On the Syntax of Amis Comparative Constructions
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2010-01-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
英語學系
Department of English, NTNU
Department of English, NTNU
Abstract
阿美語是台灣南島語的一支，本篇論文從以下面向探討阿美語比較句結構：(1)何為阿美語比較句結構的構詞及句法特徵? (2)阿美語的「物件比較」及「事件比較」在句法上如何區分? (3)如何從類型學的角度上描述阿美語比較句結構? 我們的研究發現：(a)根據不同的構詞句法特性，阿美語有四種比較句結構；(b)在「事件比較」上，除了並置型(juxtaposition type)以外，所有的比較結構中都需要將(表示事件的)動作詞進行去動詞化的機制；(c)根據Klein (1991)的類型學特徵，阿美語和英語在比較句的句法架構上有所不同，此類型學上的區分或許可以透過詞類系統得到解釋—在原型理論和標記理論的基礎之下，英語可被歸類成具備full NAV inventory的語言，而阿美語則屬於N[AV]語言。我們期許本文能同時對於阿美語法的認識及比較句的類型學理論做出貢獻。
Amis is an Austronesian language spoken in Taiwan. This paper explores the syntax of Amis comparative constructions from the following aspects: (i) What are the morphosyntactic characteristics of comparative constructions in Amis? (ii) How do entity-comparison and event-comparison in Amis differ from each other in terms of syntactic realization? (iii) How are Amis comparative constructions characterized from a typological perspective? Our findings suggest that (a) in Amis, four types of comparative constructions (i.e., juxtaposition type, nominal type, -ki- type, and ikaka/isafa type) can be identified, as they exhibit different morphosyntactic features; (b) with respect to encoding event-comparison, deverbalization of the action word is obligatory for all comparative constructions, except the juxtaposition type; (c) in terms of Klein's (1991) typological characterization, Amis differs from English with regard to the syntactic patterning of comparatives. The typological distinction might be explicated by the parts-of-speech systems—based on the prototype and markedness theory, English is classified as having a full NAV inventory, whereas Amis belongs to an N[AV] language. Hopefully, this paper will contribute to both the understanding of Amis grammar and the typological theory of comparative constructions.
Amis is an Austronesian language spoken in Taiwan. This paper explores the syntax of Amis comparative constructions from the following aspects: (i) What are the morphosyntactic characteristics of comparative constructions in Amis? (ii) How do entity-comparison and event-comparison in Amis differ from each other in terms of syntactic realization? (iii) How are Amis comparative constructions characterized from a typological perspective? Our findings suggest that (a) in Amis, four types of comparative constructions (i.e., juxtaposition type, nominal type, -ki- type, and ikaka/isafa type) can be identified, as they exhibit different morphosyntactic features; (b) with respect to encoding event-comparison, deverbalization of the action word is obligatory for all comparative constructions, except the juxtaposition type; (c) in terms of Klein's (1991) typological characterization, Amis differs from English with regard to the syntactic patterning of comparatives. The typological distinction might be explicated by the parts-of-speech systems—based on the prototype and markedness theory, English is classified as having a full NAV inventory, whereas Amis belongs to an N[AV] language. Hopefully, this paper will contribute to both the understanding of Amis grammar and the typological theory of comparative constructions.