The definiteness of subjects and objects in Malagasy
-
Edward L. Keenan
Abstract
We evaluate, for Malagasy (W. Austronesian; Madagascar), a standard observation regarding the distribution and marking of (in)definites in subject and in object position. Bare nouns naturally constitute direct objects (DOs) with an indefinite interpretation. But definite DOs are also natural, and some are marked with a preposition which also has a locative function (cf Roumanian, Spanish). Bare Ns do not occur as subjects, whereas inherently definite DPs – proper nouns, personal pronouns, demonstratives, Ns with a definite or previous mention article do. However three classes of Quantified DPs – cardinal, universal, and proportionality ones, also naturally occur as subjects. They are constructed with an apparent definite article, but their meanings in English would be called indefinite.
Abstract
We evaluate, for Malagasy (W. Austronesian; Madagascar), a standard observation regarding the distribution and marking of (in)definites in subject and in object position. Bare nouns naturally constitute direct objects (DOs) with an indefinite interpretation. But definite DOs are also natural, and some are marked with a preposition which also has a locative function (cf Roumanian, Spanish). Bare Ns do not occur as subjects, whereas inherently definite DPs – proper nouns, personal pronouns, demonstratives, Ns with a definite or previous mention article do. However three classes of Quantified DPs – cardinal, universal, and proportionality ones, also naturally occur as subjects. They are constructed with an apparent definite article, but their meanings in English would be called indefinite.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface vii
- Determining morphosyntactic feature values 1
- Does Hungarian have a case system? 35
- Case in Ingush syntax 57
- Cases, arguments, verbs in Abkhaz, Georgian and Mingrelian 75
- The degenerative dative of Southern Norrbothnian 105
- Case compounding in the Bodic languages 127
- Leipzig fourmille de typologues : Genitive objects in comparison 149
- An asymmetry between VO and OV languages 167
- On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations 191
- Does passivization require a subject category? 211
- The definiteness of subjects and objects in Malagasy 241
- Without aspect 263
- Author index 283
- Language index 285
- Subject index 287
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface vii
- Determining morphosyntactic feature values 1
- Does Hungarian have a case system? 35
- Case in Ingush syntax 57
- Cases, arguments, verbs in Abkhaz, Georgian and Mingrelian 75
- The degenerative dative of Southern Norrbothnian 105
- Case compounding in the Bodic languages 127
- Leipzig fourmille de typologues : Genitive objects in comparison 149
- An asymmetry between VO and OV languages 167
- On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations 191
- Does passivization require a subject category? 211
- The definiteness of subjects and objects in Malagasy 241
- Without aspect 263
- Author index 283
- Language index 285
- Subject index 287
