Article published in:
Lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages
Edited by Eva van Lier
[Studies in Language 41:2] 2017
► pp. 358–407

Roots and stems in Amis and Nêlêmwa (Austronesian)

Lexical categories and functional flexibility

| LACITO-CNRS, LABEX EFL

In constrast with Nêlêmwa (Oceanic, New Caledonia) whose lexemes are most generally subcategorised as nouns or verbs and undergo category-changing derivations, in Amis (Formosan), roots are pervasively categorially neutral, yet they contain semantic features and instructions that allow or disallow combination with primary derivational affixes which specify their class and category. Lexical categories are expressed after roots are derived into morphosyntactic words projected in a syntactic frame; they are then quite rigidly subcategorised as verbal, nominal or adjectival-modifying heads. Still, word forms display some functional flexibility; for instance, nouns and derived nouns, pronouns, numerals may be predicative in equative, ascriptive and focus constructions, simply by being in the syntactic position of the verb. Such functional flexibility is asymmetrical and does not apply to derived verb stems which must be nominalised to achieve argument function.

Keywords: Oceanic, Formosan, Austronesian, applicative constructions, alignment system, primary and secondary derivation, categorial flexibility, category-changing derivation, asymmetrical derivation, conversion, functional flexibility, categorially neutral roots, verb classes, voice systems, stems
Published online: 05 October 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.2.04bri
References

References

Besnier, Niko
2000 Tuvaluan. A Polynesian language of the Central Pacific. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert
1999 Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In E. Zeitoun & P. J. K. Li (eds.), Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 31–94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2009 The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 602.Google Scholar
2013 revised edition online at: http://​pacling​.anu​.edu​.au​/materials​/Blust2013Austronesian​.pdf. Open Access Monographs.
Bril, Isabelle
2000 Dictionnaire nêlêmwa-nixumwak-français-anglais. LCP 14, Paris, Peeters.Google Scholar
2002 Le nêlêmwa (Nouvelle-Calédonie): Analyse syntaxique et sémantique, LCP 16, Paris, Peeters.Google Scholar
. In press. Lexical and functional categories in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia) and some other Austronesian languages: fluid vs. rigid categoriality. In V. Vapnarsky and E. Veneziano eds. Lexical polycategoriality: Cross-linguistic, cross-theoretical and language acquisition approaches, 207–242. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Broschart, Jürgen
1997 Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 1. 123–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Teresa
1987 Verbal constructions and verbal classifications in Nataoran-Amis. Canberra: Pacific linguistics.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Parts of speech as typological universals and language particular categories. In Petra Vogel and Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes, [EALT 23], 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
2000 Introduction. In Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 1–29. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Toshiki Osada
2005 Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9(3). 351–390.Google Scholar
Foley, William A.
1998 Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at the 3rd LFG conference, Brisbane.
2008 The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In P. Austin & S. Musgrave (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages, 22–44. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Eva van Lier
2010 An implicational map of parts of speech. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 129–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
2005 Tagalog. In Alexander Adelaar & N. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 350–376. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2007 Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Simon Musgrave & Peter Austin (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages, 247–293. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Huang, Lillian M.
1995 The case markers and pronominal system in Amis. Journal of National Chengchi University 70. 217–257.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Cécile Manorohanta
2001 Quantitative study of voice in Malagasy. Oceanic Linguistics 40(1). 67–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
1998 Nouns and verbs in Tagalog: a reply to Foley. Asia SIL School. Paper presented at the 3rd LFG Conference, Brisbane. 30 June – 3 July, 1998.
Kuo, Jonathan Cheng-Chuen
2015 Argument alternation and argument structure in symmetrical voice languages: A case study of transfer verbs in Amis, Puyuma, and Seediq. Hawaii: Hawaii University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1999 La question de la distinction entre nom et verbe en perspective typologique. Folia linguistica 33(3–4). 389–418.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2008 Roots, stems and word classes. In: Umberto Ansaldo, Jan Don and Roland Pfau (eds.): Parts of Speech: descriptive tools, theoretical constructs. Special Issue of Studies in Language 32(3), 43–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
2006 The category of roots and the roots of categories: what we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology 16. 247–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1994 The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In Barbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice, form and function, 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Even Hovdhaugen
1992 Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence
1992 On the development of the aspect system in some Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics 31(1). 65–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm
1995 Reconstructing proto Austronesian verbal morphology; evidence from Taiwan. In Paul Jen-kuei Li, Dah-an Ho, Ying-kuei Huang & Cheng-hwa Tsang (eds.), Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, 727–791. Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology (Academia Sinica 4). Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1993 Syntactic categories & subcategories. In Joachim Jabobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax, An International Handbook of Contemporary research, 646–686. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001 Scales between nouniness and verbiness. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 1, 495–509. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
2009 Elements of complex structures, where recursion isn’t. In T. Givón & M. Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity. Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution (TSL 85), 163–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Prashant Pardeshi
2002 The causative continuum. In M. Shibatani (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (TSL 48), 85–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley & Lawrence Reid
1982 [2009] The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & Stephen Wurm (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travellers (Pacific Linguistics C-75), 145–170. Canberra: The Australian National University. [Subsequently published in Zeitoun, Elizabeth (ed.) 2009 Formosan linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s contributions (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series), Vol. 2, 297–328. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley
2002 [2009]Austronesian Focus as derivation: Evidence from nominalization. Language and Linguistics 3.2: 427–479. [Subsequently published in Zeitoun, Elizabeth (ed.) 2009 Formosan linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s contributions (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series), Vol. 2, 297–328. Taipei: Academia SinicaGoogle Scholar
Teng, Stacy
2014 Grammaticalization of predicative possession in Nanwang Puyuma and as a basis for reconstruction in PAN. Oceanic Linguistics 53(1). 136–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsuchida, Shigeru
1988 Amis. In Takashi Kamei, Rokuro Kono & Eiichi Chino (eds.), The Sanseido Encyclopedia or Linguistics, Vol 1: Languages of the World, Part one, 447–449. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
Tsukida, Naomi
2008 Verb classification in Amis. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 277–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, John U.
1973 Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday (LSP Special monograph Issue n°4), 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Wu, Joy
2006 Verb classification, case marking, and grammatical relations in Amis. Buffalo: State University of New York Ph.D Dissertation.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Lillian M. Huang
2000 Concerning ka-, an overlooked marker of verbal derivation in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 39. 415–427.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Bril, Isabelle
2020. Indefinite expressions and accessibility hierarchy to core argument functionsin a sample of Austronesian languages(and beyond). Studies in Language 44:2 ► pp. 407 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.