Article published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 44:2 (2020) ► pp.407–460
Indefinite expressions and accessibility hierarchy to core argument functions in a sample of Austronesian languages (and beyond)
Published online: 10 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19064.bri
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19064.bri
Abstract
In many languages, indefinite expressions are known to have restricted access to core argument functions. This
article focuses on the accessibility hierarchy of indefinite expressions to subject and object functions in a sample of
Austronesian languages. Aiming at some comparative analysis, some cross-linguistic perspectives on the differential encoding of ±
definite core arguments and other types of restrictions are discussed. The questions addressed are: (i) What type of indefinite
nouns have core argument function? (ii) If barred from core argument function, how are indefinite arguments circumvented? (iii)
Does existence or lack of indefinite articles correlate with access to core argument function, and in what way?
In Austronesian languages, one finding is that languages with indefinite articles display fewer restrictions on
the access of indefinite NPs to core argument function. Another finding is that differences of definiteness, individuation and
specificity of arguments tend to be expressed by distinct domains: the noun phrase in languages with indefinite articles, the verb
phrase in languages without indefinite articles (via valency, voice alternations, alignment changes), with an intermediate
situation in some Micronesian languages.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1The sample
- 1.2The aims
- 2.Defining indefiniteness, specificity and genericity
- 2.1Definiteness and indefiniteness
- 2.2Specific and non-specific indefinite NPs
- 2.3Generic NPs
- 3.Indefinite NPs and restrictions on argument function
- 3.1Cross-linguistic perspectives on the differential encoding of ± definite core arguments
- 3.1.1Differential object case-marking and ‘deobjectivisation’
- 3.1.2Differential subject case-marking and ‘desubjectivisation’
- 3.1.3Word order and patterns of subject agreement
- 3.1.4Incorporation of indefinite arguments
- 3.1.5Languages with articles: Existential and stage-framing constructions
- 3.2Constraints on indefinite subjects and existential predications
- 3.3Austronesian-Oceanic languages
- 3.1Cross-linguistic perspectives on the differential encoding of ± definite core arguments
- 4.Restrictions of access to subject function in languages with and without indefinite articles
- 4.1Access to subject function in languages without indefinite articles
- 4.1.1Constraints on indefinite subjects and existential predications
- 4.2Access to subject function in languages with ± specific indefinite articles
- 4.2.1Maori: Argument function accessibility of indefinite nouns
- 4.2.1.1Thetic event sentences and episodic sentences
- 4.2.1.2Event-denoting, episodic sentences with transitive and intransitive verbs
- 4.2.1.2.1Subject accessibility: tētahi NPs only
- 4.2.1.2.2Subject accessibility: tētahi and he NPs
- 4.2.1.2.3Subject accessibility of passive verbs: tētahi and he NPs
- 4.2.2Mavea (Vanuatu)
- 4.2.1Maori: Argument function accessibility of indefinite nouns
- 4.1Access to subject function in languages without indefinite articles
- 5.Access to object function
- 5.1Languages without indefinite articles: Access to object function
- 5.1.1Nêlêmwa
- 5.1.2Access to object function in languages with or without articles and with semi-transitive constructions
- 5.1.2.1Saliba
- 5.1.2.2Trukese and Marshallese (Micronesian)
- 5.2Languages with indefinite articles: Access to object function
- 5.2.1Maori: Accessibility to object function
- 5.2.2Access to object function in Biak (Eastern Malayo-Polynesian)
- 5.2.3Access to object function in Mavea (Vanuatu)
- 5.1Languages without indefinite articles: Access to object function
- 6.Access of generic expressions to argument function
- 6.1Generic expressions and subjecthood in Nêlêmwa
- 6.2Generic NPs in Maori
- 6.3Generic NPs in Biak and Mavea
- 6.3.1Generic NPs in Mavea
- 6.3.2Summary of Section 6
- 7.Accessibility hierarchy in Western Austronesian
- 7.1Thetic, existential predications in Northern Amis
- 7.1.1Event existentials: Elision of non-specific actor subjects
- 7.1.2Event existentials: Elision of non-specific undergoer subjects
- 7.2Voice alternations: Avoiding indefinite subjects in Northern Amis
- 7.3Voice alternations: Avoiding indefinite arguments in Tagalog
- 7.3.1Existential predications in Tagalog
- 7.3.2Indefinite patients in Tagalog
- 7.3.3Oblique indefinite patients of non-factive verbs
- 7.4Existential predications in Kapampangan (Philippines)
- 7.1Thetic, existential predications in Northern Amis
- 8.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
- Abbreviations
References
References (78)
Abbott, Barbara. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 39–55.
. 2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.
. 2006. Definite and indefinite. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., vol.31), 392–399. Oxford: Elsevier.
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Cornell University Ph.D Dissertation.
Beaver, David, Itamar Francez & Dmitry Levinson. 2005. Bad subject: (Non)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In Efthymia Georgala & Jonathan Howell (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XV1, 19–43. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Benton, Richard A. 1968. Numeral and attributive classifiers in Trukese. Oceanic Linguistics 7(2), 104–146.
Bril, Isabelle. 2000. Dictionnaire nêlêmwa-nixumwak-français-anglais. Collection Langues et Cultures du Pacifique, n° 14, Paris: Peeters.
. 2002. Le nêlêmwa (Nouvelle-Calédonie): Analyse syntaxique et sémantique. Collection Langues et Cultures du Pacifique, n° 16, Paris: Peeters.
. 2017. Roots and stems: lexical and functional flexibility in Amis and Nêlêmwa. In Eva van Lier (ed.), Studies in Language. Special issue on lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages 41(2), 358–407.
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 413–457.
Chung, Sandra. 2008. Possessors and definiteness effects. Two Austronesian languages. In: Lisa Matthewson (ed.), Quantification: A cross-linguistic perspective. North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic variation, vol. 641, 179–224. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Chung, Sandra & William L. Ladusaw. 2004 [2001]. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Creissels, Denis. 2014. Existential predication in typological perspective. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: [URL] (Last access: 13 February 2020)
De Hoop, Helen. 2012. Type-shifting. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics, Vol. 31, 2259–2271. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Claire Beyssade. 2012. Redefining indefinites. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 85. New York, London: Springer.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Indefinite articles. In: Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL] (Last access: 13 February 2020)
2014. Competing methods for uncovering linguistic diversity: The case of definite and indefinite articles (Commentary on Davis, Gillon, and Matthewson). Language 90(4), 232–249.
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, Neue Folge, Band 100/1, Jg. 1892, S. 25–50. Leipzig.
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Definiteness and referentiality. In Joseph Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 41, 291–330. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2), 274–307.
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
Heusinger, Klaus von. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3), 245–274.
. 2003. Cross-linguistic implementations of specificity. In: Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt & Ken Turner (eds.). Meaning through language contrast. vol 21, 405–421. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Huumo, Tuomas. 2017. The partitive A: On uses of the Finnish partitive subject in transitive clauses. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 423–453. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Jones, Pei Te Hurinui and Bruce Biggs. 1995. Nga iwi o Tainui: The traditional history of the Tainui people. Auckland University Press.
Kamali, Beste. 2015. Caseless direct objects in Turkish revisited. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 581, 107–123.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian Nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35 (1), 1–49. Walter de Gruyter.
Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 63–99.
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
. 1987. A semantic definition of indefinite NP. In Eric J. Reuland, Alice Ter Meulen (eds.). The representation of (in)definiteness, 286–317. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
. 2003. The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics ? Natural Language Semantics 11(2), 187–216.
. 2005. Absolutely a matter of degree: The semantics of structural case in Finnish. Paper presented at Chicago Linguistic Society, April 2005. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In Robert B. Young & Yuping Zhou (eds.) Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XIII, 180–203. Cornell: CLC Publications.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 91, 153–185.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. On the status of canonical SVO sentences in French discourse. In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, 217–261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.
Latrouite, Anja & Robert D. van Valin. 2014. Event existential in Tagalog; A role and reference grammar account. In I Wayan Arka & Lina Indrawati (eds.), Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages, 161–174. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A Grammar of Manam. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 18. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Margetts, Anna. 1999. Valence and transitivity in Saliba, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen PhD dissertation.
McNally, Louise. 2011. Existential sentences. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 21, 1829–1848. Berlin: de Gruyter.
. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 31, 1–29.
. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In: Barbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice: Its form and function (Typological Studies in language 27), 247–277. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ngata, A. T. 1926. Complete manual of Maori grammar and conversation with vocabulary, 2d ed. Auckland: Whitcombe and Tombs.
Pawley, Andrew & Lawrence Reid. 1980. The evolution of transitive constructions in Austronesian. In Paz B. Naylor (ed.), Austronesian studies: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages, 103–30. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Center for South and Southeastern Asian Studies.
Polinsky, Masha. 1991. Maori ‘he’. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Hawaii, Honolulu.
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–254. New York: Academic Press.
Russell, Bertrand A. 1905. On Denoting. Mind. New Series, Vol. 14, No. 56, 479–493. Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association.
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2009. Existential sentences in Tagalog. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27(4), 675–719.
Schachter, Paul & Fé T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sugita, Hiroshi. 1973. Semitransitive verbs and object incorporation in Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12(1/2), 393–407.
Waititi, Hoani R. 1974. Te rangatahi, advanced 2: A Māori language course. Wellington: GP Publications.
Willson, Heather. 2008. Subject positions in Marshallese. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles PhD dissertation.
