Some Basics of Selayarese Pronominal Clitics
This study makes an effort to explain basic pronominal cliticization in the Austronesian
language Selayarese in terms of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2001, 1995). Prior
work on the language omits the basics of pronominal cliticization, jumping to more
complex phenomena (Finer 2002). My aim in this work is to answer the question why
certain bound pronominal forms pattern as clitics on the verb. Singular forms are given
in (1). Three dimensions of the verb phrase are relevant to all syntactic structures in
Selayarese. These are, clitic doubling, resemblance to the ‘Philippine-type focus system’
(Wouk and Ross 2002), and ergativity (noted by Mithun and Basri 1985).
Verbs canonically require pronominal clitics to mark their overt arguments, as in
examples (2–5). However, personal pronouns do not show doubling (3). This means that
a pronominal clitic doubles a non-pronominal overt argument, located elsewhere in the
structure, by way of being fixed onto the verb. Notable approaches to clitic constructions,
base-generation versus movement to surface position are reconciled by adopting
Sportiche’s (1996) conclusion that pronominal clitic constructions are derived from
movement of a clitic associate to a base-generated clitic category. Based on a number of
related ordering constraints, it appears that these categories sandwich the verb.
Although the presence of the ‘Philippine-type focus system’ of Wouk and Ross is faint in
Selayarese, it is apparently responsible for a good deal of derivation in the syntax. In
Philippine-type focus systems, a morpheme in the verb co-references one of the entities it
licenses, to the effect that that entity, whether argument or non-argument, accrues some
kind of elevation above other arguments. Terzi (1999) discusses contrastive information
structure versus new information structure. This opposition could provide a way to
determine which entities are drawn into co-reference with Selayarese verb morphology.
Particularly, while the ergative clitics are arguably proclitic and the absolutive clitics
enclitic, any one of a variety of intransitive ‘focus’ morphemes precedes the verb root.
By nature, these are in complementary distribution with the ergative proclitic, e.g., (5);
however, some interesting combinatorial variation involving the ‘focus system’ does
occur. It provides a strategy to increase transitivity, resulting in structures such as
causatives and ditransitives.
Mahajan (2005a, b) provides an insightful way to render ergativity, by assigning case to
the specifier of vP, without the problematic ergativity parameter. It is striking that
Selayarese allows ergative marked agents if the object of the verb is definite (4) but not in
other cases (5). This is evidence that information structure is responsible for definiteness.
Moreover, it is the definiteness feature of the determiner which dictates the distribution of
pronominal clitics and their associated noun phrases. It does this by effecting which
entities enter specifier position of vP.
My presentation argues that bound pronouns reside in verb adjacent clitic categories.
They arrive there because of verb ‘focus’ morphology and definiteness, which is
determined by information structure. On another level, bound pronouns occur
phonologically as clitic because of their location in a clitic functional category.
(1)
Selayarese Bound Pronouns and Verbalizers
Ergative
Absolutive
Verbalisers
1
ku-a
a’Intransitive, [-def] object
2familiar
mu-ko
naintransitive
2honorific
ri-ki
taPatient (unergative)
3
la-i
ang- Intransitive/transitive
paCausativizer
(2)
Noai ’i Baso.
noa-i
’i
Baso
greedy-3Abs Prsn.Mrkr
Baso
‘Baso is greedy.’
(3)
Po:rea.
po:re-a
skillfull-1Abs
‘I am skillfull.’
(4)
Lataroi doe’ injo ri lamari injo ’i Baso.
la-taro-i
doe’ injo ri
lamari
injo ’i
Baso
3Erg-put-3Abs money the in
cupboard the Prsn.Mrkr Baso
‘Baso put the money in the cupboard.’
(5)
’Amu:noa ’a:su.
’a-mu:no-a
’a:su
Intr-kill-1Abs dog
‘I killed a dog.’
REFERENCES
CHOMSKY, NOAM.
2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale. A
life in language, pp: 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
——. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
FINER, DANIEL. 2002. Phases and Movement in Selayarese. In Andrea Rackowski and
Norvin Richards (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44, Proceedings of AFLA 8,
157–69.
MAHAJAN, ANOOP. 2005a. Ergatives, Passives and other Oblique Subject Constructions.
Seminar handout. University of Hawaii: Honolulu.
——. 2005b. The Syntactic Basis of Ergativity. Seminar handout. University of Hawaii:
Honolulu.
MITHUN, MARIANNE AND HASAN BASRI. 1986. The Phonology of Selayarese. Oceanic
Linguistics 25:1–2. pp: 210–54.
SPORTICHE, DOMINIQUE. 1996. Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.),
Phrase structure and the lexicon, pp: 213–277. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
TERZI, ARHONTO. 1999. Clitic combinations, their hosts and their ordering. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 85–121.
WOUK, FAY AND MALCOLM ROSS. 2002. The history and typology of western
Austronesian voice systems. Pacific Linguistics 518: 17–62. Canberra: Research School
of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.