.2Passive
      • 4.3.3Imperative
      • 4.3.4Resultative
  • 5.Syntactic and semantic properties
    • 5.1The vP structure and the spell-out rule
    • 5.2Case marking
    • 5.3Argument structure and structural considerations
      • 5.3.1Argument structure
      • 5.3.2Structural considerations
      • 5.3.3Interim discussion
    • 5.4Lack of causation
    • 5.5Non-conforming forms
  • 6.Conclusions and future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 22 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00164.che
References
Aldridge, Edith
2017 Φ-feature competition: A unified approach to the Austronesian extraction restriction. In Kantarovich, Jessica & Truong, Tran & Xherija, Orest (eds.), CLS 52: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1–20. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
2021 The nature and origin of syntactic ergativity in Austronesian languages. In Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Eythórsson, Thórhallur (eds.), Syntactic features and the limits of syntactic change, 265–300. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis
2010 On the morphosyntax of (anti)causative verbs. In Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Doron, Edit & Sichel, Ivy (eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, 177–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2004 Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, 114–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian
2006 The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation (Studies in Generative Grammar 91), 187–212. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988 Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996 The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John
2011 On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert
2003 Three notes on early Austronesian morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 42(2). 438–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 The Austronesian languages. Revised edn. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
1995 Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Bowers, John
1993 The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986 Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Gregory Norman
1977 Reference to kinds in English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Chen, Cheng-Fu
1999 Wh-words as interrogatives and indefinites in Rukai. Taipei: National Taiwan University. (Master’s thesis.)
2008 Aspect and tense in Rukai: Interpretation and interaction. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2011 Use and temporal interpretation of the Rukai future tense. In Musan, Renate & Rathert, Monika (eds.), Tense across languages, 91–108. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 Noun incorporation, doubling, and predicate restriction: The case of Budai Rukai. Taiwan Yuwen Yanjiu 17(1). 117–178.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP)
2016 Online aboriginal language dictionary: Rukai. New Taipei City: Council of Indigenous Peoples. ([URL]) (Accessed 2022-09-14.)
Cuervo, María Cristina
2003 Datives at large. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
de Swart, Henriëtte
1998 Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(2). 347–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998 Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1985 On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16(4). 547–593.Google Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger
1973 The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Huang, Lillian M.
2000 Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39(2). 364–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Indigenous Languages Research and Development Center (ILRDC)
2019 Indigenous language learning vocabulary list (Budai Rukai). ([URL]) (Accessed 2024-03-06.)
Irwin, Patricia L.
2012 Unaccusativity at the interfaces. New York: New York University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Kratzer, Angelika
1995 Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuo, John Ching-Hua
1979 Budai complementation. New Taipei City: Fu-Jen Catholic University. (Master’s thesis.)
Levin, Beth
1993 English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei
1973 Rukai structure. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei & Ho, Dah-an & Huang, Lillian M. & Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Saillard, Claire
1997 Kaohsiung xian Nandao yuyan. Kaohsiung: Kaohsiung County Government.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
2013 Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 1301. 152–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M.
1978 Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Jaeger, Jeri J. & Woodbury, Anthony C. & Ackerman, Farrell & Chiarello, Christine & Gensler, Orin D. & Kingston, John & Sweetser, Eve E. & Thompson, Henry & Whistler, Kenneth W. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–189. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
2001 T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona
2008 Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Kylie Rachel
2003 The case for meaningful case: The interaction of tense, aspect, and case in Russian. Cambridge: Harvard University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Rothstein, Susan Deborah
1983 The syntactic forms of predication. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2001 Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Shelley, George LeRoy, III
1978 Vudai Ḍukai: The language, its context, and its relationships. Hartford: The Hartford Seminary Foundation. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Smith, Carlota S.
1997 The parameter of aspect. 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Timothy Angus
1981 Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Sung, Li-May
2011 Clausal nominalization in Budai Rukai. In Yap, Foong Ha & Grunow-Hårsta, Karen & Wrona, Janick (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 523–559. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Why exclamatives in Budai Rukai. In Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy Fang-chin & Wu, Joy J. (eds.), New advances in Formosan linguistics, 291–312. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena
1984 Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2010 Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin S.
1975 Small clauses in English. In Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 41, 249–273. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1980 Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1). 203–238.Google Scholar
1983 Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2). 287–308.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad
2016 Elements of formal semantics: An introduction to the mathematical theory of meaning in natural language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth
2000a Rukai yu cankao yufa. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
2000b Dynamic vs. stative verbs in Mantauran (Rukai). Oceanic Linguistics 39(2). 415–427.Google Scholar
2007 A grammar of Mantauran (Rukai). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2015 Analogy and grammatical change: A case study of the verb of ‘saying’ in Mantauran Rukai. In Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy Fang-chin & Wu, Joy J. (eds.), New advances in Formosan linguistics, 431–450. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Huang, Lillian M.
1997 Toward a typology of tense, aspect and modality in Formosan languages: A preliminary study. In Tseng, Chiu-yu (ed.), Chinese languages and linguistics, vol. IV: Typological studies of languages in China, 595–618. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2000 Concerning ka-, an overlooked marker of verbal derivation in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 39(2). 391–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Huang, Lillian M. & Yeh, Marie M. & Chang, Anna H. & Wu, Joy J.
1996 The temporal, aspectual, and modal systems of some Formosan languages: A typological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 35(1). 21–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Huang, Lillian M. & Yeh, Marie M. & Chang, Anna H.
1999 Existential, possessive, and locative constructions in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38(1). 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy Fang-chin
2009 From ki-N ‘get N’ in Formosan languages to ki-V ‘get V-ed’ (passive) in Rukai, Paiwan and Puyuma. In Evans, Bethwyn (ed.), Discovering history through language: Papers in honour of Malcolm Ross, 479–500. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar