| 3 |
Corpus-based approach meets LFG: Puzzling voice alternation in Indonesian
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
Language change in Austronesian languages.Papers from 12-ICAL, Volume 3
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
Clausal complexity and syntactic gradience: evidence from Balinese SVCs ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
Language documentation and cultural practices in the Austronesian world: papers from 12-ICAL. Volume 4.
|
|
|
|
In: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/13514 (2015)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
How to Index a Subject in Tolaki
|
|
|
|
In: Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages (2015)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 12 |
How to Index a Subject in Tolaki
|
|
|
|
In: Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages (2015)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 13 |
The Palu'e passive: from pragmatic construction to grammatical device
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 14 |
The Palu'e passive: from pragmatic construction to grammatical device
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 15 |
Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages : papers from 12-ICAL. Volume 2 ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 16 |
Locative-Related Roles and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Balinese
|
|
|
|
In: Linguistic Discovery, Vol 12, Iss 2 (2014) (2014)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 17 |
Categorial multifunctionality in Indonesian: Linguistic and implementation issues ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 18 |
Passive without passive morphology? Evidence from Manggarai
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Introduction: This paper deals with a passive like construction in Manggarai2 which appears to be typologically unusual because it has no specific verbal passive morphology on the verb. Rather than marking on the verb, the passive in Manggarai is marked on the Agent argument analytically, i.e. by means of the preposition le, which can get shortened as l=.3 This is illustrated by sentences in (1): sentence (1a) is a canonical sentence with the Agent coming before the verb and sentence (1b) is a pragmatically marked structure with the Agent being backgrounded coming after the verb and gets marked by l=.4 (1)a. Aku cero latung=k 1s fry corn-1s ‘I fry/am frying corn’ b. Latung hitu cero l=aku=i corn that fry by-1s=3s ‘The corn is (being) fried by me’ In this paper we argue that sentence (1b) is indeed syntactically passive. That is, (i) the patient latung, which was Object in (1a), is Subject in (1b);5 and (ii) the Agent aku marked by prepositional clitic l= in (1b) is syntactically a non-core argument.6 We will present the evidence shortly to prove the idea that sentence (1b) is an instance of passive despite the fact that the verb has the same form as that in (active) sentence (1a). We argue that the non-typical characteristics of the le passive in Manggarai are independently motivated by Manggarai’s language specific property as an isolating language. The paper is organised as follows. First, basic surface clause structures in Manggarai will be presented in section 2, followed by a brief discussion on clitic sets in section 3. Evidence for passive constructions without passive morphology is given in section 4. A typological note of the analysis is discussed in section 5. Finally, the conclusion is given in section 6.
|
|
Keyword:
enclitic sets; Manggarai; passive; passive morphology; syntactically passive; verb
|
|
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/41059
http://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/41059
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 20 |
Control and argument structure: Explaining control into subject in Indonesian
|
|
|
|
In: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41056/2/Arka__control.pdf (2000)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
