Questions and answers in Niuean

Massam, Diane; Starks, Donna; Ikiua, Ofania

doi:10.1515/9783110259919.65

Cited by 10 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of the parallelism between VOS word order and the derivation of clefts, Massam (2000Massam ( , 2001Massam ( , 2003 and Oda (2002) propose that the parameter distinguishing SVO languages from verb-initial ones is the feature responsible for the EPP requirement on Infl. In SVO languages, this is a [D] feature, while it is the predicate which Infl attracts in verb-initial languages.…”

Section: Malagasy (2) a [ Ip [ I' M-an-sasa Ny Lamba Amin'ny Savony]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indonesian (Kroeger 2009:820;Mashudi 1981:50) (9) Massam (2003) shows that the yes/no question particle follows the fronted VP in a verbal clause, while it follows the focused constituent in a cleft.…”

Section: Austronesian: Focus As Predicatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Niuean (Massam 2003) (12) Palauan verbal predicates show agreement with their subjects in the form of pre-verbal clitics (Georgopoulos 1991). (14a) and (14b) show the contrast in between 1 st and 3 rd person singular clitic agreement forms.…”

Section: Austronesian: Focus As Predicatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This conclusion encounters an obstacle in Massam's (2000Massam's ( , 2001Massam's ( , 2003 analysis of Niuean, since this analysis claims that both VOS word order and clefts are derived through movement to [Spec, IP], which is presumably A-movement. There is evidence, however, that predicate-fronting in Niuean also accesses the left periphery.…”

Section: Analysis Of Tagalog Cleftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cleft constructions have been addressed rather frequently in the literature, particularly because of the fact that wh-questions are formed on clefts in a great number of Austronesian languages (Georgopoulos 1991;Paul 2001;Pearson 2001;Massam 2003;Aldridge 2002Aldridge , 2004Potsdam 2006Potsdam , 2007Potsdam , 2009 among others). In the following Tagalog examples, (1a) shows basic VSO order in a declarative clause.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Chapter 1. Investigating information structure in lesser-known and endangered languages

Adamou

Haude

Vanhove

2018

Studies in Language Companion Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an analysis of Austronesian cleft structure which is parallel to basic word order derivation in VOS Austronesian languages. In basic VOS word order, the subject or absolutive DP moves to a low topic position in the left periphery, and the remnant TP moves to a higher focus position. In a cleft, it is the presupposed relative clause which functions as the absolutive and moves to the topic position, while the focused constituent is pied-piped within the remnant TP to the focus position. Accordingly, this analysis is in agreement with the tradition in Austronesian syntax of analyzing the clause-initial focused constituent as either forming the matrix predicate or being contained within that predicate. This paper further agrees with the mainstream approach in proposing that this derivation is parallel to the derivation of VOS basic word order. The traditional analysis of Austronesian clefts marks a departure, however, from cross-linguistic approaches to cleft structures in which the focused constituent is analyzed as the matrix subject. This discrepancy is accounted for in the present paper by showing that the movements involved in the derivation target the CP layer, specifically the focus and topic positions in the left periphery where the moving constituents receive their respective interpretations. Consequently, neither the focus nor the headless relative clause resides in a subject A-position. Rather, both are located in A'-positions. IntroductionThis paper proposes an analysis of the structure of clefts in Austronesian languages. Cleft constructions have been addressed rather frequently in the literature, particularly because of the fact that wh-questions are formed on clefts in a great number of Austronesian languages (Georgopoulos 1991;Paul 2001;Pearson 2001;Massam 2003;Aldridge 2002Aldridge , 2004Potsdam 2006Potsdam , 2007Potsdam , 2009 among others). In the following Tagalog examples, (1a) shows basic VSO order in a declarative clause. (1b) shows a wh-question in which the direct object is the whphrase. This constituent appears in clause-initial position, but it does not reach this position through movement to [Spec, CP]. Rather, the wh-word acts as the matrix predicate in a cleft construction. The remainder of the clause is packaged as a headless relative clause preceded by the absolutive case-marker. This structure is parallel to the specificational pseudocleft shown in (1c).* I am indebted to Thess Savella and Raph Mercado for invaluable native speaker input on many of the Tagalog sentences. I also thank the participants and organizers of the AFLA 17 meeting for comments on the oral presentation of this paper.

show abstract

Section: Malagasy (2) a [ Ip [ I' M-an-sasa Ny Lamba Amin'ny Savony]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Austronesian: Focus As Predicatementioning

confidence: 99%