國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	林書毅
論文名稱：	古南島語否定詞構擬：以臺灣南島語為據 Reconstructing Negative Morphemes in Proto-Austronesian: Evidence from Formosan Languages
指導教授：	齊莉莎 Elizabeth Zeitoun 吳靜蘭 Wu, Jing-Lan
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2011
畢業學年度：	99
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	237
中文關鍵詞：	古南島語、台灣南島語、否定、構擬、血緣分群
英文關鍵詞：	Proto-Austronesian, Formosan languages, negation, reconstruction, subgrouping
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：328 下載：26
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在提供台灣南島語否定結構的類型學研究，並用以構擬古南島語的否定詞。我採用比較法以比較台灣南島語的否定詞，並以不同的南島語血緣分群假設來構擬古南島語否定詞。
本研究提供近乎所有現存台灣南島語的否定結構類型學探究，包含汶水（澤敖利）泰雅、太魯閣賽德克、特富野鄒、萬山魯凱、郡社布農、北排灣、南王卑南、邵、賽夏、噶瑪蘭、中部阿美以及撒奇萊雅阿美。並討論否定動詞子句（包含祈使句及直述句）、否定名詞子句以及否定存在/領屬/方位句結構。研究發現，台灣南島語可概分為兩大類—動詞子句與名詞子句使用不同的否定詞之語言（包括汶水泰雅、太魯閣賽德克、南王卑南、賽夏與噶瑪蘭），以及動詞子句與名詞子句使用相同否定詞之語言（包括特富野鄒、萬山魯凱、郡社布農、北排灣、邵、中部阿美以及撒奇萊雅阿美）。其中，南王卑南十分特別，因為它是唯一在否定祈使句與否定動詞直述句中使用相同否定詞的台灣南島語。
本研究論述了*ai（動詞句否定詞）、*ini（名詞句否定詞）、*uka（存在句否定詞）與*ka（祈使句否定詞）這四個否定詞的構擬。目前對於這些否定詞在南島語中的構擬階層尚未有確切的證據。此四個否定詞皆有構擬的必要，但*ini和*uka因在現存台灣南島語中有較多的語言證據而更獲支持。根據目前我們所擁有的證據，古南島語很可能在祈使句與動詞直述句中使用相同的否定詞，其運用*ai於動詞句、*ini於名詞句、*uka於存在句。

This research aims at providing a typological survey of negative constructions in Formosan languages in order to reconstruct the proto-forms of negative morphemes in Proto-Austronesian. I adopt the comparative method to compare negative morphemes in Formosan languages and reconstruct Proto-Austronesian negators based on different subgrouping assumptions.
A typology of negation in nearly all extant Formosan languages is provided, including Mayrinax (C’uli’) Atayal, Truku Seediq, Tfuya Tsou, Mantauran Rukai, Isbukun Bunun, Northern Paiwan, Nanwang Puyuma, Thao, Saisiyat, Kavalan, and Central and Sakizaya Amis. Negative verbal (both imperative and declarative), nominal, and existential/existential/possessive constructions are discussed. It is found that Formosan languages can be divided into two groups based on whether they distinguish verbal clauses from nominal clauses in terms of negation (Mayrinax Atayal, Truku Seediq, Nanwang Puyuma, Saisiyat, and Kavalan) or not (Tfuya Tsou, Mantauran Rukai, Isbukun Bunun, Northern Paiwan, Thao, and Central and Sakizaya Amis). Nanwang Puyuma is unique in that it is the only Formosan language that employs the same negator in imperative and verbal declarative clauses.
The reconstruction of *ai (verbal negator), *ini (nominal negator), *uka (existential negator), and *ka (imperative negator) is discussed. There is no conclusive evidence for their level(s) of reconstruction in Austronesian languages so far. Although the reconstruction of the four proto-negators is supported, the reconstruction of *ini and *uka gains more evidence from a wider range of reflexes in Formosan languages. Based on the evidence we have so far, it is probable that Proto-Austronesian did not distinguish between imperative and verbal declarative clauses in terms of negation, and it employed *ai in verbal clauses, *ini in nominal clauses, and *uka in existential constructions.

Table of Contents
Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………………………………    i
English Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….    ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………    iii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………...    v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….    ix
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………    xii
List of Abbreviations and Conventions…………………………………………………….    xiii


Chapter one: Introduction……………………………………………………………………..    1
1.1 Previous Studies……………………………………………………………………...    1
1.2 Organization………………………………………………………………………….    3
Chapter two: Methodology and Literature Review…………………………………………...    5
2.1 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………    5
2.1.1 Terminology…………………………………………………………………..    5
2.1.2 The comparative method and the establishment of linguistic genetic
relationship…………………………………………………………………..    10
2.1.2.1 Lexical items…………………………………………………………    12
2.1.2.2 Sound correspondences………………………………………………    15
2.1.2.3 Grammatical morphemes…………………………………………….    18
2.1.2.3.1 Analogical change and analogical creation…………………...    18
2.1.2.3.2 Shared aberrancy……………………………………………...    22
2.1.2.3.3 Misinterpretation of grammatical evidence…………………..    23
2.1.2.4 Language contact…………………………………………………….    24
2.1.2.5 Grammaticalization…………………………………………………..    28
2.1.3 Reconstruction of proto-phonemes………………………………………….    32
2.1.3.1 Reconstruction of Proto-Austronesian proto-phonemes
based on Formosan languages……………………………………….    34
2.1.3.2 Conditioned sound changes………………………………………….    54
2.2 Proto-Austronesian reconstruction and subgrouping of Formosan languages……..    57
2.2.1 A brief history of the study of the Austronesian family……………………..    57
2.2.2 Split between Formosan and extra-Formosan languages……………………    59
2.2.3 Higher order subgrouping of the Austronesian family……………………...    62
2.2.3.1 Subgrouping based on sound correspondences……………………...    62
2.2.3.2 Subgrouping based on lexical items…………………………………    65
2.2.3.3 Subgrouping based on morphosyntax………………………………..    69
2.2.3.3.1 Shared grammatical morphemes……………………………...    69
2.2.3.3.2 Verb-from-nominalization…………………………………….    71
2.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….    73
Chapter three: Negation in Formosan Languages: a Typological Survey…………………...    75
3.1 A brief overview of Formosan syntax………………………………………………    75
3.1.1 Verbal clauses………………………………………………………………..    76
3.1.2 Nominal/equational clauses…………………………………………………    79
3.1.3 Existential/possessive/locative constructions……………………………….    79
3.2 The typology of negation…………………………………………………………...    82
3.2.1 Atayal (C’uli’)……………………………………………………………….    83
3.2.1.1 An overview of Atayal (C’uli’) negative constructions……………...    83
3.2.1.2 Negative imperative clauses—kaa and laxi………………………….    84
3.2.1.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses—ini and jakaat……………...    86
3.2.1.4 Negative existential/possessive/locative constructions—ukas………    88
3.2.2 Seediq (Truku)………………………………………………………………    90
3.2.2.1 An overview of Seediq (Truku) negative constructions……………...    90
3.2.2.2 Negative imperative clauses—ija…………………………………..    91
3.2.2.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses—ini and adi………………..    91
3.2.2.4 Negative existential/possessive constructions—uat………………    94
3.2.3 Tsou (Tfuya)…………………………………………………………………    95
3.2.3.1 An overview of Tsou (Tfuya) negative constructions………………..    95
3.2.3.2 Negative imperative clauses—o- and -ava………………………...    96
3.2.3.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses………………………………...    97
3.2.3.3.1 Predicative negation—oa……………………………………    97
3.2.3.3.2 Modal negation—o-…………………………………………    99
3.2.3.4 Negative existential/possessive constructions—uka………………    100
3.2.4 Rukai (Mantauran)…………………………………………………………    101
3.2.4.1 An overview of Rukai (Mantauran) negative constructions………..    101
3.2.4.2 Negative imperative clauses—(a-)…-a……………………………    102
3.2.4.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses……………………………….    103
3.2.4.3.1 Predicative negation—=ka………………………………….    103
3.2.4.3.2 Modal negation—ki-………………………………………...    106
3.2.4.4 Negative existential/possessive constructions—kaoo…………….    107
3.2.5 Bunun (Isbukun)…………………………………………………………...    108
3.2.5.1 An overview of Bunun (Isbukun) negative constructions…………..    109
3.2.5.2 Negative imperative clauses—kaa………………………………...    110
3.2.5.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses—nii and nitu……………….    111
3.2.5.4 Negative existential/possessive/locative constructions—uka……    113
3.2.6 Paiwan (Northern) …………………………………………………………115
3.2.6.1 An overview of Paiwan (Northern) negative constructions………...    115
3.2.6.2 Negative imperative clauses—maja………………………………..    116
3.2.6.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses—ini=ka……………………..    118
3.2.6.4 Negative existential/possessive/locative constructions—nka……..    121
3.2.7 Puyuma (Nanwang)………………………………………………………...124
3.2.7.1 An overview of Puyuma (Nanwang) negative constructions………    124
3.2.7.2 Negative verbal and nominal clauses……………………………….    125
3.2.7.2.1 Negative imperative and declarative clauses—ai………….    125
3.2.7.2.2 Negative nominal clauses—amli…………………………..    128
3.2.7.3 Negative existential/possessive/locative constructions—unian……    129
3.2.8 Thao………………………………………………………………………..    131
3.2.8.1 An overview of Thao negative constructions……………………….    131
3.2.8.2 Negative imperative clauses—ata and iqa………………………..    132
3.2.8.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses—ani, antu, and ni…………...    135
3.2.8.4 Negative existential/possessive/locative constructions—uka………    141
3.2.9 Saisiyat……………………………………………………………………..    143
3.2.9.1 An overview of Saisiyat negative constructions……………………    143
3.2.9.2 Negative imperative clauses—izi………………………………...    144
3.2.9.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses……………………………….    146
3.2.9.3.1 Negative verbal clauses……………………………………...    146
3.2.9.3.1.1 Predicative negation—oka and iini…………….    146
3.2.9.3.1.2 Deontic modal negation—kajni…………………….    151
3.2.9.3.2 Negative nominal clauses—okik…………………………...    152
3.2.9.4 Negative existential/possessive constructions—oka……………..    153
3.2.10 Kavalan…………………………………………………………………...    155
3.2.10.1 An overview of Kavalan negative constructions………..………...    155
3.2.10.2 Negative imperative clauses—nain……………………………...    156
3.2.10.3 Negative verbal and nominal clauses……………………………...    158
3.2.10.3.1 Negative verbal clauses…………………………………….    158
3.2.10.3.1.1 Predicative negation—mai………………………….    158
3.2.10.3.1.2 Modal negation—taqa……………………………...    160
3.2.10.3.2 Negative nominal clauses—usa……………………………    161
3.2.10.4 Negative existential/possessive constructions—mai……………...    162
3.2.11 Amis (Central and Sakizaya)……………………………………………..    165
3.2.11.1 An overview of Amis (Central and Sakizaya) negative
constructions……………………………………………………….    165
3.2.11.2 Central Amis………………………………………………………    166
3.2.11.2.1 Negative imperative clauses—aka…………………………    166
3.2.11.2.2 Negative verbal and nominal clauses………………………    169
3.2.11.2.2.1 Predicative negation—tsaaj……………………….    169
3.2.11.2.2.2 Modal negation—naaj……………………………    .    173
3.2.11.2.3 Negative existential/possessive constructions—awa………    174
3.2.11.3 Sakizaya Amis……………………………………………………..    176
3.2.11.3.1 Negative imperative clauses—amana……………………...    176
3.2.11.3.2 Negative verbal and nominal clauses………………………    178
3.2.11.3.2.1 Predicative negation—tsaaj……………………….    178
3.2.11.3.2.2 Modal negation—kai………………………………..    182
3.2.11.3.3 Negative existential/possessive constructions—najaj……..    182
3.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...    184
Chapter four: Reconstruction of the Proto-forms of Negative Morphemes………………..    189
4.1 How many proto-negators can or should be reconstructed?………………………    189
4.2 Reconstruction of proto-negators………………………………………………….    190
4.2.1 *ai: negator for verbal clauses……………………………………………    191
4.2.2 *ini: negator for nominal declarative clauses……………………………...    196
4.2.3 *uka: negator for existential constructions………………………………...    200
4.2.3.1 *uka: From a declarative negator to an existential negator………...    202
4.2.3.2 *uka: From an existential negator to a declarative negator………...    205
4.2.4 *ka: negator for imperative clauses………………………………………..    208
4.3 Interim summary…………………………………………………………………..    212
4.4 More thoughts on the reconstructed negators and the PAn syntactic patterns…….    214
4.4.1 Distinct negators for four syntactic patterns……………………………….    214
4.4.2 The use of the same negator for imperative and verbal declarative
clauses……………………………………………………………………...    215
4.4.3 The use of the same negator for verbal declarative and existential
constructions……………………………………………………………….    216
4.4.4 A summary of the reconstructed negators and the PAn syntactic
patterns……………………………………………………………………..    217
Chapter five: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...    219
5.1 Findings in preceding chapters……………………………………………………    219
5.2 Limitation and suggestions………………………………………………………..    222
References…………………………………………………………………………………..    225

List of Tables
Table 1    Negators in Amis, Atayal, Paiwan, Rukai, Saisiyat, and Tsou
                     (M. Yeh et al. 1998:81)………………………………………………………………..    2
Table 2 A tripartite classification of Formosan languages (Zeitoun et al. 1999:4)……………    2
Table 3 Rukai pronominal system (based on Zeitoun 2000b)……………………………….    20
Table 4 Amis pronominal system (based on Wu 2006:85; Huang et al. 1999)………………    21
Table 5 Saisiyat loanwords from Japanese (based on Zeitoun et al. In preparation)………...    27
Table 6 Saisiyat loanwords from Hakka (based on Zeitoun et al. In preparation)…………...    27
Table 7 Steps of proto-phoneme reconstruction
(based on Crowley & Bowern 2010:101-102)………………………………………    34
Table 8 PAn phonemic inventory (Ross 1992:31)…………………………………………...    35
Table 9 PAn phonemic inventory (Blust 1999:43)…………………………………………...    35
Table 10 A comparison of reconstructions in Ross (1992) and Blust (1999) (part 1)……….    37
Table 11 A comparison of reconstructions in Ross (1992) and Blust (1999) (part 2)………..    37
Table 12 Correspondences in orthography…………………………………………………..    38
Table 13 Word list of Formosan languages (consonants)……………………………………    39
Table 14 Word list of Formosan languages (vowels)………………………………………...    40
Table 15 Detailed sound correspondences (consonants part 1)……………………………...    46
Table 16 Detailed sound correspondences (consonants part 2)……………………………...    46
Table 17 Detailed sound correspondences (vowels)………………………………………....    47
Table 18 Sound correspondences (consonants)……………………………………………...    48
Table 19 Sound correspondences (vowels)…………………………………………………..    48
Table 20 Cognate set of *Sapuy ‘fire’……………………………………………………….    49
Table 21 An imbalanced phonemic system…………………………………………………..    50
Table 22 Sound correspondence sets of *s and *S…………………………………………..    51
Table 23 Sound correspondence sets of *N, *l and *R………………………………………    52
Table 24 Sound correspondence sets of *j and *n……………………………………………52
Table 25 Sound correspondence set of *q……………………………………………………    53
Table 26 PAn consonant inventory…………………………………………………………..    54
Table 27 PAn vowel inventory……………………………………………………………….    54
Table 28 Conditioned sound change of *t in Isbukun Bunun………………………………..    54
Table 29 Reflexes of *t in Bunun dialects…………………………………………………...    55
Table 30 Conditioned sound change of *a in Saisiyat……………………………………….    56
Table 31 Conditioned sound change of *u in Saisiyat……………………………………….    57
Table 32 PAn pronominal system (based on Blust 1977:10)………………………………...    59
Table 33 PMP pronominal system (based on Blust 1977:11)………………………………..    60
Table 34 Reconstruction of PAn personal pronouns (based on Ross 2006:532)…………….    60
Table 35 A tentative reconstruction of PMP pronominal forms (based on Ross 2006:542)…    60
Table 36 Sound shifts & mergers shown in Blust (1999)……………………………………    63
Table 37 Implicational hierarchy of the numerals 5-10 in Formosan languages
and in PMP (Sagart 2004:414)……………………………………………………..    66
Table 38 Resemblance between *pitu, *walu and *Siwa and the Pazeh analytic forms
(Sagart 2004:417)...………………………………………………………………..    67
Table 39 Derivation of *pitu, *walu and *Siwa out of PAn analytic forms
(Sagart 2004:418)…………………………………………………………………..    68
Table 40 A tentative reconstruction of PAn verbal morphology
(based on Ross 2009:306)………………………………………………………….    72
Table 41 Organization of the discussion of negative constructions in Formosan languages...    82
Table 42 Sources of linguistic data…………………………………………………………..    83
Table 43 Negative morphemes in Mayrinax Atayal…………………………………………    84
Table 44 Illustration of verbal morphology in Mayrinax Atayal…………………………….    84
Table 45 Voice system in Mayrinax Atayal (based on Huang 2001:55)……………………..    85
Table 46 Negative morphemes in Truku Seediq……………………………………………..    90
Table 47 Illustration of verbal morphology in Truku Seediq………………………………...    90
Table 48 Voice system in Truku Seediq (based on Tsukida 2005:313-314)…………………    91
Table 49 Negative morphemes in Tfuya Tsou……………………………………………….    96
Table 50 Illustration of verbal morphology in Tfuya Tsou…………………………………..    96
Table 51 Negative morphemes in Mantauran Rukai………………………………………..    102
Table 52 Illustration of verbal morphology in Mantauran Rukai…………………………..    102
Table 53 Illustration of verbal morphology in Isbukun Bunun……………………………..    109
Table 54 Negative morphemes in Isbukun Bunun………………………………………….    109
Table 55 Negative morphemes in Northern Paiwan………………………………………..    115
Table 56 Illustration of verbal morphology in Northern Paiwan…………………………...    116
Table 57 Paiwan voice morphology (based on H.-C. Chang 2006:69, 186)……………….    116
Table 58 Negative morphemes in Nanwang Puyuma………………………………………    124
Table 59 Illustration of verbal morphology in Nanwang Puyuma………………………….    125
Table 60 Puyuma verbal morphology (based on Teng 2008:208)………………………….    125
Table 61 Negative morphemes in Thao…………………………………………………….    131
Table 62 Illustration of verbal morphology in Thao………………………………………..    132
Table 63 Voice system in Thao (based on Y.-M. Chen 2000:16 & Blust 2002:70)………...    132
Table 64 Illustration of verbal morphology in Saisiyat…………………………………….    144
Table 65 Negative morphemes in Saisiyat………………………………………………….    144
Table 66 Voice marking system in Saisiyat (based on M. Yeh 2003:23)…………………...    144
Table 67 Saisiyat Case Marking System (based on Zeitoun et al. 2011:92)………………..    147
Table 68 Negative morphemes in Kavalan…………………………………………………    155
Table 69 Illustration of verbal morphology in Kavalan…………………………………….    156
Table 70 Voice system in Kavalan (based on Y.-T. Yeh 2005:6, 46)……………………….    156
Table 71 Negative morphemes in Central and Sakizaya Amis……………………………..    165
Table 72 Illustration of verbal morphology in Central and Sakizaya Amis………………...    166
Table 73 Verbal morphology in Central Amis (Wu 2006:133, 138)………………………..    167
Table 74 Sakizaya verbal morphology (based on Shen 2008:44, 54, 69)…………………..    177
Table 75 Negative morphemes in Formosan languages……………………………………    184
Table 76 Syntactic patterns in terms of negation…………………………………………...    186
Table 77 Marking of lexical verbs in negative imperative and declarative clauses……..….    187
Table 78 Illustration of verbal morphology in Formosan languages……………………….    188
Table 79 Possible PAn syntactic patterns in terms of negation……………………………..    190
Table 80    Sound correspondences relevant to the reconstruction of proto-negators………...    191
Table 81 Evidence for the reconstruction of *ai…………………………………………..    191
Table 82 Sound correspondences in the reflexes of *ai…………………………………...    192
Table 83 Marking of lexical verbs following the reflexes of *ai………………………….    192
Table 84 Evidence for the reconstruction of *ini…………………………………………...    196
Table 85 Sound correspondences among the reflexes of *ini………………………………    196
Table 86 Marking of lexical verbs following the reflexes of *ini…………………………..    196
Table 87 Evidence for the reconstruction of *uka………………………………………….    200
Table 88 Sound correspondences among the reflexes of *uka……………………………..    200
Table 89 Marking of lexical verbs following the putative reflexes of *ka…………………    204
Table 90 Evidence for the reconstruction of *ka…………………………………………...    209
Table 91 Sound correspondences among the reflexes of *ka………………………………    209
Table 92 Marking of lexical verbs following the reflexes of *ka…………………………..    209
Table 93 Syntactic features of the four reconstructed negators…………………………….    213
Table 94 Reconstructed levels of proto-negators…………………………………………...    213
Table 95 The distribution of proto-negators under different PAn sentence patterns……….    214
Table 96 Syntactic patterns in terms of negation…………………………………………...    220
Table 97 Possible PAn syntactic patterns in terms of negation……………………………..    220
Table 98 Syntactic features of the four reconstructed negators…………………………….    221
Table 99 Reconstructed levels of proto-negators…………………………………………...    221
Table 100 The distribution of proto-negators under different PAn sentence patterns……...    221

List of Figures
Figure 1 Representation of two languages descending from a single ancestor……………...    15
Figure 2 An example of analogical creation in Rukai………………………………………..    22
Figure 3 Direct descendants of PAn and detailed subgrouping of Formosan languages
(based on Blust 1999) ……………………………………………………………...    63
Figure 4 Higher Austronesian phylogeny based on basic lexical
                         and morphological innovations (Sagart 2004:431)…………………………..……..    68
Figure 5 A grammar-based subgrouping (based on Starosta 1995[2009])…………………..    70
Figure 6 A subgrouping based on innovations in voice systems
                         (based on Ross 2009:316)…………………………………………………………..    73
Figure 7 Distribution of the Formosan languages in Taiwan (Paul Li p.c.)………………...    195
Figure 8 Mapping of the reflexes of *uka and *uat in the Atayalic subgroup…………….    223
                                

Blust, Robert. 1977. The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austronesian subgrouping: a preliminary report. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 9(2):1-15.
Blust, Robert. 1995. Sibilant assimilation in Formosan languages and the Proto-Austronesian word for ‘nine’. Oceanic Linguistics 34(2):443-453.
Blust, Robert. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In E. Zeitoun and P. Li (eds.), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 31-94, Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office) No.1, Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Blust, Robert. 2002. Notes on the history of ‘focus’ in Austronesian languages. In Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, 63-78. Pacific Linguistics 518. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Blust, Robert. 2003. Thao Dictionary. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series, No. A5. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.
Blust, Robert. 2009. The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Campbell, Lyle and William J. Poser. 2008. Language Classification: History and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chan-Yap, Gloria. 1980. Hokkien Chinese borrowings in Tagalog. Pacific Linguistics B-71. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Chang, Hsiou-Chuan Anna. 2006. A Reference Grammar of Paiwan. Ph.D. dissertation. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Chang, Yu-Lung. 2007. Negation in Central Amis. Hsinchu: National Hsinchu University of Education MA thesis. [In Chinese]
Chen, J.-H. 1996. A Preliminary Study of Tkdaya Seediq Negators. MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Chen, Teresa. 1987. Verbal Constructions and Verbal Classification in Nataoran-Amis. Pacific Linguistics C-85. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Chen, You-Mehim. 2000. Negation in Thao and Tsou. MA thesis. Chiayi: National Chung Cheng University.
Crowley, Terry and Claire Bowern. 2010. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fey, Virginia. 1986. Amis Dictionary. Taipei: The Bible Society in Taiwan.
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68:553-595.
Gamillscheg, Ernst. 1957. Historische französische Syntax. Tübingem: Max Niemeyer.
Gilij, Filippo Salvatore. 1780-4. Saggio di storia americana; o sia, storia natural, civile e sacra de rengi, e delle provincie spagnuole di Terra-Ferma nell’ America Meridionale descritto dall’ abate F. S. Gilij. 4 vols. Rome: Perigio (1965[1782], Ensayo de historia americana, Spanish translation by Antonio Tovar. [Fuentes para la Historia Colonial de Venezuela, vols. 71-3.] Caracas: Biblioteca de la Academia Nacional de la Historia.)
Greenberg, Joseph H., 1957. Essays in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haugen, E. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26:210-231.
Hervás y Panduro, Lorenzo. 1784. Catalogo delle lingue conosciute e notizia della loro affinitá e diversitá. Cesena: Gregorio Biasini all’Insegna oli Pallade.
Ho, Dah-an and Hsiu-fang Yang. 2000. Austronesian languages and Formosan languages. Introduction to the Formosan Language Series, 1-13. Taipei: Yuan-liu. [In Chinese]
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2, 17-35. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Huang, Lillian M. 1993. A Study of Atayal Syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publ. Co.
Huang, Lillian M. 1995. A Study of Mayrinax Syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publ. Co.
Huang, Lillian M. 2000a. A Reference Grammar of Atayal. Formosan Series 1. Taipei: Yuanliou. [In Chinese]
Huang, Lillian M. 2000b. A Reference Grammar of Thao. Formosan Series 4. Taipei: Yuanliou. [In Chinese]
Huang, Lillian M. 2000c. Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39(2):364-390.
Huang, Lillian M. 2001. Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspective. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University, Humanities & Social Sciences 46(1, 2):51-69.
Huang, Lillian M. 2008. Grammaticalization in Squliq Atayal. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 34(2):1-46.
Huang, Lillian M. In preparation. A Comparative Study of Atayal Dialects. Ms.
Huang, Lillian M., Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1999. A typological overview of pronominal systems of some Formosan languages. In Selected Papers from The Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, ed. by Samuel H. Wang, Feng-fu Tsao, and Lien Chin-fa, 163-198. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Humboldt, [Friedrich] Wilhelm [Christian Karl Ferdinand] von. 1836. Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechtes. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Reprinted 1963: Wilhelm von Humboldt Werke in fünf Bänden, ed. Andreas Flitner and Klaus Giel, 3.368-756. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta.) (English translation 1988, On language: the diversity of human language-structure and its influence on the mental development of mankind, trans. by Peter Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)
Jakobson, R. 1960. Why mama and papa? In B. Kaplan and S. Wapner (eds.), Perspectives in psychological theory: essays in honor of Heinz Werner: 124-134. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.
Klaproth, Julius. 1823. Asia Polyglotta. Paris: A. Schubart.
Klaproth, Julius. 1826. Mémoires relatifs à l’Asie, contenant des recherches historiques, géographiques et philosophiques. 2 vols. Paris: Société Asiatique de Paris.
Li, Lilian Li-ying. 2010. Clitics in Nantou Isbukun Bunun (Austronesian). MA thesis, Nantou, National Chi-nan University.
Li, Paul J. 1973. Rukai Structure. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul J. 1978. A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 49(2): 133-199.
Li, Paul J. 1979. Variation in the Tsou dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 50(2):273-300. Reprinted: in P. Li (ed.) 2004, Vol. 1, 207-228.
Li, Paul J. 1980. The phonological rules of Atayal dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 51(2):349-450. Reprinted: in P. Li (ed.) 2004, Vol. 1, 229-282.
Li, Paul J. 1981. Reconstruction of Proto-Atayalic phonology. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 52(2):235-301. Reprinted: in P. Li (ed.) 2004, Vol. 1, 625-692.
Li, Paul J. 1985. The position of Atayal in the Austronesian family. Austronesian Linguistics at the 15th Pacific Science Congress, 257-280. Pacific Linguistics, C-88. Reprinted: in P. Li (ed.) 2004, Vol. 2, 805-833.
Li, Paul J. 1992. Orthographic Systems for Formosan Languages. Taipei: Ministry of Education, Republic of China. [In Chinese]
Li, Paul J. 1998. Formosan languages. In Introduction to Taiwan Aboriginal Culture, 1-42. Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation. Reprinted: in P. Li (ed.) 2004, Vol. 1, 1-48. [In Chinese]
Li, Paul J. (ed.) 2004. Selected Papers on Formosan Languages, Vol. 1 and 2. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series Number C3. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Lin, Shu-Yi. 2009. Isbukun Bunun field notes. Unpublished Ms.
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential, and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3:390-396.
Mabuchi, Toishi. 1954. Migration and distribution of the Formosan aborigines. Minzogaku Kenkyu 18(I-2):123-154, 18(4):23-72. [In Japanese]
Mei, Kuang. 1982. Pronouns and verb inflection in Kanakanavu. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 14:207-232.
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12. Reprinted in Meillet 1948:130-148.
Meillet, Antoine. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Paris: Champion. (English translation 1967: The comparative method in historical linguistics. Paris: Champion.)
Meillet, Antoine. 1948. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale. Paris: Edouard Champion.
Miestamo, Matti. 2003. Clausal Negation: A Typological Study. Ph.D. dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Ogawa, Naoyoshi and Erin Asai. 1935. The Myths and Traditions of the Formosan Native Tribes. Taipei: Taihoku Imperial University. [In Japanese]
Pawley, Andrew and Malcolm Ross. 1993. Austronesian linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology 22:425-459.
Relandus, Hadrianus. 1706-8. Dissertationum Miscellanearum. Rhenum: Gulielmi Brodelet.
Ross, Malcolm. 1992. The sound of Proto-Austronesian: an outsider’s view of the Formosan evidence. Oceanic Linguistics 31(1):23-64.
Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, 17-62. Pacific Linguistics 518. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Ross, Malcolm. 2006. Reconstructing the case-marking and personal pronoun systems of Proto-Austronesian. In Henry Yungli Chang, Lillian M. Huang & Dah-an Ho (eds.) Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei Li on His 70th Birthday, 521-564. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: a reappraisal. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Andrew K. Pawley (eds.), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, 295-326. Pacific Linguistics 601. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Sagart, Laurent. 2004. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai-Kadai. Oceanic Linguistics 43(2):411-444.
Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1899. Die sprachlichen Verhaltnisse Ozeaniens (Melanesiens, Polynesiens, Mikronesiens und Indonesiens) in ihrer Bedeutung fur Ethologie. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 29:245-258.
Shen, Wen-chi. 2008. Sakizaya Syntax: With Special Reference to Negative, Interrogative, and Causative Constructions. MA thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Starosta, Stanley. 1986. Focus as recentralization. Reprinted in E. Zeitoun (ed.) 2009, Vol. 2:523-551.
Starosta, Stanley. 1988. A grammatical typology of Formosan languages. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 59(2):541-576. Reprinted in E. Zeitoun (ed.) 2009, Vol. 2:267-295.
Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages. Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, ed. by Paul J. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho & Chiu-yu Tseng, 683-726. Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, No. 3 Taipei: Academia Sinica. Reprinted in E. Zeitoun (ed.) 2009, Vol. 2:737-769.
Starosta, Stanley. 2002. The rise and fall and rise and fall of Proto Malayo-Polynesian. In Bauer, Robert S. (ed.) Collected Papers on Southeast Asian and Pacific Languages, 183-203. Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University.
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley & Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. Papers for the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travellers, ed. by Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & Stephen Wurm, 145-170. Pacific Linguistics C-75. Canberra: The Australian National University. Reprinted in E. Zeitoun (ed.) 2009, Vol. 2:297-327.
Su, Mei-chuan. 2004. A Study of Negators in Taoshan Atayal. MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Hsinchu Teacher’s College. [In Chinese]
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 2002. On negative constructions in Paiwan. Language and Linguistics 3(4):745-810.
Tang, Yao-Ming. 2009. A study of negation in Budai Rukai. MA thesis. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University. [In Chinese]
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Puyuma, an Austronesian Language of Taiwan. Pacific Linguistics 595. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Trask, Robert Lawrence. 2000. The dictionary of historical and comparative linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1964. Preliminary report on Saisiyat: phonology. Gengo Kenkyu 46:42-52.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1972. The origins of the Tsou phonemes /b/ and /d/. Gengo Kenkyu 62:24-35.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1976. Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic Phonology. Tokyo: Study of Languages & Cultures of Asia & Africa, Monograph Series No. 5.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1988. Amis. In Takashi Kamei, Rokuro Kono, and Eiichi Chino (eds.), The Sanseido Encyclopedia of Linguistics Vol. 1: Languages of the World, Part One, 447-449. Tokyo: Sanseido Press. [In Japanese]
Tsukida, Naomi. 2005. Seediq. In Adelaar, K. Alexander and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, 291-325. London and New York: Routledge.
Tsukida, Naomi. 2009. A Grammar of Truku (Seediq). Ph.D. dissertation. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo. [In Japanese]
Tung, T’ung-ho, Sung-hsing Wang, Tung-kuei Kuan, Tsai-fa Cheng, and Margaret Yan. 1964. A Descriptive Study of the Tsou Language, Formosa. Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Special Publications No. 48. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Vulcanius (de Smet), Bonaventura. 1597. De literis et Lingua getarum sive Gothorum. Leiden: Vulcanius.
Wang, Shan-Shan. 2004. An Ergative View of Thao Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Wang, William S.-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45: 9-25.
Wu, Joy J. 2006. Verb Classification, Case Marking, and Grammatical Relations in Amis. Ph.D. dissertation. Buffalo: University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.
Wu, Joy J. 2007. “Voice” markers in Amis: a Role and Reference Grammar analysis. Language and Linguistics 8(1):95-142.
Yeh, Marie M. 1991. Saisiyat Structure. MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Yeh, Marie M. 2000a. A Reference Grammar of Saisiyat. Formosan Series 2. Taipei: Yuanliou. [In Chinese]
Yeh, Marie M. 2000b. The syntax and semantics of the Saisiyat negators. In Videa De Guzman and Byron Bender (eds.), Grammatical Analysis: Morphology, Syntax and Semantics, 258-273. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 29. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Yeh, Marie M. 2003. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Saisiyat Verbs. Ph.D. dissertation. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Yeh, Marie M., Lillian M. Huang, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Anna H. Chang, and Joy Wu. 1998. A preliminary study on negative constructions in some Formosan languages. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, 79-110. Taipei: Crane.
Yeh, Yu-Ting. 2005. Negation in Kavalan: A Syntactic Study. M.A. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000a. A Reference Grammar of Bunun. Formosan Series 5. Taipei: Yuanliou. [In Chinese]
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000b. A Reference Grammar of Rukai. Formosan Series 8. Taipei: Yuanliou. [In Chinese]
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000c. A Reference Grammar of Tsou. Formosan Series 7. Taipei: Yuanliou. [In Chinese]
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000d. Notes on a possessive construction in the Formosan languages. In Videa De Guzman and Byron Bender (eds.), Grammatical Analysis: Morphology, Syntax and Semantics, 241-257. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 29. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2001. Negation in Saisiyat: another perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 40(1):126-134.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2005. Tsou. In K. Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, 259-290. London and New York: Routledge.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2007. A Grammar of Mantauran (Rukai). Language and Linguistics Monograph Series Number A4-2. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth (ed.). 2009. Formosan Linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s Contributions, Vol. 1 and 2. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series Number C6-2. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2011. The verb ‘say’ in Mantauran Rukai: analogy and syntactic change. Paper read at the Workshop on Stance Marking Across Languages: Typological, Diachronic & Discourse Perspectives. Hong Kong, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, July 18-20, 2011.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, Marie M. Yeh, and Anna H. Chang. 1999. Existential, possessive and locative constructions in the Formosan languages, Oceanic Linguistics 38(1):1-42.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Tai-hwa Chu, and Lalo a Tahesh Kaybaybaw. 2011. ki as a marker of coordination and comitativity in Saisiyat. Language and Linguistics 12(1):77-107.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Tai-hwa Chu, and Lalo a Tahesh Kaybaybaw. In preparation. A Study of Saisiyat Morphology. Ms.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文