ADVERBIAL VERBS AND ARGUMENT ATTRACTION IN PUYUMA∗
Chao-Lin Li
National Tsing Hua University

1.

Introduction

It is known that adverbial modification is syntactically realized as adverbs in
Indo-European languages, Mandarin Chinese (Ernst 2002, Tang 1990, 2001) and some
Austronesian languages such as Tagalog (Kaufman 2004) and Malagasy (Rockowski 1998).
Under non-specifier approaches, adverbs are treated as adjuncts, sharing somemorphosyntactic properties: (a) typical adverbs are transportable and optional and (b) adverbs
normally neither take complements nor assign any thematic roles on a par with verbs or
adjectives (Jackendoff 1972, Travis 1988). On the other hand, under specifier approaches
adverbs are viewed specifiers of functional categories, agreeing with their functional heads insemantic features (Alexiadou 1997, Cinque 1999).
However, adverbial expressions in Formosan languages exhibit quiet a different pattern.
It has been argued that most of these expressions serve as verbs/heads rather thanadverbs/adjuncts in Amis (Liu 2003), Atayal (Hsiao 2004), Kavalan (Chang 2006), Paiwan(Wu 2005), Seediq (Holmer 2006), Thao (Li 2003), and Tsou (Tsai and Chang 2003, Chang
2004, 2005). The first goal of this paper is to show that most adverbial modifiers in Puyuma,
on a par with those in other Formosan languages, behave as verbs rather than adverbs in termsof their morphosyntactic properties: First, they can host voice affixes, which obligatorily
occur on verbs. Second, they can attract DP arguments (e.g. clitic pronouns). Third, theyusually occupy the initial position of a sentence. Fourth, the voice morphology appearing onthese modifiers, like the same morphology appearing on verbs, determines which DP in theclause is the grammatical subject. Due to these verbal properties, we call these Puyuma
modifiers adverbial verbs.
The second goal of this paper is to show that adverbial verbs in Puyuma are grouped into
two: (functional) restructuring verbs and non-restructuring verbs. We argue that adverbial
restructuring verbs can be divided into at least two types: First, the Type I verbs (e.g. Manner
verbs) obey three restrictions: (a) the lexical verbs following adverbial verbs must be marked
This paper was presented at the Cambridge-Nanazn-Tsing Hua Workshop on “Word Order andFunctional Categories” held at Nanzan University, Dec 2-3, 2006. I would like to thank the audiences,in particular, Tomohiro Fujii, Marc Richards, Ian Roberts, Mamoru Saito, Kensuke Takita, and Barry
Chung-Yu Yang for their helpful suggestions. Thanks are also due to Chen-Hsiu Kwo for her reading
the draft and making some helpful comments. I gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with
Tzong-Hong Lin and Barry Chung-Yu Yang on several points in this paper. Finally, I will thank myinformants Yu-jiao Cheng and Cing-mei Lin for sharing their knowledge with me.
∗

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 165-201© 2007 Chao-Lin Li

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

with actor voice (the AV RESTRICTION), (b) the DP arguments (i.e. clitic pronouns) which are
c- and s-selected by lexical verbs must be attracted onto adverbial verbs (the ARGUMENTATTRACTION RESTRICTION), and (c) the DP arguments can occur only once (the ARGUMENT
OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION). Second, the Type II adverbial restructuring verbs (e.g. Frequency
verbs) can violate the first two restrictions but must observe the last restriction. We will showthat unlike restructuring verbs, non-restructuring verbs (Type III), e.g. Mood verbs, totally
violate all the restrictions.
In this paper, we argue that the finiteness analysis can be applied to adverbial
restructuring constructions in Puyuma. We argue that since the embedded nonfinite T cannot
check any case feature, the embedded subject DPs have to be raised to check their nominativecase. This explains why adverbial verb constructions must observe the ARGUMENTATTRACTION RESTRICTION and the ARGUMENT OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION. We further argue
that the NAV clauses form a strong phase and become impenetrable to further syntactic
operation. In this way, the nominative case cannot get checked and the syntactic derivationcrashed. Therefore, lexical verbs have to be inflected for Actor Voice (the AV RESTRICTION).
Moreover, we argue that one subtype of Type II adverbial verbs and the Type III adverbial
verbs do not take any reduced clausal complement. They differ from restructuring verbs inthat (i) the subject argument of this pattern cannot undergo A’-movement, and (ii) the Type II
verbs can even take a complex sentence. Thus, we argue that the embedded clause underconsideration must be a CP complement and the nominative case of the subject can get
checked without any further raising operation
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces a brief sketch of Puyuma
grammar. In section 3, we examine adverbial modifiers in this language. We will show that(a) most adverbial modifiers serve as verbs, (b) aspectual markers and sentence final particles
function as adverbs, and (c) temporal expressions are DPs. In section 4, we will examine
different types of adverbial verbs and offer a restructuring explanation for the AV RESTRICTION
and the ARGUMENT ATTRACT RESTRICTION. We will also compare our analysis with a similar
analysis for Kavalan adverbial verbs (Chang 2007a, b). Section 5 is the conclusion.
2.

Basic Sketch of Puyuma Grammar

2.1 Voice System
There are usually four voices in Puyuma: actor voice (AV), patient voice (PV), locative
voice (LV), and instrument/beneficiary voice (IV/BV). The thematic role of the grammaticalsubject is usually inflected on the predicate in the form of voice morphology.1 For example:

1

Abbreviations used in this paper include: 1, 2, 3 first, second, third person; AV actor voice; BV
beneficiary voice, CAUS causative; COMP complementizer; FREQ frequency marker; FUT future; GEN
genitive; IV instrumental voice; LOC locative; LV locative voice, NEG negator; NEU neutral; NMLZ
nominalizer; NOM nominative; OBL oblique; PL plural; PROJ projective; PST past; PV patient voice; RED-166-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)(3) a.

m-ekan dra kuraw
AV-eatOBL fishipilay.
NOM Pilay‘Pilay eats fish.’b.

tu=ekan-aw
3SG.GEN=eat-PV

kan pilay
GEN Pilaynakuraw.
NOM fish‘Pialy ate the fish.’c.

tu=selap-ay
kan pilay
3SG.GEN=clean-LV GEN Pilay(na) nu=kiaedrengan.
NOM 2SG.GEN=room‘Pilay cleaned your room.’d.

tu=selap-anay
kan pilay
3SG.GEN=clean-BV GEN Pilayisigimulri.
NOM Sigimulri‘Pilay cleaned (the room) for Sigimulri.’
In (3a) the Actor argument Pilay agrees with the actor voice head m- ‘AV’, and serves as thegrammatical subject, which is marked with the nominative case. As (3b) shows, the Patientargument fish agrees with the patient voice head -aw ‘PV’ and in turn functions as the subject.
In (3c) the Location argument room agrees with the locative voice head -ay ‘LV’ and in turnfunctions as the grammatical subject. Finally, in (3d) the Beneficiary argument Sigimulri
agrees with the beneficiary voice head -anay ‘BV’ and thus serves as the subject.
2.2 Word Order
Puyuma is basically a VOS language, as illustrated in (4a). As we can see in (4a), theverb mekan ‘eat’ occurs in the sentence-initial position. The object argument irupan ‘meal’
follows the verb and is in turn followed by the subject argument Pilay. Moreover, in a
non-actor-voice construction like (4b), the genitive Actor argument Pilay usually precedes thegrammatical subject irupan ‘meal’. Another possible word order is SVO, which is derived by
topicalization of the subject to the pre-verbal position, as shown in (4c).
(4) a.

m-ekan lra
AV-eatalready

dra irupan
OBL mealikan pilay
GEN PilaynaNOMpilay.
Pilay

[VOS]

‘Pilay had a meal.’b.

tu=ekan-aw
3SG.GEN=eat-PV

NOM

irupan.
meal‘Pilay had the meal.’
reduplication; SG singular; STAT stative; TOP topic; - indicates a prefix or suffix; <> indicates an infix;= indicates a clitic.

-167-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1c.

ipilayiNOM Pilayi,m-ekan lra
TOP AV-eat
already

dra irupan
OBL meal

ti.

[SVO]

‘Pilay, (she) had a meal.’
2.3 Two Sets of Pronouns
Puyuma has two sets of pronouns. The first set involves free pronouns, which occur inthe same position in the clause as full DP’s, as shown in (5a-b). In (5a) the free nominative
pronoun taitaw ‘he’ occurs in the sentence-final position. Similarly, the full DP Sigimulri in(5b) also occurs in the final position of a sentence. The second set is clitic pronouns, which
are cliticized to the first verbal head in the clause, as illustrated in (5c). In (5c) the two clitic
pronouns tu= and ku= can appear on the PV verb pukupukaw ‘hit’.
(5) a.

p<en>ukpuk kanku
taitaw.
hit<AV>
1SG.OBL 3SG.NOM‘He hit me.’b.

p<en>ukpuk kan pilay
hit<AV>OBL Pilayi

Sigimulri.
NOM Sigimulri‘Sigimulri hit Pilay.’c.

tu=pukpuk-aw=ku.
3SG.GEN-hit-PV=1SG.NOM‘He hit me.’3.

Adverbial Modifiers in Puyuma

In this section, we distinguish adverbial modifiers into five types mainly based on
Cinque’s (1999) framework: (a) Mood modifiers, (b) Modal modifiers, (c) Aspect modifiers,(d) Voice modifiers, and (e) Tense modifiers. We would examine the correspondents of eachtype and show their grammatical patterns.
3.1 Adverbial Verbs
We argue that most adverbial modifiers in Puyuma syntactically serve as verbs rather
than adverbs based on four pieces of evidence. First, just as verbal heads, the adverbial
modifiers in Puyuma are inflected for voice affixes. For example:(6) a.

m-ekan dra kuraw
AV-eatOBL fishi
NOM

pilay.
Pilay‘Pilay eats fish.’-168-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)b.

tu=selap-ay
kan pilay
3SG.GEN=clean-LV GEN Pilay(na)nu=kiaedrengan.
2SG.GEN=room

NOM‘Pilay cleaned your room.’
In (6a) the Actor argument Pilay triggers the Actor Voice m- on the predicate and therefore
serves as the subject. As (6b) shows, the Location argument kiaedrengan ‘room’ triggers the
Locative Voice -ay and in turn functions as the grammatical subject. The same is true ofManner modifiers. In (7a), the Manner modifier patawar ‘slowly’ can be analyzed as bearing
the null actor voice suffix Ø. Again, the Manner modifier patawaray ‘slowly’ in (7b) is
inflected for the locative voice suffix -ay ‘LV’.
Manner(7) a. patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

m-aip
dra trilin.
AV-read OBL book

‘I read books slowly.’b.

ku=patawar-ay
1SG.GEN=slowly-LV

m-aip
na trilin.
AV-read NOM book

‘I read the book slowly.’
The same observation applies to Aspect and Root Modal modifiers in this language. As
we can see, the Aspect modifier meaning ‘often’ bears the actor voice prefix m- ‘AV’, as in(8a), and patient voice suffix -aw ‘PV’, as in (8b). Similarly, the Root Modal modifiers
palreteng ‘intentionally’ and palretengay ‘intentionally’ are each inflected for voice: the nullactor voice suffix -Ø ‘AV’ and the locative voice suffix -ay ‘LV’, as in (9a-b).
Aspect(8) a.

m-(k)arayas=ku
s<em>elap
AV-often=1SG.NOM clean<AV>kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I often clean your room.’b.

ku=karayas-aw
s<em>elap
1SG.GEN=often-PV clean<AV>

nu=kiaedrengan.
2SG.GEN=room‘I often clean your room.’Modal(9) a.

palreteng-Ø=ku
intentionally-AV=1SG.NOM

m-uka
AV-go

s<em>elap-aclean<AV>-PROJ‘I intentionally go cleaning your room.’-169-

kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1b.

ku=palreteng-ay
1SG.GEN=intentionally-LV

m-uka
AV-go

s<em>elap-aclean<AV>-PROJ

nu=kiaedrengan.
2SG.GEN=room‘I intentionally go cleaning your room.’
The Mood and Negation modifiers also exhibit the same pattern. It is possible to analyzeboth the Evidential modifier kilrengaw ‘allegedly’ in (10a) and the Speech Act modifier
pana’an ‘really’ in (10b) as involving affixation of the null actor voice affix. Similarly, thenegation modifier adri ‘not’ in (11a) can be treated in the same way. This null affixation
analysis is strongly supported by the fact that when the same modifier occurs with a patientargument as in (11b), it exhibits the patient voice morphology, -aw ‘PV’.
Mood(10) a.

kilrengaw-Ø=ta
dra ngayhear-AV=1PL.NOM OBL word(i), papelilra-Ø ipilay.
TOP pregnant-AV NOM Pilay‘Allegedly, Pilay became pregnant.’b.

pana’an-Ø
really-AVi,ku=trakaw-aw
tu=paysu
TOP 1SG.GEN=steal-PV 3SG.GEN=money

kan nana-li.
GEN mother-1SG.GEN‘Really/Frankly speaking, I stole my mother’s money.’
Negation(11) a. adri-Ø=ku
tr<em>ekel
NEG- AV=1SG.NOM drink<AV>

dra eraw.
OBL wine‘I do not drink wine.’
b.

an
if

k<em>adru
that<AV>i,ku=adri-yaw
TOP 1SG.GEN=NEG-PV

tr<em>ekel
drink<AV>

na

eraw.
NOM wine‘In that case, I then will not drink wine.’
Second, just as common lexical verbs, the adverbial modifiers can take DP arguments,
specifically clitic pronouns. As we can see in (12a), the lexical verb kulritray ‘peel’ can takethe first singular genitive clitic pronoun ku= as its argument. Similarly, the Manner modifier
patawaray ‘slowly’ in (12b) can also take the same clitic pronoun as its argument. It is clearthat the Manner modifier behaves like a common lexical verb syntactically.
(12) a.

ku=kulritr-ay
m-ekan na
1SG.GEN=peel-LV AV-eat NOM

asiru.
tangerine‘I peeled the tangerine to eat. ’-170-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)b.

ku=patawar-ay
m-ekan na
1SG.GEN=slowly-LV
AV-eatasiru.
NOM
tangerine‘I ate the tangerine slowly.’
The same pattern can be also found in the Aspect and Modal modifiers. The nominative clitic
pronoun =ku attaches to the Aspect modifier masalr ‘again’ in (13a), the Root Modal modifiermaruwa ‘can’ in (14a), and the Root Modal modifier saygu ‘be able’ in (14b). Again, thegenitive clitic pronoun ku= attaches to the Aspect modifier asalray ‘again’, as shown in(13b).
Aspect(13) a.

m-asalr=ku
s<em>elap
AF-again=1SG.NOM clean<AF>kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I cleaned your room again.’b.

ku=asalr-ays<em>elap
1SG.GEN=again-LF clean<AF>

nu-ki-a-edreng-an.
2SG.GEN=room‘I cleaned your room again.’Modal(14) Teng (1997: 29)
a. ma-ruwa=ku
m-ekan dra patraka.
AV-can=1SG.NOM AV-eat
OBL meat‘I can eat meat.’ or ‘I am allowed to eat meat.’b.

saygu=kut<em>arasu.
be.capable.of=1SG.NOM swim<AV>‘I am capable of swimming.’

The same observation even applies to the Mood and Negation modifiers in Puyuma.
Consider (15-16) for example. As shown in (15a) the Mood modifier kilrengaw dra ngay
‘allegedly’ can take the first plural nominative clitic pronoun =ta. In (15b) the Mood modifier
pana’an ‘really; frankly’ takes the first singular nominative clitic pronoun =ku. In the sameway, the Negation modifier adri ‘not’ takes the first singular nominative clitic pronoun =ku,
as shown in (16a). As shown in (16b) the Negation modifier adriaw ‘not’ takes the first
singular genitive clitic pronoun ki= and the second singular nominative clitic pronoun =yu.
Mood(15) a.

kilrengaw-Ø=ta
dra ngayhear-AV=1PL.NOM OBL word(i), tu=pi<a>natray=yu.
TOP 3SG.GEN=<want>kill.PV =2SG.NOM‘Allegedly he wants to kill you.’-171-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1b.

pana’an-Ø=kusagar-Ø=ku
kanu.
really-AV=1SG.GEN like-AV=1SG.NOM 2SG.OBL‘I really like you!’

Negation(16) a. adri-Ø=ku
m-ekan dra bunga.
NEG- AV=1SG.NOM AV-eat
OBL sweet.potato‘I do not eat any sweet potato.’b.

an k<em>adru
if that<AV>bunga.
sweet.potatoi,ki=adri-yaw=yu
lra
TOP 1SG.GEN=NEG-PV=2SG.NOM alreadyberay-Ø dragive-AV OBL‘In that case, I then will not give you any sweet potato.’
Third, adverbial modifiers in Puyuma usually occur in the sentence initial position andare not transportable. Consider the examples in (17). As we can see in (17a), when the
Manner modifier patawar ‘slowly’ precedes the lexical verb mekan ‘eat’, the sentence isgrammatical. If we switch the word order, the ungrammaticality arises, as illustrated in (17b).
(17) a.

patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

m-ekan dra kuraw.
AV-eatOBL fish‘I eat fish slowly.’b. * m-ekan=ku
AV-eat=1SG.NOM

patawarl-Ø
slowly-AV

dra kuraw.
OBL fish‘I eat fish slowly.’
The rule in question holds in Aspect, Modal, and Mood modifiers in Puyuma. In (18a) the
Aspect modifier pa’eres ‘always’ occurs before another verb pakamulay ‘make well’. If wepermute the word order, the sentence becomes ungrammatical, as shown in (18b). Similarly,
the Root Modal modifier wawai ‘be willing to’ precedes the lexical verb semelap ‘clean’, asillustrated in (19a). In contrast, when the word order is switched, the ungrammaticality
obtains, as shown in (19b).
Aspect(18) a.

pa’eres-Ø=ku
always-AV=1SG.NOM
kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room

dar
FREQ

pa-ka-mulay
CAUS-STAT-beautiful‘I always clean your room well.’-172-

pare<ape>apetr
clean<RED>

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

b. * pa-ka-mulay-ay=ku
pa’eres-Ø
dar
CAUS-STAT-beautiful=1SG.NOM
always-AV
kan nu-kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=roompare<ape>apetr
FREQ
clean<RED>‘I always clean your room well.’Modal(19) a.

wa-wai=ku
s<em>elap
RED-be.willing.to=1SG.NOM clean<AV>kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I am willing to clean your room.’b. * s<em>elap=ku
clean<AV>=1SG.NOM

wa-waikan nu=kiaedrengan.
RED-be.willing.to OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I am willing to clean your room.’
Finally, the voice inflection on adverbial modifiers affects the selection of grammaticalsubject; namely, which DP qualifies as the grammatical subject of the clause. For example,
the Manner modifier paseketay ‘carefully’ in (20a) is inflected by locative voice suffix -ay‘LV’, and thus the partially affected Theme argument kakasyuwan ‘baggage’ serves as thegrammatical subject. In contrast, as we can see in (20b), the Manner modifier paseket‘slowly’ is marked with the null actor voice suffix -Ø ‘AV’, and thus the Actor argument =ku‘I’ functions as the grammatical subject.
Manner(20) a. ku=paseket-ay
1SG.GEN=carefully-LV

lraalreadyp<en>adrang ku=kakasyuwan.
prepare<AV> 1SG.GEN=baggage‘I prepared my baggage carefully.’b.

paseket-Ø=kulracarefully=1SG.NOM alreadyp<en>adrang kan ku=kakasyuwan.
prepare<AV> OBL 1SG.GEN=baggage‘I prepared my baggage carefully.’
Similarly, the voices of the Aspect and Root Modal modifiers also determine the choiceof grammatical subject. For example, as shown in (21) the Aspect modifier meaning ‘briefly’bears different voice morphology depending on which DP the modifier is predicated of: AV-Ø in (21a) is triggered by the Actor argument =ku while LV -ay in (21b) is by the Locationargument kiaedrengan ‘room’. The examples in (22) show the same point for Modal modifier
meaning ‘intentionally’.

-173-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

Aspect(21) a.

palamu-Ø=ku
briefly-AV=1SG.NOM

s<em>elapclean<AV>kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I cleaned your room for a short while/briefly.’b.

ku=palamu-ay
1SG.GEN=briefly-LV

s<em>elapclean<AV>

nu=kiaedrengan.
2SG.GEN=room‘I cleaned up your room in a short while.’Modal(22) a.

palreteng-Ø=ku
intentional-AV=1SG.NOM

m-uka
AV-go

s<em>elap-aclean<AV>-PROJ

kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I intentionally go cleaning your room.’b.

ku=-palreteng-ay
m-uka
1SG.GEN=intentional-LV AV-gos<em>elap-aclean<AV>-PROJ

nu=kiaedrengan.
2SG.GEN=room‘I intentionally go cleaning your room.’
The same even holds true of the Negation modifier in Puyuma. As shown in (23a) the
Negation modifier adri ‘not’ carries the null actor voice suffix -Ø and therefore the Actor
argument =ku is selected as the grammatical subject. In (23b) the Negation modifier adriyaw‘not’ bears the patient voice suffix -aw ‘PV’, and the Patient argument eraw ‘wine’ in turnserves as the grammatical subject.
Negation(23) a. adri-Ø=ku
tr<em>ekel
NEG- AV=1SG.NOM drink<AV>

dra eraw.
OBL wine‘I do not drink wine.’ (as repeated from example (11a))
b.

an
if

k<em>adru
that<AV>i,ku=adri-yaw
TOP 1SG.GEN=NEG-PV

tr<em>ekel
drink<AV>

na

eraw.
NOM wine‘In that case, I then will not drink wine.’ (as repeated from example (11b))
To summarize, the above syntactic patterns all point out that the adverbial modifiers in
Puyuma behave like verbs rather than adverbs because they (a) are inflected for voice, (b)attract arguments (e.g. clitic pronouns), (c) usually occur in a fixed position, and (d) affect the
selection of grammatical subject. Due to their verbal properties, we will call them adverbial
verbs. Table 1 is a list of adverbial verbs in Puyuma.

-174-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

Class
Mood

SubtypeSpeech Act
Evaluative
Evidential
Volition

Modal

Aspect

Voice
NegationPuyumaGloss
pana’anfrankly; reallyadri kemia’angeager
to our surprisekilrengaw dra ngay
allegedly
palreteng
intentionallywawai
be willing to
Abilitymaruwabe permitted to; cansaygu
be capable toFrequency
marayasoften
pa’eresalwaysmasalragain
Mannerpatawarslowlypaseketcarefully
adri
not
Table 1: Types of adverbial verbs in Puyuma

3.2 Aspectual and Epistemic Particles
Contrary to the above adverbial expressions, some other adverbial modifiers in Puyuma,
i.e. Aspect, Tense and Epistemic particles can be viewed as adverbs. They can neither be
inflected for voice nor attract any clitic pronouns. As shown in (24a) and (25a), the Aspectparticles dria ‘still’ and the Anterior Tense particle lra ‘already’ usually occur immediately
after a verb and do not show any voice morphology. Moreover, they cannot host any clitic
pronouns, as illustrated in (24b) and (25b).
Aspect(24) a.

par-ape-apetr=ku
dria kan
like.to.make-RED-clean=1SG.NOM still OBL

nu=kiaedrengan.
2SG.GEN=room‘I am still cleaning your room.’b. * par-ape-apetr
dria=ku
kan nu=kiaedrengan.
like.to.make-RED-clean still=1SG.NOM OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I am still cleaning your room.’Tense(25) a.

pia-Ø=ku
finish-AV=1SG. NOM

lraalreadys<em>elapclean<AV>‘I already cleaned out your room.’-175-

kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

b. * pia-Ø
lra=kus<em>elap
finish-AV already=1SG.NOM clean<AV>kan nu=kiaedrengan
OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I do not clean your room yet.’
Similarly, although the Epistemic Modal modifiers alra ‘perhaps’ in (26a-b) occurs inthe sentence initial position, it does not exhibit any voice morphology, as shown in (26c).
Moreover, it cannot take any clitic pronoun, as illustrated in (26d).
Modal(26) a.

alra
sa-selap=ku
perhaps RED-clean=1SG.NOM

kan nu-kiaedrengan
OBL 2SG.GEN=room(nay).
Q‘I perhaps will clean your room.’b. * sa-selap=ku
RED-clean=1SG.NOM

alra
kan nu=kiaedrengan.
perhaps OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I perhaps will clean your room.’c.

*m-alra/*alra-ay
sa-selap=ku
kan nu=kiaedrengan.
AV- perhaps/perhaps-LV
RED-clean=1SG.NOM
OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I perhaps will clean your room.’d. * alra=ku
sa-selap
perhaps=1SG.NOM RED-clean

kan nu=kiaedrengan.
OBL 2SG.GEN=room‘I perhaps will clean your room.’
Finally, the aspectual and epistemic particles are listed in Table 2.
Class
Modal
Tense
AspectSubtype
Epistemic
Anterior
Durative

Puyuma
alra
lra
dria
Table 2: Types of adverbs in Puyuma

Glossperhapsalready’still

3.3 Temporal Nouns
In Puyuma the Tense modifiers such as yesterday and tomorrow behave like nouns
because they can serve as the argument of phase verbs, as shown in (27a-b). The temporalnoun adman ‘yesterday’ in (27a) and garem ‘now’ in (17b) can occur immediately after thephase verb kemerami ‘start’ and palu ‘arrive’. Second, like temporal nouns in English,
temporal nouns in Puyuma distribute freely. They can occur in the sentence initial or sentence
final position, as shown in (28a-b).

-176-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

Tense(27) a.

k<em>erami a-daman palu-Ø garem,
start<AV>
PST-day arrive-AV now

alupu=ku.
sleep=1SG.NOM‘From yesterday till now, I am sleeping.’b.

k<em>erami a-garem-ay
start<AV>
PST-now-AY

palu-Ø garem,
arrive-AV now

ku=ekan-aw
1SG.GEN=eat-PVna

irupan.
NOM meal‘From just till now, I ate up the dish.’Tense(28) a.

a-garem-ay
PST-now-AYiku=selap-ay
nu=kiaedrengan.
TOP 1SG.GEN=clean-LV 2SG.GEN=room‘I cleaned your room just now.’b.

ku=selap-ay
nu=kiaedrengan
1SG.GEN=clean-LV 2SG.GEN=room

a-garem-ay.
PST-now-AY‘I cleaned your room just now.’
It is worth noting that tense or aspect morphemes are found inside these temporal nouns,
as illustrated in (29). In (29a) the temporal noun asuwadria ‘once upon a time’ contains thedurative particle dria ‘still’; as shown in (29b) the temporal noun andaman ‘tomorrow’ iscomposed of a future morpheme an-.
Tense(29) a.

m-ekan=ku
AV-eat=1SG.NOM

lra
already

dra dawa
OBL wheataasuwa-dria.
PST when-still‘Once upon a time/Once I ate wheat.’b.

a-uka=kus<em>elap-a
RED-go=1SG.NOM clean<AV>-PROJ(k)an-daman.
FUT-day‘I will clean your room tomorrow.’
Tense/aspect/mood (TAM) as an inflectional category is traditionally employed to distinguishverbs from nouns. However, the existence of TAM for temporal nominals in Puyuma may
challenge the view that nouns, unlike verbs, are inherently time-stable, and therefore not open
to temporal modification (Givón 1979). TAM-inflected nominals also have interesting
implications for semantic theories that consider nouns to be semantic predicates that havetheir own temporal interpretation (Enç 1986, Musan 1995). The following Table 3 is a list of
temporal nouns in Puyuma.

-177-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

Class
Tense

Subtype
Past

Present
Future4.

PuyumaGlossadamanyesterday
ansuwadria
once
agaremayjust nowgarem
now
andamantomorrow
Table 3: Types of temporal nouns in Puyuma

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction

4.1 Three Types of Adverbial Verbs
We argue that adverbial verbs in Puyuma can be divided into three types, according tothree criteria: (a) the AV RESTRICTION, (b) the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION, and (c)the ARGUMENT OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION. Let us begin with considering Type I adverbial
verbs. The lexical verb following a Type I adverbial verbs must bear the AV morphology. In(30a-b) the lexical verb penukpuk ‘hit’ is obligatorily attached by AV; on the other hand, when
the lexical verb following it is marked with PV, the ungrammaticality arises, as shown in(30c-d).
Type I(30) a.

patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk kanu.
hit<AV>
2SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’b.

ku=patawar-ay=yu
1SG.GEN=slowly-PV=2SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk.
hit<AV>‘I hit you slowly.’c. * patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

pukpuk-aw
hit-PVkanu.
2SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’d. * ku=patawar-ay=yu
1SG.GEN=slowly-PV=2SG.NOM

pukpuk-aw.
hit-PV‘I hit you slowly.’
Second, clitic pronouns must be attracted onto adverbial verbs (The ARGUMENTATTRACTION RESTRICTION). The clitic pronouns =ku in (31a) and =yu in (31b) attach to theadverbial verbs. In contrast, when these clitic pronouns stay with the lexical verbs, thesentences are ungrammatical, as shown in (31c-d). Third, when the clitic pronouns are present,-178-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

they can occur only once (The ARGUMENT OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION). As illustrated in(32a-b), when a clitic pronoun occurs in a sentence, it can be pronounced only once. As
shown in (32c-d), however, they are prohibited from occurring twice.
Type I(31) a.

patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk kanu.
hit<AV>
2SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’b.

ku=patawar-ay=yu
1SG.GEN=slowly-PV=2SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk.
hit<AV>‘I hit you slowly.’c. * patawar-Ø
slowly-AV

p<en>ukpuk=ku kanu.
hit<AV>=1SG.NOM 2SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’d. * patawar-ay
slowly-PV

p<en>ukpuk=ku kanu.
hit<AV>=1SG.NOM 2SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’(32) a.

patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk kanu.
hit<AV>
2SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’b.

ku=patawar-ay=yu
1SG.GEN=slowly-PV=2SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk.
hit<AV>‘I hit you slowly.’c. * patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk=ku kanu.
hit<AV>=1SG.NOM 2SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’d. * ku=patawar-ay=yu
1SG.GEN=slowly-PV=2SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk=ku.
hit<AV>=1SG.NOM‘I hit you slowly.’
So far, we show that the three restrictions (i.e. AV RESTRICTION, ARGUMENT ATTRACTIONRESTRICTION, and ARGUMENT OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION) must be observed in Type I
adverbial verb constructions. Contrary to Type I adverbial verbs, the Type II ones exhibit
more complicated behaviors. Their behaviors split into two cases. On the one hand, when-179-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

adverbial verbs serve as PV verbs, the three restrictions are still respected. In (33a) theadverbial verb is inflected for PV and attracts clitic pronouns. In contrast, the following lexicalverb cannot be a PV verb, as shown in (33b). Second, the following lexical verb is banned
from serving as a PV verb, as shown in (33c). Third, a clitic pronoun cannot appear twice, as
illustrated in (33d). We call this subtype of adverbial verbs Type II-A.
Type II-A(33) a. nu=karayas-aw=ku
p<en>ukpuk.
2SG.GEN=often-PV=1SG.NOM hit<AV>‘You often hit me.’b. * nu=karayas-aw=ku
pukpuk-aw
2SG.GEN=often-PV=1SG.NOM hit-PV‘You often hit me.’c. * nu=karayas-aw
2SG.GEN=often-PV

p<en>ukpuk=ku.
hit<AV>=1SG.NOM‘You often hit me.’d. * nu=karayas-aw=ku
p<en>ukpuk.=yu
2SG.GEN=often-PV=1SG.NOM hit<AV>=2SG.NOM‘You often hit me.’On the other hand, when AV attaches to these adverbial verbs, the embedded lexical verb
can serve as a PV verb, as shown in (34a). The AV RESTRICTION can be violated in Type II
adverbial verb constructions. Moreover, clitic pronouns must stay in-situ with the lexical verb,
as shown in (34b). Again, the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION needs not to be observed.
However, the same clitic pronoun still cannot appear twice, as illustrated in (34c). Thus, the
ARGUMENT OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION must be observed. Let us call this subtype Type II-B.
TypeII-B(34) a. m-(k)arayas
AV-often

nu=pukpuk-aw=ku.
2SG.GEN=hit-PV=1SG.NOM‘You often hit me.’b. * m-(k)arayas=ku
AV-often=1SG.NOM

nu=pukpuk-aw.
2SG.GEN=hit-PV‘You often hit me.’-180-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

c. * m-(k)arayas=ku
nu=pukpuk-aw=ku.
AV-often=1SG.NOM 2SG.GEN=hit-PV=1SG.NOM‘You often hit me.’
Next, in Type III adverbial verb constructions, clitic pronouns can occur on the adverbial
heads, on the following lexical verbs, or on both, as illustrated in (35a-b). That is, the
ARGUMENT OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION and the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION need not
be obeyed. Moreover, the AV RESTRICTION on V2 needs not be obeyed, as shown by thecontrast between (35a) and (35c). It is clear that the above three restrictions can be violated in
Type III adverbial constructions.
Type III(35) a. kilrengaw-Ø =ta
dra ngayallegedly-AV=1PL.NOM OBL wordk<em>a.
say<AV>(i)papelilra-ØTOP be.pregnant-AV

i

pilay
NOM Pilay‘Allegedly, Pilay became pregnant.’b.

pana’an-Ø
really-AVisagar-Ø =ku
TOP like-AV-1SG.NOM

kanu.
2SG.OBL‘Really! I like you.’c.

kilrengaw-Ø =ta
dra ngayallegedly-AV=1PL.NOM OBL word
kan pilay.
GEN Pilay(i)tu=pi<a>natray=yu
TOP 3SG.GEN=kill<RED>=2SG.NOM‘Allegedly, Pilay wants to kill you.’Finally, the syntactic distribution of these adverbial verbs can be summarized as in Table
4. Table 4 shows that in the Type I adverbial verb constructions all the restrictions must be
observed. However, in Type II Patient Voice adverbial verb constructions the AV RESTRICTION
and Argument Attraction can be violated, although the ARGUMENT OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION
has to be respected). Finally, no restrictions need be observed in the Type III adverbial verb
constructions.
AV RESTRICTION

ARGUMENT
RESTRICTION

Type I
Type IIATTRACTION

ARGUMENT

OCCURRENCERESTRICTION

Yes
Yes
Yes
A
No
No
Yes
B
Yes
Yes
Type III
No
No
No
Table 4: Restrictions in the Type I, II, and III adverbial verb constructions-181-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

4.2 Complex Predicates, Control, or Neither?
Now we will briefly examine two approaches, i.e. the Complex Predicate approach (cf.
Chang 2006) and the Control approach, and we will argue that both approaches cannot
adequately explain the syntactic constraints on adverbial verb constructions in Puyuma. First,
let us consider a Complex Predicate analysis. Chang (2006: 68) proposes a Complex Predicate
analysis for adverbial verb constructions in Kavalan. He argues that Manner and Frequency
adverbial verbs and their lexical verbs preceded by them constitute single complex predicates,
co-licensing an Agent argument and a Theme argument. Chang (2006: 69) takes thefocus/aspectual/pronominal marker shifting as one piece of evidence, as in (36).2(36) Kavalan (Chang 2006: 69)
a. pataz-ti-iku
often[AF]-ASP-1S.NOM

s<em>upas
buff<AF>tu

qRitun.
OBL car‘I often buffed a car’
b.

pataz
often[AF]s<em>upas-ti-iku
tu qRitun.
buff<AF>-ASP-1S.NOM OBL car‘I often buffed a car’c.

pataz-an-ku-ti
often-PF-1S.GEN-ASP

s<em>upas
buff<AF>yaqRitun.
NOM car‘I often buffed my car’
d.

pataz
often[AF]supas-an-ku-ti
buff-PF-1S.GEN-ASP

yaqRitun.
NOM car‘I often buffed my car’However, the Complex Predicate analysis has some problems for adverbial verb constructionsin Puyuma: First, it cannot explain why only NAV but not AV constructions can allow the2

It should be pointed out that the shifting alternation may not form a valid support for the Complex
Predicate analysis. Chang (2006: 69) argues that “a complex predicate remains as a unified semantic
unit, no matter where the grammatical markers (such as focus/aspectual/pronominal markers) areplaced”. However, such an argument will wrongly predict that the aspectual marker -le can freely
occur in between the first verb and second verb of a complex predicate in Mandarin Chinese, as in (i).
(i)

a.

ZhangsanZhangsanku-shi-lecry-wet-ASP

shoupahandkerchief

le.
ASP

‘Zhangsan cried till the handkerchief was wet.’ (Chang 2006: 76)b. * Zhangsan
Zhangsanku-le-shi
cry-ASP-wet

shoupahandkerchief‘Zhangsan cried till the handkerchief was wet.’

-182-

le.
ASP

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

grammatical marker shifting. As shown in (37c-d), a pronominal marker seems to shift to thesecond verb without affecting any propositional meaning. In contrast, as we can see in (37a-b),
the same pronominal marker cannot shift to the embedded verb. It is unclear what brings
about this AV-NAV asymmetry.
(37) a.

m-(k)arayas=ku
m-aip
dra trilin.
AF-often=1SG.NOM AF-read OBL book
‘I often read books.’b. * m-(k)arayas=ku
m-aip
dra trilin.
AF-often=1SG.NOM AF-read OBL book
‘I often read books.’c.

ku=karayas-aw
m-aip
na trilin.
1SG.GEN-often-PF AF-read NOM book
‘I often read the book.’d.

m-(k)arayas
AF-often

ku-aip-aw
1SG.GEN-read-PFnatrilin.
NOM book‘I often read the book.’
Second, the Complex Predicate approach predicts that the first verb and the second verb
will always be adjacent to each other. However, such an adjacency condition does not hold in
the Manner adverbial verb constructions, as shown in (38). (38b) shows that the second verbof a cluster is separated and undergoes topicalization to [Spec, CP], bringing about a focus
interpretation. Furthermore, the object of the second verb has been carried along as well.
(38) a.

patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

m-aip
dra trilin.
AF-read OBL book

‘I read books slowly.’
b.

m-aip
dra trilin
AF-read OBL booki,

patawar-Ø=ku.
TOP slowly-AV=1SG.NOM‘As for reading book, I do so slowly.’
Having argued against the Complex Predicate approach, we will examine the second
potential approach, i.e. the Control analysis. We argue that the adverbial verb constructions
under consideration differ from the (persuade-type) control constructions in Puyuma in that
Frequency adverbial verbs are non-thematic whereas control verbs establish thematic relations
with their arguments, as shown in (39-40). As shown in (39a-b), the control verb pasi’si’ay‘persuade’ must select an animate Patient argument such as Sigimulri rather than a
non-animate Theme argument such as pira ‘leaf’. In contrast, the adverbial verb marayas-183-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1‘often’ in (40) can select a weather verb like maudal ‘rain’ which has no semantic argument.
It indicates that the adverbial verb in (40) is non-thematic.
(39) a.

ku-pasi’si’-ay
1SG.GEN-persuade-LV

isigimulri
NOM Sigimulrik<em>awang.
walk<AF>‘I persuaded Sigimulri to walk.’b. * ku-pasi’si’-ayna
1SG.GEN-persuade-LV

piramu-adelr.
NOM leaf
AF-fall‘???I persuaded the leaves to fall.’(40)

a-kinadamanan
PST-recently

m-(k)arayas
AF-oftenma-udal.
AF-rain‘Recently it often rains’
In this section we have shown that the Complex Predicate analysis and the Control
analysis both cannot adequately account for the syntactic patterns of Puyuma adverbial verbs.
In the next section we will propose a restructuring analysis and offer an explanation for thepatterns of the AV RESTRICTION and ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION. Moreover, we willcompare our analysis with Chang’s (2007a, b) ones.
4.3 Restructuring Analysis
4.3.1 Nonfinite TP
We will first show that the Type I adverbial verbs (e.g. Manner verbs) and the Type II-A
adverbial verbs (e.g. Aspectual verbs and Modal verbs) take a defective TP as theircomplements (cf. Rizzi 1982, Wurmbrand 2003, cf. Rosen 1989, 1990). First, as we haveshown, clitic pronouns must be attracted onto Manner or Aspectual adverbial verbs even if
these adverbial verbs do not c-select any DP arguments, as shown in (41a-d). The
long-distance clitic placement is cross-linguistically viewed as evidence of restructuring.
(41) a.

patawar-Ø=ku
m-ekan dra kuraw.
slow-AV=1SG.NOM AV-eat OBL fish
‘I eat fish slowly.’b. * patawar-Ø
slow-AVm-ekan=ku
AV-eat=1SG.NOM

dra kuraw.
OBL fish‘I eat fish slowly.’-184-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)c.

m-(k)arayas=ku
m-aip
kandrina trilin.
AV-often=1SG.NOM AV-read OBL.this book
‘I often read this book.’d. * m-(k)arayas
AV-often

m-aip=ku
kandrina trilin.
AV-read=1SG.NOM OBL.this book

‘I eat fish slowly.’
Second, in Puyuma subject wh-words in mono-clausal sentences obligatorily moveleftward to the sentence initial position, as shown in (42a). In contrast, subject wh-words in
bi-clausal sentences must also undergo A’-movement but stay within the embedded clause, as
shown in (42b). As we can see in (42c-d), subject wh-words in the Aspectual adverbial verb
construction must undergo A’-movement to occupy in the sentence initial position. If
adverbial verbs of the relevant kind take CPs as their complements, it is expected that the
subject wh-word will stay in the Spec position of the embedded CP. However, in fact, it is not
the case. Thus, we argue that these adverbial verbs do not take CP as their complements.
(42) a.

[CP imanayi na
who
COMP

p<en>kpuk
hit<AV>kan pilayOBL Pilay

ti]?
(NOM)

‘Who hit Pilay?’b.

[CP pakupana’an=yu dra
believe=2SG.NOM COMP

imanay
who

na
COMP

ka-keser ti]?
RED-win NOM‘Who do you believe will win?’c.

[CP imanayj na
who
COMP

m-(k)arayas
AV-oftenp<en>ukpuk kan pilay
hit<AV>OBL Pilay

ti]?
(NOM)

‘Who often hits Pilay?’d.

[CP imanayj na
who
COMP
pilay
ti]?
Pilay
(NOM)

tu=karayas-an=mu
3SG.GEN=often-NMLZ=2PL.NOM

p<en>ukpuk kan
hit<AV>GEN‘Which one of you was beaten by Pilay?’
Third, as shown in (43a), the nominative DP argument in mono-clausal sentences can be
topicalized to occupy the sentence initial position. In contrast, the nominative DP in
embedded clauses cannot be topicalized to occupy the sentence initial position, as shown in(43b). As (43c) illustrates, the nominative DP argument in the adverbial verb constructions aswell as the one occurring in mono-clausal sentences can undergo A’-extraction to the Topic-185-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

position. Based on these patterns, we argue that the Type I and Type II-A adverbial verbs do
not take full clauses (i.e. CPs) as their complements.
(43) a.

nakurawi
NOM fishi,tu=ekan-aw
TOP 3SG.GEN=eat-PV

kan pilay
GEN Pilay

ti.
(NOM)

‘The fish, Pilay ate it.’b. * iukaki
NOM Ukakkan pilay
obl Pilayi,ma-lradram
TOP AV-know
ti].
(NOM)

i

sigimulri [CP dra
NOM Sigimulri
COMP

p<en>ukpuk
hit<AV>‘Sigimulri knew that Ukak beat Pilay.’c.

natrilini
NOM booki,ku=karayas-aw
m-aip
ti.
TOP 1SG.GEN=often-PV AV-read (NOM)‘The book, I often read it.’We propose that the Type I and Type II adverbial verb constructions are similar to the
obligatory control constructions in Puyuma. That is, both constructions take a defective TP(i.e. nonfinite TP) as their complement. In both constructions the downstairs predicates with
the TP have to be marked with Actor Voice rather than Non-Actor Voice, as illustrated in (44).
In (44a) and (44c), the verbs in the embedded clause carry the AV morphology. When PV is
attached to the embedded predicate, the ungrammaticality arises, as (44b) and (44d) illustrate.
What is more, in both constructions, the temporal interpretation of the embedded clauses isparasitic on the interpretation of the matrix T and therefore just one temporal modifier can beallowed, as shown in (45). As shown in (45b) and (45d), when the two temporal modifiers
such as adaman ‘yesterday’ and andaman ‘tomorrow’ co-occur to introduce two tenses, atense clash arises .
(44) a.

tu=paisil-ay
3SG.GEN=persuade-LV

kan pilay
GEN Pilayiukak
NOM Ukaktr<em>ekel
drink<AV>

dra eraw.
OBL wineitrekel-aw
drink-PVdra eraw.
OBL wine‘Pilay persuaded Ukak to drink wine.’b. * tu=paisil-ay
3SG.GEN=persuade-LV

kan pilay
GEN Pilayukak
NOM Ukak‘Pilay persuaded Ukak to drink wine.’c.

tu=karayas-aw
m-aip
kan pilay
3SG.GEN=often-PV AV-read GEN Pilay‘Pilay often reads the book.’

-186-

na

trilin.
NOM book

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

d. * tu=karayas-aw
aip-aw kan pilay
3SG.GEN=often-PV read-PV GEN Pilaynatrilin.
NOM book‘Pilay often reads the book.’(45) a.

a-daman (i) tu=paisil-ay
PST-day TOP 3SG.GEN=persuade-LV
dra eraw
OBL wine

kan pilay
GEN Pilayiukak
NOM Ukaktr<em>ekel
drink<AV>‘Yesterday Pilay persuaded Ukak to drink wine.’b. * a-daman
PST-daytr<em>ekel
drink<AV>(i)tu=paisil-ay
TOP 3SG.GEN=persuade-LV
dra eraw
an-daman.
obl fish
FUT-daykan pilay
GEN Pilayiukak
NOM Ukak‘*Yesterday Pilay persuaded Ukak to drink wine tomorrow.’c.

a-daman (i) tu=patawar-ay
m-aip
kan pilay
PST-day TOP 3SG.GEN=slow-LV AV--read GEN Pilaynatrilin.
NOM book‘Yesterday Pilay read the book slowly’
d. * a-daman
PST-day
an-dman.
FUT-day(i)tu=patawar-ay
m-aip
kan pilay
TOP 3SG.GEN=slow-LV AV-read GEN PilaynatrilinNOM book‘*Yesterday Pilay read the book slowly tomorrow.’
4.3.2 Two Types of VoiceP
We now proceed to argue that the VoicePs are divided into two types with respect totransitivity: the AV verbs are intransitive verbs while the NAV verbs are transitive verbs. We
argue that the nominative DP argument and the genitive DP argument in the NAV
constructions are both core arguments. That is, both of them are syntactically active. In
Puyuma the Actor argument of the NAV construction which appears in the genitive case is notdemoted in a way that the Actor argument in English-like passive construction is. The
genitive Actor argument, like the nominative DP argument, (a) displays syntactic agreement,(b) serves as the controller of the obligatory control constructions, (c) undergoes
A’-extraction in the topicalization constructions. First, both the genitive argument and thenominative argument appear as a clitic in Non-Actor Voice clauses and agree with the freepronoun in the TopicP position in person and number, as illustrated in (46).

-187-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1(46) a.

yuyuj
i, kui=pukpuk-aw=yuj.
2SG.NEU TOP 1SG.GEN=hit=2SG.NOM‘I hit you!’b.

kuikui i, kui=pukpuk-aw=yuj.
1SG.NEU TOP 1SG.GEN=hit=2SG.NOM‘I hit you.’

Second, the genitive Actor argument, like the nominative DP argument, can control3 a
PRO in a nonfinite complement clause, as (47) illustrates. Unlike the demoted by-phrase inpassives in English, the Actor argument in the NAV construction is still syntactically active inthe sense that it has the ability to control. When the nominative DP argument in the matrix
clause serves as the controller of PRO, the embedded verb bears Actor Voice morphology, as
shown in (47a). On the other hand, when the controller is marked with genitive case, theembedded verb bears the causative prefix pa- so that the Actor/Causer argument can stand in
the null nominative position, as shown in (47b).
(47) a.

kuj=paisil-ay
1SG.GEN=persuade-LV

iukak iNOM Ukak[PROi

tr<em>ekel
drink<AV>

dra eraw].
OBL wine‘I persuaded Ukak to drink wine.’b.

kui=paisil-ay
1SG.GEN=persuade-LV

i

ukakj
NOM Sigimulri[PROipa-trekel
CAUS-drink

dra eraw].
OBL wine‘I persuaded Sigimulri to drink wine.’
Third, the genitive Actor argument in the NAV construction, like the nominative DP
argument, can also undergo A’-movement to the Topic position, as shown in (48).4
3

Although either the nominative DP argument or the genitive DP argument can serve as the controller
in obligatory control constructions, the ‘nominative-DP-as-controller’ construction and the‘genitive-DP-as-controller’ one differ in meaning. The Causee argument in the former construction
receives a ‘volitional agent’ interpretation more strongly than the one in the latter construction does.
Also, the genitive construction conveys the meaning in which the Causee is manipulated by the causerof the causing event to a higher degree than the nominative construction.
4

The nominative DP argument but not the genitive DP argument in Puyuma serves as thegrammatical subject because only the former can be A’-extracted in relativization and wh-extraction
constructions while the latter cannot be. The phenomena often are dubbed ‘subject sensitivity’(Keenan 1976, Keenan and Comrie 1977, Guilfoyle, Hung and Travis 1992 and among others). For
example,(i)a.

ma-trina na kurawj
AV-big
NOM fishtui=<in>ekan-an
kan walak
3SG.GEN=<PV>-eat-NMLZ GEN child‘The fish that the child ate is big.’

-188-

tj.

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)(48) a.

b.

nakurawj
NOM fishi,

tui=ekan-aw
TOP 3SG.GEN=eat-PV‘Pilay ate the fish.’ipilayii, tui=ekan-aw
NOM Pilay
TOP 3SG.GEN=eat-PV

kan pilay
GEN Pilaytj.

nakurawj.
NOM fish‘Pilay ate the fish.’b. * ma-trina na walak
AV-big
NOM child

tu=<in>ekan-ankana
3SG.GEN=<PV>eat-NMLZ GEN

kuraw.
fish‘The child that was eaten by the fish grew up.’c.

ma-trina na walaki
AV-big
NOM childm-ekanAV-eatdra kuraw
OBL fish

ti.

na

tj.

‘The child that eats fish grew up.’d. * ma-trina na kurawji
AV-big
NOM fishm-ekanAV-eatwalaki

NOM child‘The child that eats fish grew up.’
As examples (ia-b) shows, the Patient argument can be relativized only when the embedded verb ismarked with Patient Voice and then the Patient argument serves as the grammatical subject. On theother hand, the Actor argument can be relativized only when the embedded verb is marked with Actor
Voice and thus the Actor argument functions as the grammatical subject, as shown in (ic-d).
Second, only the grammatical subject is qualified as a target of the wh-extraction in Puyuma.
Wh-words can be extracted to Spec-CP only when they trigger the voice morphology on the verb:
When the Actor argument undergoes extraction, the Actor Voice morphology is required on the verb,
as in (iia-b). Likewise, when the Patient argument undergoes the same process, the Patient Voicemorphology is required, as in (iic-d).
(ii) a.

[CP

imanayi
who

na
COMP

p<en>ukpuk
hit<AV>kan pilayOBL Pilay

ti
]?
(NOM)

b. * [CP‘Who hit Pilay? ’imanayi na
who
COMP

tu=pukpuk-aw ti
3SG.GEN=hit-PV(GEN)c.

‘Who hit Pilay?’
imanayi na
who
COMP

tu=pukpuk-aw kan pilay ti]?
3SG.GEN=hit-PVGEN Pilay (NOM)[CP

d. * [CP‘Who did Pilay hit?’
imanayi na
p<en>ukpuk
who
COMP
hit<AV>iipilay]?
NOM Pilay

pilay ti]?

NOM Pilay (OBL)‘Who did Pilay hit?’-189-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

Moreover, unlike the demoted Actor argument in English passives, the Actor argumentin the NAV construction (49a) as well as in the AV construction (49b) can be an imperative
addressee.
(49) a.

ekan-Ø
eat-AVdra bitrenun pro!
OBL egg(NOM)‘Eat eggs!’
b.

kan-u
eat-PVnabitrenun pro!
NOM egg(GEN)‘Eat the egg(s)!’Now that we have demonstrated the core argument status of the nominative DP and thegenitive DP that we have been looking at, we may proceed to argue that in Puyuma thePatient argument of the AV construction is demoted and syntactically inactive. First, as wehave shown above, both the genitive and nominative arguments appear in clitic form in NAV
clauses and agree with the free pronominal form in the TopicP position; however, only thenominative clitic can appear in AV clauses. Moreover, the nominative Actor argument canagree with the free pronominal form in the TopicP position while the oblique Patientargument cannot, as shown in (50).
(50) a.

kuikui i, p<en>ukpuk=kui kanuj.
1SG.NEU TOP hit<AV>=1SG.NOM 2SG.OBL‘I hit you.’b.??? yuyuj
i, p<en>ukpuk=kui kanuj.
2SG.NEU TOP hit<AV>=1SG.NOM 2SG.OBL‘I hit you.’
Second, the nominative Patient argument in the NAV construction can control the PRO
subject of a nonfinite complement clause, as (51) illustrates. Unlike the by-phrase in English
passives, the Actor argument in the NAV construction is still syntactically active as can beseen from the fact that it controls PRO, as illustrated in (51a). In contrast, the Oblique Patientargument in the AV construction cannot be syntactically inert, not being able to control PRO
easily, as illustrated in (51b).
(51) a.

kui=paisil-ay
1SG.GEN=persuade-LV

i

ukakj
NOM Ukakj[PROj‘I persuaded Ukak to drink wine.’-190-

tr<em>ekel
drink<AV>

dra eraw].
OBL wine

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

b. ?? paisil-Ø=kui
kan ukakj
persuade-AV=1SG.NOM OBL Sigimulri[PROjtr<em>ekel
drink<AV>

dra eraw].
OBL wine‘I persuaded Ukak to drink wine.’
Third, the genitive Actor argument in the NAV construction, like a canonical grammaticalsubject, can also undergo A’-movement to the Topic position, as shown in (52a). However,
the oblique Patient argument in the AV construction cannot be topicalized, as shown in (52b).
(52) a.

ipilay
NOM Pilay

i,tu=ekan-aw
TOP 3SG.GEN=eat-PV

nakuraw.
NOM fish‘Pilay ate the fish.’b. * nakuraw
NOM fishi,m-ekan lra
TOP AV-eat
alreadyipilay.
NOM Pilay‘Pilay already ate fish.’
So far, we have provided important arguments against the analysis in which the Actor
argument of the NAV constructions, like the underlying subject in the passives in English, isdemoted and syntactically inactive. We argue that the Actor argument of the NAV
constructions is still syntactically active whereas the Patient argument of the AV constructions
is demoted and thus syntactically inert. These patterns lead us to the conclusion that the AVverb constructions are intransitive constructions while the NAV verb constructions are truetransitive constructions in Puyuma. The same properties are also observed in Kavalan (Liao
2002), Seediq (Aldridge 2004), and Tsou (Chang 2004). In Puyuma NAV clauses constitute acomplete thematic (argument structure) complex, including an external argument. Following
Chang (2004), we assume that NAV clauses are strong phases. In contrast, AV clauses do notconstitute a complete thematic complex since the Patient argument is demoted. Thus, we
assume that Puyuma AV clauses are weak phases.
4.4 AV Restriction, Argument Attraction Restriction, and Phase Domain
Now we are ready to offer an explanation for the syntactic patterns of the AV
RESTRICTION and the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION. Recall that the Type I adverbial
verb construction is a restructuring construction. Given the analysis of adverbial verbs as
restructuring predicates, clitic pronouns are cliticized onto the adverbial verb to check the[EPP] feature and value the uninterpretable case feature of the head. The Type I adverbial verb
sentences (53a) and (53b) have the syntactic structures as shown in (54) and (55) respectively:Type I (Manner)(53) a. patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk kanu.
hit<AV>
1SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’-191-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1b.

ku-patawar-ay =yu
1SG.GEN=slowly-LV=2SG.NOM

p<en>ukpuk.
hit<AV>‘I hit you slowly.’(54)

TP
DP[NOM]
V+v+Voice+T[EPP, NOM] VoiceP =ku
patawarDP
Voice[EPP, +AV] vP
v

VP
V

TP
DP
VoiceP

V+v+Voice+T[EPP]
penukpuk
Voice[EPP, +AV]

vP

v

VP
V

DP
DP
DP[OBL]kanu

As shown in (54) the Actor argument of the verb penukpuk ‘hit’, which triggers the AV
morphology on the embedded predicate, is raised to [Spec, VoiceP], and checks the [EPP] and[+AV] features of the lower Voice. The Actor argument =ku ‘I’ is further attracted to Spec-TP
to check the [EPP] feature. Recall that the embedded TP is a nonfinite complement clause. The
defective T cannot value the interpretable [NOM] case feature of the raised argument. The[NOM] case feature of the Actor argument is then valued by the matrix T. In the higher clause,
the Actor argument is first attracted to Spec-VoiceP to check the [EPP] and [+AV] features ofVoice and in turn moves to the Spec-TP so as to check the [EPP] feature and value
uninterpretable [NOM] features of T.

-192-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

(55)

TP
DP[NOM]
V+v+Voice+T[EPP, NOM] VoiceP=yupatawaray
DP
Voice[GEN, EPP, AV]
vP
v

VP
V

DP[GEN]ku=
TP

V+v+Voice+T[EPP]
penukpuk
Voice[EPP, +AV]v

VoiceP

DP
DP

vP
VP

V

DP
DP

In (55) the Actor argument of the embedded AV verb penukpuk ‘hit’, triggering AV, is raised
to [Spec, VoiceP] to check the [EPP] and [+AV] features. The DP in question is further
attracted to Spec-TP to check the [EPP] feature. Again, the defective T cannot value the casefeature of the moving DP, which allows for further raising of the DP to the Spec of the uppervP to get the inherent [GEN] case feature. Here we assume that the defective TP and theembedded intransitive Actor VoiceP are both weak phases so that the complement becomes
penetrable to further syntactic operation. Thus, the Patient argument of the embedded AV verb
agrees with the upper Patient Voice and thus is attracted to Spec-VoiceP so as to check the[EPP] on the Voice head. Next the Patient argument is further attracted to Spec-TP so as tocheck the [EPP] feature and value the uninterpretable [NOM] case feature.
We now proceed to offer an account of the AV RESTRICTION in the Type I adverbial verb
constructions. We assume that transitive NAV verbs serve as phase heads. The arguments of
the Non-Actor Voice head, according to Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), become
inaccessible to further syntactic operation. Since these arguments, when they are clitic for
instance, are not accessible to operations outside the NAV verb, they cannot undergo
cliticization onto the higher adverbial verb. In this way, the [EPP] or case features cannot bechecked, leading the derivation to crash. Consider the examples in (56) and (57):(56) a. * patawar-Ø=ku
slowly-AV=1SG.NOM

pukpuk-aw
hit-PVkanu.
1SG.OBL‘I hit you slowly.’-193-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1b.

TP
V+v+Voice+T[EPP]
patawaray

VoiceP

Voice[EPP, +AV]

vP

v

DP
VP

V

TP

V+v+Voice+T [EPP]
pukpukaw

VoiceP

Voice[EPP, -AV]

vP

v

VP
V

DP
DP
DP
DP

In (56b) the Patient argument agrees with the embedded Patient Voice head for voice and israised to Spec-VoiceP so as to check the [EPP] and [-AV] features. The attracted Patientargument is further raised to Spec-TP to check the [EPP] feature. Motivated by the [EPP]feature and the uninterpretable [+AV] feature on the matrix Actor Voice head, the Actor
argument is attracted to Spec-VoiceP. However, the Actor argument is not accessible tooperations outside the transitive PV phase and therefore the computation crashes.
Similarly, in (57b) the Patient argument agrees with the lower Patient Voice head andthus it is raised to Spec-VoiceP so as to check the [EPP] and [-AV] features and then moves to
the Spec position of the defective TP to check the [EPP] feature. Next, the argument DP needs
to be raised to value the uninterpretable [GEN] case feature on it and the Patient Voice head.
However, the [GEN] case feature on the DP has been valued by the embedded PV head. In thisway, the case feature on the higher PV head cannot be valued and the derivation fails to
succeed.
(57) a. * ku-patawar-ay=yu
1SG.GEN=slowly=2SG.NOM

pukpuk-aw.
hit-PV‘I hit you slowly.’-194-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

b.

TP
DP
VoicePT[EPP, NOM]

DP

Voice[GEN,EPP, -AV]

vP

v

VP

DP

V

ACTOR

[GEN]

DP

THEME

DP

THEME

TP

V+v+Voice+T[EPP]
pukpukaw
Voice[EPP, -AV]v

VoiceP
vP
VP

V

DP
DP

ACTOR

THEME

The point made so far applies in principle to the Type II-A adverbial verb construction as
well. In this type, the lexical verb must observe the AV RESTRICTION, as illustrated in (58), and
the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION, as illustrated in (59). As shown in (58b) and (58b),
the lexical verb disallows the Patient Voice inflection. Moreover, in (59c) and (59c) clitic
pronouns are prohibited from occurring together with the lexical verbs. As we have pointed
out, these adverbial verbs and their following verbs form a restructuring structure and in turnthe DP argument of these lexical verbs moves to check the [EPP] feature of those adverbial
verbs and to have its case feature valued.
Type II-A (Aspect)(58) a. m-(k)arayas=ku
m-aip
dra trilin.
AV-often=1SG.NOM AV-read OBL book
‘I often read books.’b. * m-(k)arayas=ku
aip-aw dra trilin.
AV-often=1SG.NOM read-PV OBL book
‘I often read books.’c. * m-(k)arayas
AV-often

m-aip=ku
dra trilin.
AV-read=1SG.NOM OBL book

‘I often read books.’-195-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1(59) a..

ku=karayas-aw
m-aip
na trilin.
1SG.GEN=often-PV AV-read NOM book
‘I often read the book.’b. * ku=karayas-aw
aip-aw na trilin.
1SG.GEN=often-PV read-PV NOM book
‘I often read the book.’c. * karayas-aw
often-PV

ku=aip-aw
na trilin.
1SG.GEN=read-PV NOM book

‘I often read the book.’
However, what has said about the AV RESTRICTION and the ARGUMENT ATTRACTIONRESTRICTION seems to have one exception. In the Type II-B adverbial verb construction, the
AV RESTRICTION and the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION do not seem to be always
active. The embedded lexical verb in (60a) displays the Actor voice -Ø whereas the embedded
lexical verb in (60b) is inflected by Patient voice -aw. The restrictions seem to be observed
optionally.
(60) a.

m-(k)arayas=ku
pa-ka-ramu-ØAV-often=1SG.NOM CAUS-STAT- angry-AF

kan pilay.
OBL Pilay‘I often provoke Pilay.’b.

m-(k)arayas
AV-often

ku=pa-ka-ramu=aw
1SG.GEN=CAUS-STAT-angry=PVipilay.
NOM Pilay‘I often provoke Pilay.’
There are reasons to think that the pattern in (60b) is not an instance of restructuring:First, in this pattern the subject argument cannot undergo A’-movement while the subject ofrestructuring constructions can, as illustrated in (61). In (61a) the subject argument trilin‘book’ cannot appear in the topic position. In contrast, the subject argument trilin ‘book’ in a
restructuring construction like (61b) can move leftward and end up being in the topic position.
Second, the subject argument in restructuring constructions may undergo relativization, as
shown in (62a). In contrast, the subject argument in the Type II-B adverbial verb construction
cannot be extracted in relavization, as illustrated in (62b).
(61) a.

*na trilin
NOM booki,m-(k)arayas
TOP AV-often

ku=aip-aw.
1SG.GEN=read-PV‘The book, I often read it.’-196-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)b.

natrilinNOM booki,ku-karayas-aw
m-aip.
TOP 1SG.GEN=often-PV AV-read‘The book, I often read it.’(62) a.

m-inatraylra
AV-diealreadyp<en>ukpuk kanahit<AV>
GEN

na
NOM

suwan
dog

tu=k<in>arayas-an
3SG.GEN=often<PFV.PV>-NMLZ

walak.
child‘The dog which the child hit was dead.’b. * m-inatraylranasuwan m-(k)arayas
AV-diealready NOM
dog
AV-oftentu=p<in>ukpuk-ankanawalak.
3SG.GEN=hit<PFV.PV>-NMLZ GEN
child‘The dog which the child hit was dead.’
Third, the adverbial verb in (60b) can even take a CP complement, as illustrated in (63). In
this example the AV adverbial verb marayas ‘often’ takes a complex sentence as its
complement.
(63)

m-(k)araya=kudar[CP anm-u-rumalra
AV-often=1SG.NOM FREQ
FUT.whenAV-go-house alreadynama-lii, m-aip=kudar
dra trilin].
father-1SG.GEN
TOP AV-read=1SG.NOM FREQ
OBL booki
NOM‘It is an often case that after Father comes home, I (then) read books.’
These results show us that the pattern in (60b) is a different construction than a standard
restructuring construction. Consequently, it is expected not to obey the AV RESTRICTION and
the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION. In fact, in terms of complementation, this pattern isanalogous to the Type III adverbial verb construction, for both of them can allow for CP
complementation, as shown in (64). In (64a-b) the Mood verbs pana’an ‘really; frankly’ andadri k<em>i’ange’anger ‘unexpectedly’ are immediately followed by a complementiser dra.
Since they can take a full sentence as their complement, they do not form a restructuring
structure with the verbs preceded by them. Thus, they neither need to obey the AV
RESTRICTION nor observe the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION.
(64) a.

pana’an-Ø
really-AV

dra
COMP

bulay-Ø
ipilay.
beautiful-AV NOM Pilay‘Frankly, Pilay is beautiful.’-197-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1b.

adri-Ø=ku
k<em>i’ange’angerdra
NEG- AV=1SG.NOM think<AV>
COMP
tu=pi<a>natry=ku
kan sigimulri.
3SG.GEN=kill<IRR>=2SG. NOM
GEN Sigimulri‘To my surprise, Sigimulri would like to kill me.’Before closing this section, we will compare our restructuring analysis with Chang’s(2007a, b) analyses. In his later stage of analysis of adverbial verb constructions in Kavalan,
Chang (2007a, b) change his position from the Complex Predicate approach to the
XP-complementation approach (cf. Chang 2006). He argues that AV [AF in Chang’s term]
adverbial verb constructions in Kavalan have a raising structure whereas the NAV [NAF in
Chang’s term] adverbial verb constructions have a long-distance pseudo-passive structure, as
shown in (65).
(65) Chang (2007a: 49 & 51)
a. patazs<em>upas=ikui tu qRitun
often
buff<AF>=1S.NOM OBL car‘I buff a car often.’b.

pataz=ikui[VP s<em>upas
often=1S.NOM
buff<AF>titu

qRitun].
OBL car‘I buff a car often.’c.

paqanas-an-ku [VP t<em>ayta
slow-PF-1S.GEN
see<AF>tu

sulal]OBL book

IE. (in isut)‘I read the slowly.’d.

paqanas-an-ku [VP t<em>ayta
slow-PF-1S.GEN
see<AF>ti]yasulali
NOM book(raised)‘I read the book slowly.’
Chang (2007) argues that the AV adverbial verb construction in Kavalan may allow theembedded Actor argument to raise, as in English raising constructions, and may allow it tostay in-situ, as illustrated in (65b) and (65a), respectively. On the other hand, like English
long-distance passive structure, the NAV adverbial verb construction allows the embedded
Patient argument to be cast away. Moreover, the latter construction also allows theNominative-Oblique case alternation. However, unlike the demoted Actor in English passives,
the embedded Actor in this type adverbial verb construction is not demoted. Hence, the NAF
construction is analyzed as a long-distance pseudo-passive, as illustrated in (66c-d).
Our analysis is similar to Chang’s in some respects: First, both of us take the argument
raising approach. Second, we recognize the transitivity of NAF clauses. On the other hand,-198-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

our analysis differs from Chang’s (2007a, b) analyses in the following ways: (a) AV adverbial
verb constructions in Puyuma do not allow Actor-in-situ. The Actor argument must be
attracted out of the embedded complement; (b) in NAV adverbial verb constructions the casealternation is disallowed; and (c) in our analysis the AV-NAV asymmetry found with theembedded lexical verb can receive a natural explanation under the phase domain approach.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper we investigate adverbial expressions in Puyuma and show that in manycases, such expressions behave like verbs in that they (a) are inflected for voices, (b) attract
clitic pronouns, (c) usually occupy in the fixed position, and (d) affect the determination ofgrammatical subject. Moreover, there exist some aspectual and evaluative particles in Puyuma.
Furthermore, temporal expressions in Puyuma serve as nouns, which distribute freely.
Interestingly, they exhibit a tense/aspect inflectional morphology.
We argue that adverbial verbs in Puyuma can be divided into three types: The first typehas to obey the AV RESTRICTION, the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION, and the
ARGUMENT OCCURRENCE RESTRICTION. The second type (i.e. Type II-B) can violate the firsttwo restrictions but must obey the final restriction. The third type can violate all the
restrictions. We argue that the Type I and the Type II-A adverbial verb constructions are
restructuring constructions. Thus, in these constructions the ARGUMENT ATTRACTIONRESTRICTION has to be observed to satisfy the [EPP] requirement and the case checking
requirement. On the other hand, we assume with Chomsky (1999) that DP arguments cannot
be attracted from the domain of a phase. Consequently, the Patient Voice verbal complement,
being the domain of a phase, prevents any DP from being moved out of it. This proposal
naturally explains why the AV RESTRICTION has to be obeyed. Finally, we argue that the Type
II-B adverbial verb constructions indeed do not undergo restructuring and thus do not obey
the AV RESTRICTION and the ARGUMENT ATTRACTION RESTRICTION.

References
Aldridge, Edith. (2004) Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Cornell University.
Chang, Henry Yungli. (2004) “The Syntax of Adverbial Modifications in Kavalan and Tsou,” Paper
presented at IsCLL-9, National Taiwan University, Taipei, November 19-21.
Chang, Henry Yungli. (2005)”Restructuring in Tsou,” Paper presented at AFLA-12, UCLA, April
30-May 2.
Chang, Henry Yungli. (2006) “The Guest Playing Host: Modifiers as Matrix Verbs in Kavalan,” In
Hans-Martin Gaertner at al. eds., Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 43-82.
Chang, Henry Yungli. (2007a) “On the Structure of Formosan Adverbial Verb Constructions,” Paper
presented at AFLA-14, Monitreal, May 4-6.

-199-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issues 3, Vol. 1

Chang, Henry Yungli. (2007b) “On the Syntax of Formosan Adverbial Verb Constructions,” Paper
presented at Academia Sinica, Taipei, June 4.
Chang, Melody Yayin. (2004) Subjecthood in Tsou Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua
University.
Cinque, Guglielmo. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Chomsky, Noam. (1999) “Derivation by Phase,” In M. Kenstowicz ed., Ken Hale: a Life in Language,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1-52.
Enç, Mürvet. (1986) “Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions,” Linguistics andPhilosophy 9, 405-26.
Ernst, Thomas. (2002). The syntax of Adjuncts, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Givón, Talmy. (1979) On Understanding Grammar, Academic Press, New York.
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung and Lisa Travis (1992) “Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjects
in Austronesian Languages,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 375-424.
Holmer Arthur. (2006) “Seediq—Adverbial Heads in a Formosan Language,” In Hans-Martin
Gaertner at al. eds., Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages, Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, 83-124.
Hsiao, Stella I-Ling (2004) Adverbials in Squliq Atayal, M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Jackendoff, Ray. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Kaufman, Daniel. (2004) “Adverbs at the Interface,” Paper presented at AFLA-11, Berlin, April 25.
Keenan, Edward. (1976) “Toward a Universal Definition of ‘Subject’,” In Charles N. Li ed., Subject
and Topic, Academic Press, New York, 305-33.
Keenan, Edward, and Bernard Comrie. (1977) “Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar,”
Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63-99.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. (2003). “Verbs or Adverbs in Thao?” Paper presented at the Second Workshop on
Formosan languages, Academia Sinica, November 1-2.
Liao, Hisu-chuan. (2002) “The Interpretation of tu and Kavalan Ergativity,” Oceanic Linguistics 41,
140-58.
Liu, Emma En-hsing. (2003) Conjunction and Modification in Amis, M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua
University.
Musan, Renate. (1995) On the Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases, Ph. Dissertation, MIT,
Boston, MA.
Rizzi, Luigi. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Rockowski, Andrea. (1998) “Malagasy Adverbs,” In Ileana Paul ed., The Structure of Malagasy, Vol.
II, UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20, 11-33.
Rosen, Sara Thomas. (1989) Argument Structure and Complex Predicates, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Brandeis University.
Rosen, Sara Thomas. (1990) “Restructuring Verbs Are Light Verbs,” In Aaron Halpern ed.,Proceedings of the 9th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI Publications,
Stanford, CA, 477-91.
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. (1990) Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-bar Theory, Ph. D.
dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca.

-200-

Adverbial Verbs and Argument Attraction in Puyuma (Chao-Lin Li)

Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. (2001) “Functional Projections and Adverbial Expressions in Chinese,”
Language and Linguistics 2, 203-241.
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. (1997) Complex Sentences in Puyuma, M.A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal
University.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan, and Melody Yayin Chang. (2003) “Two Types of Wh-adverbials: A
Typological Study of How and Why in Tsou,” In Pierre Pica and Johan Rooyck ed., The
Linguistic Variations Yearbook III, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 213-236.
Travis, Lisa. (1988) “The Syntax of Adverbs,” McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 280-310.
Wu, Chunming. (2006) “Adverbials in Paiwan.” Paper presented at the 10th International Conference
on Austronesian Linguistics. 17-20 January 2006. Palawan, Philippines.
Wurmbrand, Susanne. (2003) Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure, Mouton de Gruyter,
New York.

-201-