Referential and non-referential uses of nominalization

Referential and non-referential uses of nominalization constructions in Malay

Referential and non-referential uses of nominalization constructions in Malay Foong Ha Yap Hong Kong Polytechnic University This paper examines three versatile morphemes—yang, -nya and punya—that contribute to the formation of nominalization constructions in Malay. In particular, we examine how these morphemes give rise to both referential and non-referential uses of nominalization constructions. We also highlight that nominalizing elements in Malay can be derived from noun phrase markers such as third person genitive pronoun -nya (e.g. makan-nya [eat-3SG.GEN] „his eating‟) as well as general or semantically bleached nouns such as (em)punya („master, owner, possessor‟) that can easily develop into light nouns equivalent to English indefinite pronoun one (e.g. tak rosak punya [NEG spoil NMZ] „the ones that are not spoiled‟. We further show that various factors such as lexical source, morphosyntactic constraints, and in some cases language contact, help to shape the grammaticalization pathway(s) of each morpheme, particularly in terms of their range of grammatical and pragmatic functions.

1.

Introduction

In the course of daily communication, we often need to refer not only to concrete entities such as animate beings, inanimate objects, and locations (i.e. first order ontological entities according to Lyons (1977:442), or very simply the who, what, and where elements in news reports and the someone, something, and someplace elements in narratives); often we also need to refer to abstract entities such as events and propositions (i.e. second and third order ontological entities). This often calls for more complex nominal constructions such as gerundives, infinitives, and complement clauses. In some languages, these constructions (which are deverbalized or nominalized to varying degrees) can often be extended to express the speaker‟s stance toward a given event, situation or proposition. Thus for example, while first order entities are often expressed as (lexicalized) noun phrases (e.g. a man, a ploughman, a fisherman), second and third order entities on the other hand are often expressed as nominalized clauses (e.g. flooding the fields, to mend the nets, (the fact) that they survived the storm), and expressions of speaker mood or stance (such as surprise or disbelief) are often realized via extended, non-referential uses of nominalized clauses, as in the Malay 1

2

expression Rajin-nya budak ini (diligent-3SG.GEN this child) „So diligent this child!‟ or „Such diligence this child!‟, where the nominalizing element –nya takes on a focus marking function to highlight its host constituent, in this case „the diligence of this child‟. Numerous studies have found that in many languages the same morpheme that serves as a nominalizer frequently serves other functions as well, among them genitive and relative clause marking (Matisoff 1972; Delancey 1986; Herring 1991; Noonan 1997) and speaker mood or stance marking (e.g. Yap, Matthews & Horie 2004; Watters 2008; Yap & Matthews 2008). Detailed analyses of versatile nominalizers have been undertaken for many Tibeto-Burman languages, including Atong (van Breugel 2006), Burmese (Simpson 2008), Bodic and Tamangic languages (Noonan 2008, this volume; Grunow-Hårsta this volume), Kiranti (Bickel 1999), Mongsen Ao (Coupe 2006), Rawang (LaPolla 2008), Numhpuk Singhpo (Morey 2006, this volume), Nuosu Yi (Liu & Gu this volume), and Thulung Rai (Lahaussois 2003). Among the East Asian languages, similar analyses of versatile nominalizers have been undertaken for Chinese (e.g. Yap, Choi & Cheung 2010; Yap & Wang this volume), Japanese and Okinawan (Horie 2008, this volume; Shinzato this volume; Shibasaki to appear a & b), and Korean (Rhee 2008, this volume). The present paper examines nominalization phenomena from yet another language family, namely Austronesian. More specifically, we examine three highly versatile morphemes—namely, yang, -nya and punya—from the Malay variety spoken in the states of Perak and Selangor in peninsular Malaysia.1 These morphemes either signal (i.e. identify) or otherwise form nominalization constructions. For example, as a noun phrase marker (or referentiality marking device), third person genitive -nya can signal that the constituent (i.e. word, phrase, or clause) preceding it is a nominalization construction, as in (1). Deploying a different strategy, punya, derived from a general noun meaning „master, owner, possessor‟, can function as a semantically light head noun (in this case, a nominalizer) when preceded by a modifying clause, as in (2).2 (1)

rajin-nya diligent-3SG.GEN „his diligence‟

(2)

(yang)

nak

basuh punya, letak dekat sini

1

These three morphemes are fairly productive, and their usage is attested throughout the Malay-speaking region. Punya has received less attention in the literature, but its use is widespread in many other Malay varieties as well (see Gil 1999). 2 Light nouns can function as nominalizers, like zhe in Classical Chinese (Aldridge 2008; Yap & Wang this volume); they can also function classifiers.

2

3

the.one want wash

NMZ

put

near

here

lit. „(the ones) to be washed ones, put (them) near here‟3 „The ones to be washed, put them here.‟ In addition to their nominalizing (hence referential) function, the three versatile morphemes yang, -nya and punya each serves a number of non-referential functions as well. The focus of this paper is to identify these various functions and their grammaticalization pathways, paying close attention to how they interact with each other, and in due course carve out distinct semantic niches for themselves. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 focuses on the multiple functions and possible diachronic development of yang, based on a review of extant literature (including recent works such as van Minde 2008, Englebretson 2008 and Reid 2010) and a corpus analysis of a classical Malay text from the 14th century. Section 3 similarly discusses the range of functions and grammaticalization pathways of -nya, drawing on insights from Englebretson‟s (2003) conversational analysis of colloquial Indonesian. Section 4 examines punya in similar fashion, based on descriptive fieldwork on colloquial Malay (e.g. Gil 1999) and data from classical texts made electronically available via the Malay Concordance Project housed at the Australian National University (courtesy of Ian Proudfoot); in this section, we will also focus on the impact of language contact on the rise of punya as a nominalizer and stance marker. Section 5 compares these three versatile morphemes in terms of their functional distribution, noting in particular the morphosyntactic characteristics that give rise to the semantic uniqueness of each morpheme. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2.

Nominalizer yang

Previous scholars (e.g. Gerth van Wijk 1909; van Ophuijsen 1910; Mees 1969; Verhaar 1983; Kaswanti Purwo 1983; Simin 1988; Steinhauer 1992; van Minde 2008; Englebretson 2008) have identified a wide range of grammatical functions for yang, including relative clause marker, complementizer, theme/topic marker, and „defining article‟ (particularly in contrastive contexts), as illustrated in (3) to (6) respectively.4 3

As will be further elaborated in §4, native speakers of Malay often add nominalizer yang, producing a double nominalization construction of the type [yang VP punya], literally „the one(s) that VP one(s)‟. While the use of yang is native to the Malay language, the use of punya is arguably induced by extensive contact with southern Chinese dialects, which explains why punya occurs with high frequency as a nominalizer in Bazaar (i.e. „market variety‟) Malay. 4 Except where specified, all the Malay examples used in this paper are of the Straits variety spoken in Perak and Selangor, West Malaysia. Terminology sometimes differs across scholars. For example, Englebretson (2008) uses the term „referring expression‟ where we use „theme/topic marker‟ and „defining article‟ (see (5) and (6) respectively).

3

4

(3)

Buang saja bunga yang sudah layu itu. throw just flower REL PERF wither DEM:distal „Just throw away those flowers that have withered.‟

(4)

Dia

(5)

Yang

tahu (yang) orang ini tak boleh di-percaya-i. 3SG know COMP person this NEG can PASS-trust-TRANS „S/he knows (that) this person cannot be trusted.‟ dia, sedikit

pun

dia

tak

kesah.

little.bit also 3SG NEG care „As for him, he didn‟t even care the slightest bit.‟ (6)

TOP

3SG

Yang

bapa

ketawa; yang

ibu

menangis.

„ART‟

father laugh „ART‟ mother cry „The father laughed; the mother cried.‟5 Not much is known about the origin of yang. Mees (1969) has argued for a link between Classical Malay yang and pre-Classical Malay yam, the latter identified as a definiteness marker in seventh-century Old Malay inscriptions from the Palembang and Bangka region in Indonesia. Adelaar (1985) has suggested the possibility that yang is derived from ia + -ŋ (where ia is the third person pronoun while –ŋ is a ligature or „linker‟ preceding a nominal expression). This analysis suggests a possible pronominal source for yang.6 More recently, Reid (2010) reconstructs the following development for yang:7 The nominalizer *yaŋ developed from three Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) morphemes, which now are reflected in Tagalogy iyan „that‟ (medial demonstrative): PMP *ʔi PMP *a PMP *=n In PMP the ligature

„case-marking preposition‟ „common noun nominal specifier‟ „post-vocalic enclitic ligature‟ *=n became *=ŋ by assimilation to a following

5

Possibly an extension of the topic marking use of yang, as shown below: (i) Yang bapa, ketawa; yang ibu, menangis. TOP father laugh TOP mother cry „As for the father, (he) laughed; as for the mother , (she) cried.‟ 6 Other scholars have identified nan, nang, nyang, iang and jang as either dialectal cognates or orthographic variants of yang (see van Minde 2008 for a more detailed discussion). 7 The following account is adapted from Lawrence A. Reid‟s e-communication (October 12, 2010).

4

5

*ka- counter in mensural numeral constructions (see Reid 2010, Table 10, p. 470), and was subsequently generalized as the (post-vocalic) ligature in other attributive constructions, and is today found frozen on many nominal specifiers (such as Tagalog ang) and demonstratives (such as Tagalog yong and Malay yang). Reid‟s (2010) account thus suggests that nominalizer yang has a (possibly distal) demonstrative origin (i.e. a portmanteau formed with case marker *ʔi, common noun nominal specifier *a, and post-vocalic ligature *=n). While some languages (e.g. the Sino-Tibetan, Japanese and Korean languages) often recruit general or semantically bleached „light‟ nouns as nominalizers (e.g. Yap & Wang this volume; DeLancey 1986; Horie 1998; Rhee 2008), others—including many from the Austronesian language family—often recruit noun phrase markers such as demonstratives and case markers to signal nominalization constructions (see especially Nagaya this volume; see also Sung this volume). Reid‟s demonstrative *yaŋ > nominalizer yang account is thus consistent with robust crosslinguistic tendencies (see Malchukov 2006; Yap, Grunow-Hårsta & Wrona this volume). As seen in (7), yang is frequently used in equative constructions, often with contrastive focus and cleft-like effect, where the intended reading is „(S)he (not me/you/her/someone else) is the one who is getting married tomorrow‟.8 (7)

Dia

[yang nak nikah esok]. 3SG NMZ FUT marry tomorrow „(S)he is the one that‟s getting married tomorrow.‟

Equative constructions such as (7) above highlight another major function of yang, namely, nominalization.9 Note that in equative constructions, the presence of yang signals that the predicate is to be treated as nominal and hence referential. The nominal predicate introduced by yang bears the meaning „the one who VPs‟, e.g. „the one who is getting married‟. In other words, as highlighted in cleft constructions such as (8), yang is a nominalizer that co-indexes and binds with a gapped argument within its modifying clause and in the process yields a more specific referent. The resulting yang nominalization construction could be an agent nominal, as in (8a), or a patient nominal, as in (8b).

8

Englebretson (2008: 13-14) also refers to this type of equative use of yang as a cleft construction. Mees (1969; see also van Minde 2008) identifies definiteness marking and nominalization as the two major functions for yang. 9

5

6

(8)

a. [Yangi [ __ i

nak nikah ]] bukan aku. NMZ want marry NEG 1SG „The one who wants to get married is not me.‟ b. Sebaliknya, [ yangi [ __ i di-paksa nikah] ’tu lah aku. on.the.contrary NMZ PASS-force marry DEM FOC 1SG „On the contrary, the one that is being forced to marry is me.‟

These nominalization uses of yang were already attested in the earliest known Classical Malay texts, as seen in (9) from Hikayat Bayan Budiman (14th century). 10 (9)

Adakah

[yang sudah mati itu] boléh hidup pula? EXST.Q NMZ already die/dead DEM can live again ‘Is it (the case) that those that have died can live again?’ (Bayan 15:2)

As noted in (3) earlier, yang is also used as a relative clause marker. An interesting question is what relationship the yang relative clause construction may have with the yang nominalization construction. It has been noted crosslinguistically that the relative clause construction often emerges via parataxis followed by syntaxis (i.e. subordination or embedding; see Givon 2009). In other words, two related clauses that are initially packaged under two intonation contours often become compressed or condensed under a single intonation contour. As illustrated in (10) below, where such compressions involve clausal integration of a yang nominalization (e.g. yang sudah layu itu „those that have wilted‟) as an embedded construction following an object complement (e.g. bunga itu „those flowers‟), a headed relative clause emerges (bunga (*itu) yang sudah layu itu „those flowers (*those) that have wilted‟). 11 This development involving intonational compression and clausal integration point to a close relationship between nominalization and relativization, with the latter arising as a secondary development from the former (see also Shibatani 2008; Shibatani & Awadh Khaled 2009). (10)

Buang saja bunga itu. Yang sudah layu itu.

(2 intonation units)

10

This hikayat (or story) is a collection of popular tales that originally came from the Sanskrit Sukasaptati (The Parrot‟s Seventy Tales). The original Malay version was translated from a Persian adaptation by one Kadi Hassan in (773 AH, i.e. 1371 AD). The text I analyze comes from the Oxford University Press edition of Winstedt (1966), which is based on Manuscript L (1852) and Manuscript R (1849), now both lost. This text is made electronically accessible via the Malay Concordance Project at the Australian National University, with the spelling modernized. 11 Note that Malay demonstratives are post-nominal (i.e. they follow the noun they specify) and we see retention of the demonstrative itu („that, the‟) at the end of the relative clause construction, while English demonstratives are pre-nominal (i.e. they precede the noun they specify) and we thus see instead retention of the demonstrative those at the beginning of the relative clause construction.

6

7

→ Buang saja bunga yang sudah layu itu. „Throw away those flowers. Those that have wilted. → Throw away those flowers that have wilted.‟

(1 intonation unit) (2 intonation units) (1 intonation unit)

There is textual evidence from Classical Malay that supports this clausal integration analysis involving a development from parataxis to syntaxis. As seen in (11) below, from narratives in Hikayat Bayan Budiman, (a) shows evidence of paratactic use of yang constructions, (b) shows evidence of a bridge context between parataxis and syntaxis, where the yang construction can be ambiguously interpreted as either an appositive nominalization construction or a non-restrictive relative clause, and (c) where there is clear evidence of relative clause usage of yang constructions. Note that paratactic readings arise from intonational pauses, often indicated by a comma, preceding the yang construction, as seen in (11a) and (11b). (11)

a.

Hai

saudagar, bunga apakah ini, yang saudagar pakai itu?

INTJ merchant

flower what.Q this NMZ merchant wear that ‘O merchant sir, what flower is this, that which you are wearing (pinned to your garment)?’ (Bayan 27:4) b.

Hai

raja segala burung di dalam alam ini, yang amat INTJ ruler all bird LOC inside world this YANG very budiman dan memberi manfa`at segala pekerjaan! generous and give benefit every work ‘O ruler over all the feathered creatures in this world, (i) one that is supremely generous and rewards every work!’ (ii) who is supremely generous and rewards every work!’ (Bayan 110:31)

c.

Raja ini

dari sebuah

negeri

yang asing;

king this from one:CL country REL foreign siapa akan tahunya? who will know=3SG.GEN „This ruler is from a foreign country (lit. a country that is foreign); who will know him?‟ (Bayan 30:28) The intimate link between nominalization and relativization can also be seen in constructions involving general nouns (e.g. orang „person‟; barang „thing‟) as „light‟ head nouns followed by yang modifying clauses, with nominalizer yang reanalyzed as a relativizer, as seen in (12) below. 7

8

(12)

[barang yang sudah kita „thing‟ REL already 1PL.INCL tiadalah dapat kita NEG.EXST=FOC able 1PL.INCL

pertetapkan], CAUS.fix.TRANS ubahkan lagi change.TRANS again

„that (< ‘the things’) which we have already decreed, we cannot rescind‟ (Bayan 231:19) It is interesting to note that the relativization process can be recursive, to some extent. As seen in (13) below, when apposed to a lexical head noun such as sahabat („friend‟), the light noun barang „thing‟ in the modifying expression that follows can be further grammaticalized—in combination with relativizer yang—to form a portmanteau relativizer barang yang „that‟.12 (13)

Maka then pergi go

anaknya saudagar itu pun … child=3SG.GEN merchant DEM also mencari sahabat [barang yang berkenan pada hatinya] AF.find friend ‘thing’ REL agreeable to heart=3SG.GEN

(i) ‘Then the merchant’s son went in search of friends, those that please him.’ (ii) ‘Then the merchant’s son went in search of friends that please him.’ (Bayan 221:22) Given structural ambiguities suggest a development from nominalization to relativization in the case of yang, it is interesting to note that Englebretson (2008), based on a corpus analysis of colloquial Indonesian, found that „headless‟ yang constructions (i.e. nominalizations) outnumber „headed‟ yang constructions (i.e. relative clauses) by a ratio of about 5:1—more specifically, 83.1% nominalization vs. 16.9% relative clause constructions. This asymmetrical distribution also suggests the possibility that the nominalizing function of yang is primary and its relativizing function is secondary. This asymmetry may not hold across all genres. For example, our analysis of Classical Malay narratives such as Hikayat Bayan Budiman shows a reverse trend, with „headed‟ yang constructions (i.e. relative clauses) outnumbering „headless‟ yang constructions (i.e. nominalizations) by a ratio of about 4:1—i.e. 77.4% relative clause vs. 18.4% nominalization constructions. The frequently higher incidence of relative clause constructions in narrative discourse can be accounted for on functional grounds. 12

Note here that barang (derived from „thing‟) can also be used to refer to „person(s)‟, clearly indicating that its use has extended to a very general domain, hence its categorization as a „light noun‟.

8

9

That is, in principle, once the relative clause construction is available within the language, it can be deployed to best serve the functional demands of particular genres. In the case of narratives, including those within the oral tradition, there often is a higher frequency of subordinate and embedded constructions, of which the relative clause is one type, due in large part to the pressing need to background known/shared/ presupposed information, so that the plot can advance forward (or unfold) more smoothly. In addition to the extension of yang constructions from its core nominalizing function to a secondary adnominal (or noun-modifying) function, we also see evidence of yang constructions being used in topic marking contexts, as in (14). (14)

Janganlah

tuan

hamba

syak hati

lagi.

do.not=PRT master 1SG(humble form) suspicious.heart any.longer ‘Be not suspicious any longer, sir.’ Yang kami seorang diri ini TOP 1PL.INCL one.person self DEM tiadalah hamba ubahkan janji. NEG.have-PRT 1SG(humble form) change.TRANS promise ‘As for me, I will not go back on my promise.’ (Bayan 224:16) As seen in (15), yang nominalization constructions are also found in complement clauses—either with yang interpreted with a narrow-scope reading as an argument nominalizer (yang mati „the one that die‟) or with a broade-scope reading as a „head-internal‟ complementizer (aku seorang yang mati „that I alone die‟). (15)

Hai

anakku,

daripada

sekalian kamu

INTJ child(ren)=1SG.GEN rather.than all

maka

baik aku seorang

binasa,

2.EXCL be.destroyed

yang mati

therefore good 1SG one.person NMZ die ‘O my children, rather than all of you being destroyed, (i) it is better/best [that I alone be the one that die].’ (ii) it is better/best [that I alone die].’ (Bayan 291:11) More specifically, the syntactic environment here allows for structural ambiguity, such that the yang construction could yield either a predicate nominal reading within an equative construction (maka baik (//) aku seorang (//) yang mati „then it‟s best (//) that I alone (//) be the one that die‟), with a pause or intonation break (indicated by double slashes //) preceding the [yang mati „(be) the one that die‟] predicate nominal 9

10

so that the prosodic emphasis is on the referent aku seorang „I alone‟, or alternatively it could yield a clausal object complement reading (maka baik (//) aku seorang yang mati „then it‟s best (//) that I alone die‟), with no pause preceding the yang construction, indicating a routinized usage with the nominalizing effect of yang scoping not just over the predicate nominal yang mati „the one that die‟ but over the entire clausal complement (aku seorang yang mati „that I alone die‟). In other words, we see clausal compression that facilitates the reinterpretation of yang from argument nominalizer („that I alone (be) the one that die‟) to complementizer („that I alone die‟), albeit a „head-internal‟ type complementizer. In other words, structural ambiguity in syntactic environments such as (15) above allows nominalizer yang to expand its scope from referring to first order ontological entities (e.g. person referent yang mati „the one that die‟ which co-indexes with aku seorang „I myself‟) to referring to third order ontological entitities (e.g. propositional referent aku seorang yang mati „that I die‟). Note that this „raising‟ or „scope expansion‟ mechanism is possible because of two structural conditions. Firstly, the complementizer slot is empty, often accompanied with a pause or intonational break, as seen in (16) below.13 Secondly, the predicate nominal lacks a copula, which is a very common feature of Austronesian languages. The absence of the copula facilitates clausal compression, such that the nominalizing effect of yang could scope over the entire complement clause when there is no pause or intonation break between the subject NP and the predicate nominal construction. (16)

Structural ambiguity that gives rise to complementizer yang interpretations Higher (matrix) clause

+ Complementizer

+ Subject NP

+ Predicate nominal

Malay (i) maka baik

(//)

aku seorang

(//) yang mati

(ii) maka baik

(//)

aku seorang

yang mati

English translation (iii) „then it‟s best

(//) that

I alone

(iv) „then it‟s best

(//) that

I alone

(//) be the one that die‟ die‟

„Headless‟ yang constructions (i.e. yang nominalizations) are also very frequently found in cleft and other types of contrastive focus constructions, as in (17) below. In this excerpt from Hikayat Bayan Budiman, a Malay version of the Sanskrit Sukasaptati („The Parrot‟s Seventy Tales‟), the parrot with its lucid observations of 13

The complementizer slot in (16) above could be filled by an „if‟-type complementizer (Malay jika, jikalau or kalau), but this strong hypothetical reading would ruin the intended meaning of the speaker, who is offering to die to save others. This complementizer slot cannot however be filled by an English „that‟-type factive complementizer (Malay bahawa) because it is not a declarative statement.

10

11

life recounts the story of a carpenter, a weaver, a goldsmith and an ascetic (or holy man) and their fight over a beautiful statue that had come to life. The carpenter had carved her, the weaver had dressed her in fine fabrics, the goldsmith had dressed her in fine jewelry, and the ascetic had prayed, if God be willing, that she be imbued with life. Captivated by her beauty once the statue came to life, each of the four is now fighting to claim her as his own. Note here their use of yang nominalizations in contrastive focus constructions—in the sense of “It is I (and not any of you three) that is her master, for I am the one that did W/X/Y/Z (to/for her).” But as we shall see below, there is again structural ambiguity, which then allows an alternative focus interpretation as well. (17)

a. Maka kata serimala, then say carpenter ‘Akulah [yang empunya dia], own 3SG karena aku [yang perbuat dia].’ because 1SG NMZ CAUS.make 3SG „Then said the carpenter, 1SG=FOC

NMZ

“It is I who am her master (lit. the one that owns her), (i) (ii) b. Maka then „Aku

for I am the one that carved her.”‟ for it is I that carved her.”‟ (Bayan 51:31) jawab pandai bertenun, reply one.skilled.at.weaving juga [yang empunya dia], 1SG too NMZ own 3SG karena aku [yang memberi pakaian].’ because 1SG NMZ AF.give clothing „Then replied the weaver, “I too am her master (lit. the one that owns her),

(i) (ii) c. Maka then „Aku

for I am the one that clothed her.”‟ for it is I that clothed her.”‟ (Bayan 52:1-2) kata pula pandai emas, say in.addition goldsmith [yang empunya dia], 1SG NMZ own 3SG karena aku [yang memberi pakaian emas akan dia].’ because 1SG NMZ AF.give clothing gold to 3SG „Then the weaver added, “I am her master (lit. the one that owns her), (i)

for I am the one that dressed her in gold.”‟ 11

12

(ii) for it is I that dressed her in gold.”‟ (Bayan 52:3-4) d. Maka kata zahid itu, then say holy.man DEM „Bukan siapa pun [yang empunya dia], melainkan aku jua, NEG anyone NMZ own 3SG except 1SG only karena aku [yang memohonkan nyawanya kepada Allah ta’ala].’ because 1SG NMZ AF.ask.TRANS life=3SG.GEN to God the.exalted.one „Then the said the holy man, “None is her master (lit. the one that owns her), save me only, (i) (ii)

for I am the one that asked God Almighty to give her life.”‟ for it is I that asked God Almighty to give her life.”’ (Bayan 52:5-7)

Worth noting is that the nominalizing function of yang can also extend its scope, in that we can obtain not only an argument (or participant) nominalization reading, as seen in interpretations (i) for (17a-d), but we can also obtain a cleft or contrastive focus reading, as in interpretations (ii) for the same set of examples. What interpretations (i) highlight is that focus effects can be achieved through stressed prosody; what interpretations (ii) further highlight is that nominalizer yang in cleft constructions can come to be associated with focus functions, though not quite as grammaticalized as the French (ne) … pas negator construction. That is, although nominalizer yang colludes with stressed prosody to reinforce the contrastive focus reading in cleft constructions, yang itself has not abandoned its role as nominalizer to become a focus marker. Rather, as in the case of complementizer yang, discussed earlier, there is both syntactic and semantic scope expansion, such that yang comes to be associated with signaling a complementation interpretation—that is, the focus could shift from the argument (or participant) nominalization reading in (i) and take on the complementation reading in (ii). In other words, we shift from „I am the one that did W/X/Y/Z‟ to „It is I that did W/X/Y/Z‟.14

14

It is worth noting that focus effects in cleft constructions can be signaled or reinforced by a wide range of strategies. As seen in (17a), the particle lah could serve as focus marker (Akulah yang empunya dia „It is I that owns her‟. As seen in (17b), adverbial juga „too‟ can ride on the wave of the focus effect in the preceding cleft construction (Aku juga yang empunya dia „I too am the one that owns her‟). As seen in (17d), preposed sentential negator bukan also has a strong focus effect (Bukan siapa pun yang empunya dia, melainkan aku jua „It is not anyone that owns her (hence „None is her owner‟), except me only.‟ Crucially, however, as seen in (17c), the stressed prosody alone can also achieve the desired focusing effect. This is not to say that the role of the other constituents—e.g. focus particle lah, adverbs such as juga, preposed sentential adverb bukan—is not important. On the contrary, it highlights that grammatical morphemes, particularly versatile ones, are good candidates for hosting stressed prosody, and they often go on to acquire a pragmatic function as well.

12

13

In sum, we see ample evidence of yang constructions serving both referential and non-referential functions. Perhaps derived from a distal demonstrative (which according to Reid (2010) could itself have been a combination of referentiality marking devices such as case marker *ʔi and common noun nominal specifier *a, plus post-vocalic ligature *=n), yang was already a highly versatile nominalizer in Classical Malay. As highlighted in Figure 1, when apposed to a co-referential lexical noun phrase, the yang nominalization construction readily assumes a noun-modifying function, thus becoming a relative clause. When the yang nominalization construction is found in complement constructions, nominalizer yang can expand its scope and be reinterpreted as a „head-internal‟ complementizer. When the yang construction is preposed to topic position, nominalizer yang assumes the function of theme/topic marker. Here yang gets to introduce an element of perspectivization, and with it an element of speaker subjectivity as well. Yang nominalization constructions are also very frequently found in equative constructions, often with cleft or other contrastive focus effects, and though yang remains a nominalizer still, it additionally acquires the pragmatic focusing function of its context. __________________________________________________________________________________ „Definiteness‟ marker yang (? ~ yam) [yang NP] Topic marker yang [yang (NP) VP], NP VP [NP[yang (NP) VP]], NP VP Source uncertain

Nominalizer yang

Complementizer yang (head-internal)

(perhaps a distal

[yang [ __i VP]]

[complement [NP (no copula) yang VP]]

demonstrative)

[yang [(NP) [VP V __i]]] Yang in equative construction NP(lah) (no copula) [yang (NP) VP] Relative clause marker yang

NP(lah) (no copula) NP[yang (NP) VP]

NPi [yangi [ __i VP]] NPi [yangi [(NP) [VP V __i]]] ___________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. Grammaticalization pathways of Malay nominalizer yang

15

15

Note that the darker dotted arrows indicate that the relative clause constructions, though possible in contemporary colloquial Malay, were not attested in the topic marking and cleft constructions in Classical Malay texts such as Hikayat Bayan Budiman. The lighter dotted arrows indicate that the definiteness reading associated with yang predates Classical Malay.

13

14

3.

Nominalizer -nya

In addition to yang, there is another nominalizing morpheme in Malay of ancient origin, namely, enclitic -nya. It occurs with high frequency and serves a wide range of functions. In his analysis of colloquial Indonesian conversations, Englebretson (2003) identifies the following major functions for -nya: third person genitive enclitic, „identifiability‟ (i.e. definiteness) marker, nominalizer, and adverbial marker. These functions are here illustrated from (18) to (21) using colloquial Malay data. (18)

Potong saja ekornya. cut just tail=3SG.GEN „Just cut off its tail.‟

(19)

Kainnya

terlalu

halus.

cloth=3SG.GEN excessive fine „The fabric is too fine.‟ (< „Its fabric is too fine.‟) (20)

Budak ’ni

makannya

tak

ikut

masa.

child this eat=3SG.GEN NEG follow time Lit. „As for this child, his eating is not according to schedule.‟ Intended meaning: „This child is not eating regularly.‟ (21)

Biasanya dia awal. usual=3SG.GEN 3SG early „Usually he‟s early.‟

Note the cline of abstraction in the above examples. In (18), -nya appears as a third person genitive enclitic (i.e. a possessive pronoun meaning „its‟) following the possessee noun ekor „tail‟, yielding a possessive construction ekor-nya „its tail‟. In (19), -nya appears after a lexical noun kain „cloth‟ in a context where the focus is now less on the possessive relationship and more on the identifiability of the possessee noun, thus yielding the interpretation „the cloth/fabric‟ rather than „its cloth/fabric‟.16 Englebretson (2003:162) identifies this usage of enclitic -nya as a semantic extension from possessive to identifiability marker. In (20), -nya appears as an enclitic after the verb makan „eat‟, and yields an event nominal interpretation makan-nya (equivalent to English gerundive „his eating‟/ „the 16

An anonymous reviewer has pointed out that there are parallels here with other languages, including Turkic languages (see for example Comrie 1988:465; Siewierska, Rijkhoff & Bakker 1998:811-12, notes 14 and 33).

14

15

eating‟). In this context, third person genitive -nya signals a nominalization construction. Such usage of -nya is productive in colloquial speech, which facilitates its reinterpretation as a nominalizer, given the right context. Unlike nominalizer yang, which focuses on signaling an argument referent (e.g. yang makan „the one that is eating‟; yang di-makan „the thing that is being eaten‟), nominalizer -nya is able to focus on an event referent (e.g. makan-nya „his eating‟/*„the eater‟/*„the thing eaten‟). Nominalizer -nya thus provides us with a means to comment on events and situations as abstract nominals. As Englebretson (2003:168) puts it: “Because of its close association with nominal expressions, when it [i.e. -nya] is affixed to a lexical item from a different class, this item takes on the characteristics of a noun.” 17 Also noted in Englebretson (2003:170-171), enclitic -nya often combines with various lexical items to form adverbials such as biasanya „normally, usually‟ (< biasa „normal, usual‟), as shown in (21) above. Other examples include akhirnya „finally‟ (< akhir „end‟), agaknya „presumably, perhaps‟ (< agak „guess‟), and silapnya „unfortunately‟ (< silap „mistake‟). Note that these adverbial -nya expressions often reflect speaker moods as well, particularly when found in utterance-periphery (e.g. clause-initial) positions, as seen in (22), (23) and (24), where enclitic -nya can readily serve as a convenient landing site for prosodic embellishments—such as vowel lengthening and emphatic rise-fall pitch contour—to reflect various shades of speaker‟s emotive expressions, ranging from surprise or disbelief, to regret or resignation, or even annoyance or disgust. (22)

Akhirnya::: kita kalah. end=3SG.GEN 1PL lose „In the end, we lost.‟

(23)

Agaknya::: guess=3SG.GEN

dia

tak suka engkau. 3SG NEG like 2SG

„Perhaps, s/he doesn‟t like you.‟ (24)

Silapnya::: aku lupa beritahu mereka. mistake=3SG.GEN 1SG forgot inform 3PL „Unfortunately/Regrettably, I forgot to mention it to them.‟

Worth noting is that we can still retrieve a nominal interpretation in many of these adverbial uses of -nya—for example, „usually (< his/the usual practice), he comes 17

This could have come about through a process of coercion in grammar (see possible parallels in Huang and Ahrens (2003), in their discussion on noun phrase markers such as classifiers in Mandarin).

15

16

early‟ (21); „finally (< the final analysis), we lost‟ (22); „perhaps (< my guess), (s)he doesn‟t like you‟ (23)18; „unfortunately/regrettably (< the mistake/error), I forgot to inform him‟ (24). Here I suggest that absence of the copula, which is typical of Austronesian languages (Pustet 2003), may have facilitated a reanalysis of -nya nominal expressions into -nya adverbial ones. That is, we obtain reinterpretations such as follows: „the usual practice (is), he comes early‟ > „usually, he comes early‟. Similar reinterpretations obtain for the other examples as well. As noted in Fischer (2007), sentential adverbs are often well-suited to express speaker mood functions. It is not surprising therefore that we find adverbials formed with enclitic -nya being heavily involved in the marking of speaker stance, arguably via the following grammaticalization pathway: third person genitive > (definiteness marking) > nominalizer > adverbial marker > stance marker. The use of -nya in the production of stance constructions is in fact very productive, and Englebretson‟s analysis of colloquial Indonesian (2003:172-185) reveals at least three major stance functions associated with -nya constructions. These include mental/emotional attitude, as in (25), speaker assessment of interactional relevance to ongoing discourse, as in (26), and marker of evidentiality, as in (27). Note that a nominalization interpretation can still be retrieved for bagus-nya in (25), where the strong nominal reading „the good thing (is), they came‟ can give rise to an evaluative reading such as „it is good that they came‟. Similarly, for maksud-nya in (26), we can still easily trace a nominalization link in „the meaning (is), we don‟t have to worry at all‟, with a delicate counter-balancing act between semantic bleaching and pragmatic strengthening giving rise to a discourse particle-like usage in the sense of „meaning (or that‟s to say), we don‟t have to worry at all‟. A nominalization link is less direct but nevertheless still accessible for (27), with nampak-nya „apparently‟ being derived from „the appearance (is)‟ which in turn is derived from „what‟s seen (is)‟. (25)

Bagusnya

mereka

datang.

good=3SG.GEN 3PL come „{The good thing is/What‟s good is} they came.‟ > „It is good that they came.‟ (26)

Maksudnya kita tak perlu risau lansung. meaning=3SG.GEN 1PL.INCL NEG need worry completely „Meaning, we don‟t have to worry at all.‟

18

Agaknya in (23) is interesting because we see here an extension of -nya from third person reference to first person reference („my guess‟), and from thence to such readings as „I suppose‟ and „maybe, perhaps‟. Extensions from third person to second and first person pronominal usage was reported in Englebretson (2003), and is attested in other languages as well (e.g. Classical Chinese pronoun zhi).

16

17

(27)

Nampaknya enak juga. see=3SG.GEN delicious also „It appears to be quite delicious, too.‟

To briefly sum up our discussion thus far, we see an extended use of enclitic -nya from marking possession to marking nominalization and speaker stance. This development is reminiscent of the developments discussed within the Traugottian framework where constructions with propositional meaning take on textual and pragmatic functions (e.g. Traugott 1982, 1989, 1995, 2003, 2010). Data from Malay discussed here show that this development toward subjective and intersubjective uses can also take the path from nominal constructions to stance marking ones. Based on his colloquial Indonesian data, Englebretson (2003) also identifies enclitic -nya as a third person pronominal object (or rather patient argument) following a transitive verb. This pronominal object (or patient argument) marking function for enclitic -nya is also attested in colloquial Malay, as seen in (28). (28)

Jangan dibuangnya. do.not DI-throw.away=3SG.GEN „Don‟t (you) throw it away.‟ (Lit. „Don‟t (you) be throwing it away.‟)

An interesting question, however, is how third person genitive -nya, which is strongly associated with possessors as discussed earlier in (18) and also with agent arguments as seen in (29) below, comes to also be associated with patient arguments as in (28) above. (29)

Dipukulnya saya. DI-hit=3SG.GEN 1SG „He hit me.‟ (≠ „He was hit by me.‟) (Lit. „He be hitting me.‟)

An important clue to this extended use of -nya, where it could come to refer not only to third person agents but also third person patients, appears to be the negative imperative construction, where second person agents are involved, as seen in (30). In such contexts, the usual deictic reference of -nya to third person agent is neutralized. It is also worth noting that, in Malay, third person genitive -nya is also used to refer to second person referents as a marker of politeness (e.g. Di-sila-nya duduk „Please be seated‟ DI-welcome=3SG.GEN(=>2SG.AGT) sit).19 19

The word sila means „to sit cross-legged‟. The expression Dipersilakan is often used as an invitation for the addressee to sit down (traditionally, cross-legged on a mat or rug for men). Literally, di-per-sila-kan means „to be seated‟. It is used as a polite request, and extended its range of functions

17

18

(30)

Jangan di-pukul-nya saya. do.not DI-hit=3SG.GEN(=>2SG.AGT) 1SG „Don‟t (you) hit me.‟ (Lit. „Don‟t (you) be hitting me.‟)

Note that in (29), enclitic -nya still refers to a third person agent in genitive case, which still yields a high transitivity event of „someone hitting me‟ but with the focus not so much on the agent but on the event of hitting and on the affected patient, which is saya „me‟. This „focusing away from the agent‟ strategy is beautifully achieved through the use of third person genitive agent –nya. In negative imperative contexts such as (30), however, the implied causer is a covert second person agent such as engkau „you‟, not a third person agent at all. This second person agent, however, is structurally supposed to „agree‟ with third person genitive enclitic -nya. There appears to be a form-function mapping mismatch. A construction with a highly transparent form-function mapping would be utterances such as Jangan engkau pukul saya ‘Don’t you hit me!’ However, it is not uncommon crosslinguistically for third person pronouns to also extend to second and even first person pronoun referents, given the appropriate pragmatic context, for example, where the extended use of the third person pronoun is used as a politeness strategy (e.g. Shibasaki 2005). Social factors, then, could contribute to the retention of third person genitive -nya in negative imperative contexts such as Jangan dipukulnya saya („Don‟t someone be hitting me‟) in (30) above, where -nya clearly clearly relies on an undefined „third person‟ referent, which for politeness reasons is used to indirectly refer to the potentially aggressive and offensive addressee (i.e. second person agent referent engkau „you‟). Interestingly, elision of the patient NP creates ambiguity and can give rise to several possible interpretations, including (i) a second person agent, with an intended meaning similar to (30) above, in contexts where the first person speaker is telling the second person addressee to refrain from hitting the speaker; or (ii) a second person reflexive agent-patient, as in (31) below, in contexts where the speaker is telling the addressee not to hit himself/herself, i.e. where -nya is understood to be co-referential with diri-mu „yourself‟ (i.e. the addressee himself/herself). (31)

Jangan di-pukul-nya (diri-mu). do.not DI-hit-3SG.GEN self-2SG.GEN „Don‟t (you) hit yourself.‟

to a wide range of invitations, including Dipersilakan makan/minum/masuk/etc. „Please (you) eat/drink/enter/etc.‟ Sila is also used in more direct forms such as Di-sila-nya duduk/makan/minum/etc. „Please be seated/eat/drink/etc.‟, where third person genitive –nya indirectly refers to the addressee (i.e. second person agent).

18

19

Elision of the patient NP could also give rise to a third interpretation, namely, (iii) a third person patient, as in (32), where the speaker is telling the second person addressee not to hit something or someone else. (32)

Jangan di-pukul-nya (benda/orang itu). do.not DI-hit-3SG.GEN thing/person that „Don‟t (you) hit that thing/person.‟

(32) above is structurally and semantically similar to (28) above, reproduced as (33) below. In such constructions, with contexts where the patient argument is a third person referent (in this case, something that could potentially be (adversely) affected (e.g. being hit at or thrown away), third person genitive enclitic -nya could lose its weak association with the covert second person agent referent, and instead comes to associate with the third person patient referent instead. That is, -nya comes to be associated not with the person doing the hitting/throwing but rather with the thing in danger of being hit at or being thrown away. Negative imperative contexts then are potential sites for -nya to be extended from „third person agent referent‟ to „second person agent referent in prohibitive contexts‟, and further on to „second person agent-patient referent in reflexive prohibitive contexts‟. In some contexts, we also see the extension of –nya from „agent reference‟ to „patient reference‟.20 (33)

Jangan di-buang-nya. do.not DI-throw.away-3SG.GEN „Don‟t (you) throw it away.‟ (Lit. „Don‟t (you) be throwing it away.‟)

To sum up our discussion in this section, Figure 2 below summarizes the versatility and grammaticalization pathways of enclitic -nya, highlighting in particular deictic and definiteness functions within the pronominal domain and extensions into speaker mood (i.e. stance marking) functions via the adverbial and intensifier pathways (see also Englebretson 2003:157-186). The role of –nya as a nominalizing element is clearly tied to its noun phrase marking function, both as third person

20

This extension in the use of –nya, to originally refer to the agent but over time to increasingly refer to the patient, is consistent with diachronic and typological accounts which posit that there has been a shift across many Austronesian languages where the language is moving away from an older system oriented toward discourse transitivity and topicality (e.g. Old Malay) to one that is oriented toward thematicity (e.g. Modern Malay/Indonesian) (see for example Cummings 1988; Wouk 1996; Huang 2002).

19

20

genitive enclitic and definiteness marker, and it is also via its nominalizing effect that we see the rise and prolific use of -nya constructions as stance adverbials. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3rd person patient referent -nya [Jangan di-V-nya] 2nd person reflexive patient referent -nya [Jangan di-V-nya] 2nd person agent referent -nya [Jangan di-V-nya NP] 3rd person agent referent -nya [Di-V-nya NP] 3rd person genitive -nya [N-nya]

Definiteness marker -nya [N-nya] ‘Action nominalizer’ -nya [V-nya] Adverbial marker -nya often with stance interpretation: attitudinal, evaluative, etc. [N/V/Adj-nya], VP

Stance marker: Intensifier -nya (Begitu) [Adj-nya] (N) ___________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2. Grammaticalization pathways of Malay nominalizer -nya

Compared to the grammatical functions of yang, where we see a pivotal role for nominalizer and relativizer yang in the rise of complementizer and topic marking yang (see Figure 1), the grammatical functions of -nya as highlighted in Figure 2 show strong evidence of pronominal uses as precursors of massive extensions into adverbial and stance functions. Indeed, in his corpus analysis of colloquial Indonesian, Englebretson (2003) notes that a significant one-third of -nya constructions convey speaker (inter)subjective interpretations, which include attitudinal, evaluative and evidential stances. Here I suggest that the head-final characteristic of enclitic -nya readily facilitates the hosting and encoding of speaker mood prosody, a position I continue to pursue in our discussion of head-final uses of punya in the following section (see also Xu 2004, for discussions of sentence-final position being a natural site for in-situ focus realizations). Another interesting observation is that Malay can rely not only on nominalizer yang, which is typically used to form participant nominalization constructions; the language can also make use of third person

20

21

possessive pronoun (i.e. genitive) -nya as a noun phrase marker that signals action nominalization constructions.

4. Nominalizer punya: a case of language contact Malay has yet another nominalizer, namely punya. The use of punya is now largely restricted to colloquial Malay. Classical Malay texts show frequent use of empunya as a lexical noun meaning „master, owner‟, as in (34), and eventually increasingly as a lexical verb mempunyai, often accompanied by affixes mem-…-i to mark voice and transitivity features, as in (35).21 (34)

Dia

empunya kebun ini. 3SG possessor orchard this „S/he‟s the owner of this orchard.‟

(35)

Mereka 3PL

mem-punya-i ilmu ajaib AF-possess-APPL knowledge magic

„They possess magical powers.‟ In the colloquial register, punya is extensively used as a possessive marker, as in (36), and as a possessive pronoun focusing on the possessee (rather than possessor), as in (37), as well as an epistemic, attitudinal and interactional marker (i.e. speaker mood or stance marker), as in (38). (36)

Jaga-jaga kau punya look.after 2SG GEN „Look after your stuff.‟

(37)

Jangan sentuh aku punya. do.not touch 1SG POSS.PRON „Don‟t touch mine (< „my one‟).‟

(38)

Ibu

(pasti)

akan

barang thing(s)

marah

punya/mya/mia.

21

Data from the Malay Concordance Project provide evidence of maampunyai (i.e. ma-ampunya-i) in some varieties in Malay. This is a variant of me-empunya-i, which easily reduces to mempunyai. The lexical noun empunya itself appears to have been formed from a noun empu „master‟ and third person genitive -nya. Empunya can be used lexically either as a noun or as a verb. Thus Dia empunya kebun itu in (34) above can be interpreted not only as „He is the owner of the orchard‟ but also as „He owns the orchard.‟

21

22

mother certainly FUT be.angry STANCE „Mother will (surely) get upset (I can assure you).‟ As noted in the literature (e.g. Gil 1999; Yap 2003; Yap, Matthews & Horie 2004), without sentence-final punya (or its phonologically reduced form mya or mia), utterances such as (38) would simply be a factual statement. The addition of sentence-final punya/mya/mia, however, makes it a „trust me‟ or „I‟m telling you‟ type assertion. That is, the intersubjective (or interactional) overtone becomes evident when sentence-final punya/mya/mia is added.22 Punya also produces an intensifying effect in pre-adjectival position, as shown in (39), where it expresses mirative expressions (or exclamations) that are laced with strong feelings, including feelings of surprise, incredulity, or even annoyance. A sense of counter-expectation is often discernible in these mirative expressions. (39)

jauh rumah kau ’ni, Timah. STANCE far house 2SG this (name of person:female) Lit. „So far, this house of yours, Timah.‟ Intended meaning: „This house of yours is incredibly far, Timah.‟ Punya

Pre-adjectival uses of stance punya appear to have emerged as an extension of its genitive and associative linking functions, in particular via [begitu + punya + Adjective] constructions, as seen in (40a) and (40b) below. Crucially, the emphatic prosody accompanying the deictic adverb begitu „like that‟ spreads across linking particle punya and extends over the descriptive adjective jauh „far‟. When the deictic adverb begitu is elided, the intensifying prosody persists, and linking particle punya readily gets reinterpreted as an intensifier-type stance marker. This intensifier usage of punya is highly productive in colloquial speech. (40)

a. Begitu punya jauh::: rumah kau ’ni, Timah. like.that LNK far house 2SG this (name of person:female) „So::: far, this house of yours Timah!‟ b. Punya jauh::: rumah kau ’ni, Timah! STANCE far house 2SG this (name of person:female) „So::: far, this house of yours Timah!‟

22

Speaker mood or stance can always be conveyed by sentence-final prosody, but as is well-attested in the literature, sentence-final particles are ideally suited as markers of speaker mood and stance.

22

23

As noted in Yap, Matthews and Horie (2004), diachronic evidence reveals a gradual expansion in the grammatical functions of empunya as follows: lexical noun empunya > genitive/possessive pronominal (em)punya > stance marker punya/mya/mia. As discussed above, the final stage involves the extended use of phonologically reduced punya as stance marker in sentence-final and pre-adjectival positions. As a sentence-final particle, punya is often further reduced to mya (or mia). Gil (1999) further reports the use of pun and nya in other Malay varieties as well. Similar developments involving the grammaticalization of lexical nouns to nominalizers and pragmatic markers (inclusive of sentence-final particles) are also attested in many other languages.23 Nominalizer punya is productive in colloquial Malay, as in (41), but not in the standard variety.24 The use of punya as a relative clause marker, as seen in (42), is marginal in colloquial Malay, and is more typical of Bazaar (or „market variety‟) Malay, pointing to the possible influence of language contact, in particular with dialects of Chinese origin. (41)

(Yang) nak jahit punya letak ’kat sini. NMZ want sew PRON:ones put LOC(< „near‟) here „The ones you want to sew (or mend), put (them) here.‟

(42)

(Yang) mau jahit punya baju letak dekat sini. NMZ want sew REL clothes put LOC(< „near‟) here „The clothes that you want to sew (or mend), put (them) here.‟

Diachronic evidence in fact points to an important role for language contact in the rise of nominalizer and relative clause marker punya. As shown in Yap, Matthews and Horie (2004), corpus analysis of classical Malay texts from the 16th to 20th centuries reveals that genitive and possessive pronominal uses of punya rose sharply in the 19th century, coinciding with a massive influx of immigrant workers from southern China. The rise of these constructions appear to have facilitated the rise of nominalizer and relative clause uses of punya; these latter two constructions were not attested in Classical texts but were (and still are) evident in colloquial and Bazaar (or „market 23

For typological discussions, see Yap & Matthews (2008), Yap & Grunow-Hårsta (2010), and Yap, Grunow-Hårsta & Wrona (this volume); see also Noonan (1997, 2008, this volume) for Bodic and Tamangic languages; Grunow-Hårsta (this volume) for Magar; Simpson (2008) for Burmese; Rhee (2008, this volume) for Korean; Horie (2008, this volume) for Japanese; Shinzato (this volume) and Shibasaki (forthcoming a,b) for Okinawan; Yap, Choi & Cheung (2010) and Yap & Wang (this volume) for Old and Middle Chinese. 24 It should be noted that native speakers often prefer to add nominalizer yang in constructions such as (41), giving rise to „double nominalization‟ phenomena. Interestingly, non-native speakers using the Bazaar variety tend not to use nominalizer yang.

23

24

variety‟) Malay. Here I suggest that the availability of nominalizer and relative clause marker punya in turn facilitated the rise of sentence-final stance uses of punya; this stance marker usage is still in evidence in contemporary colloquial Malay.25 The examples in (43a-b) illustrate how nominalizer punya can easily be reanalyzed as a sentence-final particle (i.e. stance marker punya) via elision of the subject and verb in the matrix clause. In other words, a stance interpretation can easily emerge via elision of the higher matrix clause, leaving behind the complement clause as a stand-alone nominalization construction.26 (43)

a. Aku

pasti [dia akan datang punya]. 1SG certain 3SG FUT come NMZ/SFP „I‟m sure that he will come.‟ b. Dia akan datang punya. 3SG FUT come SFP „He will come (I assure you).‟

Structural parallels between Malay punya and Cantonese ge3 constructions are highlighted in (44) below, the latter representing the southern Chinese dialects (e.g. Hakka, Hokkien and Teochew) with similar contact influence and widely spoken in the western coastal states of peninsular Malaysia. Among the parallel functions are the genitive, possessive pronominal, relative clause marker, nominalizer, and stance uses respectively. With particular reference to (44e), note that Malay nominalizers punya and Cantonese nominalizer ge3 both retain the assertive force of the matrix clause („I know‟) even when this higher clause is elided. Such illicutionary force is encoded prosodically with the sentence-final nominalizers as host, which facilitates their reanalysis as stance markers. (44)

Colloquial Malay

a. Ini engkau punya kerja! this 2SG GEN doing „This is your doing!‟ b. Ini engkau punya. this 2SG POSS.PRON „This is yours.‟

Cantonese a‟. ni1go3 (hai6) nei5 ge3 co3 this:CL COP 2SG GEN mistake „This is your mistake.‟ b‟. ni1go3 (hai6) nei5 ge3 this:CL COP 2SG POSS.PRON „This is yours.‟

25

It is possible that a similar development has taken place at an even earlier date, particularly in places where Chinese traders have made contact with local Malays along the coast, not only on the Malayan peninsula but among the many islands of Indonesia as well, such as Ambon for example. Inclusion of Ambonese and other Malay texts in future analysis will help provide a fuller picture. 26 The term „stand-alone‟ nominalization construction was coined by the late David Watters (2008).

24

25

c. Bak balik aku beli punya benda. c‟. waan4 faan1 ngo5 maai5 ge3 je5 give back 1SG buy REL stuff return back 1SG buy REL stuff „Give me back the stuff I bought.‟ „Give me back the stuff I bought.‟ d. Bak balik (yang) aku beli punya. d‟. waan4 faan1 ngo5 maai5 ge3 give back NMZ 1SG buy NMZ return back 1SG buy NMZ „Give me back the one(s) I bought.‟ „Give me back the one(s) I bought.‟ e. (Aku tahu) kau akan datang punya. e‟. (ngo5 zi1) nei5 wui5 lai4 ge3 1SG know 2SG will come SFP 1SG know 2SG will come SFP „(I know) you will come (for sure).‟ „(I know) you will come (for sure).‟ Chronologically, given that pre-nominal relative clauses were already attested in Old and Middle Chinese (via zhi and zhe constructions), and given that the pre-nominal punya relative clause in Malay is a much more recent development, there is strong reason to believe that the southern Chinese dialects are the donor languages. Typologically, too, it has been shown that pre-nominal relative clauses are extremely rare among SVO languages (Greenberg 1966; Dryer 1992), with the Chinese dialects being rare exceptions. In fact, these Chinese dialects often rely on topicalization strategies to mitigate the frequently high processing costs of using pre-nominal relative clauses within an SVO configuration (Matthews & Yeung 2001; Kwan 2005). Malay, an SVO language, has actually long relied on post-nominal yang relative clause constructions (as noted earlier in §2). Thus, all things being equal, the emergence of punya as a pre-nominal relative clause marker would have been largely unmotivated, particularly in the case of lengthier and phonologically more bulky relative clauses, had it not been for a sociological development with sufficient force to overcome the high cognitive processing constraints. This sociological force, I suggest, came in the form of contact with Chinese dialects on a massive scale. Figure 3 summarizes the grammaticalization pathways for Malay punya. Not discussed earlier but included for the sake of comprehensiveness is the emergence of subordinator punya pasal, via the merger of adnominal (i.e. genitive and relativizer) punya and a lexical head noun pasal (which is a general noun with a wide range of meanings including „reason, matter, affair, business, problem, fault, etc.‟), as shown in (45) below. 27 27

The term „adnominal‟ refers to a linker between a modifying expression and its head noun, and is used extensively in linguistic descriptions related to languages with pre-nominal modification, which are typically verb-final languages such as Japanese, Korean, and Tibeto-Burman languages, with the Sinitic languages being rare exceptions from among the SVO type. Previous studies have identified general nouns (also referred to as formal nouns) meaning „person‟, „thing‟ or „place/location‟ and demonstratives (e.g. Chinese zhi) as sources of adnominals and nominalizers (e.g. DeLancey 1986; Horie 2000; Rhee 2008; LaPolla 1994; Yap, Choi & Cheung, in press; Yap, Grunow-Hårsta & Wrona this volume).

25

26

(45)

a. Semua ’ni all this

dia 3SG

punya GEN

pasal. fault

„All this (is) his fault.‟ b. (Sebab) dulu takut because previously fear sekarang tinggal tulang now remain bone

gemuk fat ’aja. only

punya pasal, because.of ( adverbial pathway, lexical noun (em)punya also developed a possessive pronominal usage, and this in turn gave rise to 26

27

its nominalizing function (often as part of a (yang) … punya double nominalization construction). This second pronominal/nominalizer pathway further gave rise to the highly productive sentence final speaker mood punya/mya/mia constructions. We thus see robust evidence of semantic extensions from referential to non-referential uses in Malay, whereby a lexical noun develops more abstract grammatical and pragmatic functions over time. We also see lexical noun (em)punya being used as a lexical verb; this process of noun>verb conversion is not a grammaticalization phenomenon, for such conversions are spontaneous and generally is available to all languages, with many languages often further developing disambiguating strategies—and in the case of the Malay language, we see the development of the meN-…-i circumfix for lexical verb empunya, while the lexical noun use is often accompanied by noun phrase marker yang, which in time also came to accompany nominal clauses and thus came to be reinterpreted as a nominalizer, as noted in §2 earlier.

5.

Semantic niches of yang, -nya and punya

Table 1 below highlights the functional distribution of each of the three versatile morphemes: yang, -nya and punya. Table 1. Functional distribution of yang, -nya and punya in Malay Function

yang

-nya

punya

Lexical noun

√ empunya

Genitive

√ (em)punya √ possessor-referring

Possessive Pronominal

√ possessee-referring punya

Definiteness marker

√ high focus

√ low focus √

Event Nominalizer/Gerundive Relative Clause marker

√ post-nominal

√ pre-nominal punya

Nominalizer

√

√ punya (Bazaar „market‟ variety)

Complementizer

√ √ complex subordinator

Subordinator

punya pasal Evidential/Attitudinal/

√ mirativity marker

Epistemic/Stance marker

√ stance adverbial

√ SFP punya/mya/mia

27

28

Overall, yang and -nya show very little functional overlap, each morpheme having found its own semantic niche over the course of time. In contexts where they do overlap, i.e. where they both function as identifiability (or definiteness) marker, yang generally yields a stronger focus interpretation and is often used for contrastive identification, as noted earlier in §2 and illustrated again in (46) below, while -nya is more subtle, and typically appears in contexts where the identity of the referent is already given or known, either in prior discourse or from shared knowledge, as in (47). (46)

Aku

nak yang biru, (bukan yang 1SG want DEF blue NEG GEN „I want the red one, (not the blue one).‟

(47)

Aku

kena bayar

sekarang,

tapi

merah). red

duitnya

tak

cukup.

must pay now but money=DEF NEG sufficient Lit. „I have to pay now, but the money is insufficient.‟ Intended meaning: „I have to pay now, but I don‟t have enough money (with me).‟ GEN

As highlighted in (48), in nominalization constructions, as in (a), yang appears in clause-initial position (e.g. [yang tumbang ke arah selatan] „the one(s) that fell toward the south‟), while -nya appears in enclitic position, as in (b), and often yields a different nominalization effect. For example, [tumbang-nya] ke arah selatan „the falling (inclusive of the way/direction it fell) was toward the south‟. What we see then is that yang-nominalizations focus on participant arguments (the one(s) who VP), while nominalizations signalled by third person genitive enclitic -nya focus instead on event nominalizations (the VP-ing event itself). (48)

a. [ yang

[ ___i

tumbang ke arah selatan ]] i NMZ fall to direction south „the one(s) that fall/fell toward the south‟ (referring for example to trees) b. tumbang =nya ke arah selatan fall=3SG.GEN to direction south „its/the falling (i.e. the way/direction it fell) was southward‟

Given their morphosyntactic differences, it is not surprising that we find different types of constraints on the uses of yang and -nya. For example, clause-initial yang appears in post-nominal relative clauses (e.g. ikan [yang dijualnya] „the fish that he 28

29

sells‟) and in post-verbal factive complementations (e.g. aku tahu [(yang) dia kalah] „I know (that) he lost‟), but enclitic –nya does not occur in these constructions. On the other hand, enclitic -nya can be appear as part of a left-periphery (LP) pragmatic marker (i.e. it can help form an attitudinal/evaluative/evidential/epistemic mood marker that occurs sentence adverbially at the beginning of a clause), and such usage can readily give rise to mirativity or other speaker mood/stance interpretations (e.g. Mahal-nya ikan yang dia jual, literally, „So::: expensive, the fish that he sells‟ or „The fish that he sells is so expensive!‟). These speaker mood or stance-marking functions, which are subjective and non-referential in nature, are not attested for nominalizer yang. On the whole, we see that yang and -nya tend to confine themselves to different functional domains. There is slightly more overlap between the grammatical uses of punya with those of yang and -nya. Even so, we see evidence of division of labor and each morpheme has its own characteristic semantic signature. The functional difference between punya and yang largely hinges on register: yang is more formal, and punya is often used in speech produced by or directed toward the non-native interlocutor. Another difference is structural: relativizer yang occurs post-nominally, while relativizer punya occurs pre-nominally. As noted earlier, their difference in word order can be attributed to extensive contact with southern Chinese dialects. There is greater semantic difference between the uses of punya and -nya. For example, in possessive pronominal constructions such as (49), third person genitive enclitic -nya refers to the possessor, while pronominal punya stands for the elided possessee.28 (49)

a. anaknya child=3SG.GEN „his/her child‟ b. dia punya 3SG POSS.PRON

Lit. „his/her possession/thing/stuff‟ / „his/her one‟ > „his/hers‟ Functional overlap is also found in the stance-marking domain (which include attitudinal, evaluative, evidential, epistemic intepretations), but even then there still are subtle differences. For example, as highlighted in (50), epistemic -nya in (50a) is more explicit in revealing the speaker‟s state of mind, since the semantic value of its lexical host is known (e.g. agak-nya „probably, presumably‟; from agak „guess‟), while epistemic punya in (50b) leaves the reader to infer the speaker‟s state of mind from the 28

Othewise also referred to in the literature as „possessum‟, i.e. the thing possessed.

29

30

context, because its semantic referent is not explicitly expressed, though this in no way inhibits epistemic punya from expressing fine shades of speaker mood given its enviable access to sentence-final prosodic cues. (50)

a. Agaknya dia guess=3SG.GEN 3SG

belum not.yet

kahwin lagi marry yet

„Probably (s)he‟s not married yet.‟ b. Dia belum kahwin punya 3SG not.yet marry STANCE „(S)he‟s not married yet, (I tell you / I bet you/ trust me / believe me / etc).‟ There is good reason then for the Malay language to embrace stance markers formed via with the help of different nominalizing elements, like -nya and punya illustrated in (50) above, since their subtle differences provide native speakers with a choice of explicit vs. implicit ways to express their subjective and intersubjective moods (e.g. Nampak-nya dia tak akan datang „It looks like he‟s not coming‟ vs. Dia tak akan datang punya „He‟s not coming, (trust me)‟, often with socio-interactive implications such as „So let‟s not wait any longer‟). As we have seen in this section, competition among the versatile morphemes yang, -nya and punya has resulted in a subtle negotiation of semantic and functional turfs and their boundaries.

6. Conclusion In this paper we have examined three nominalizers in Malay, namely yang, -nya and punya, in terms of their functions, structural differences, and to the extent possible, their diachronic development as well. The analysis presented here highlights some robust grammaticalization patterns that are consistent with typological observations reported elsewhere, including a robust nominal/pronominal > nominalizer > stance marker development. The notion of stance or speaker mood discussed in this paper is a broad one, and has included (contrastive) focus functions (particularly with respect to yang constructions), and attitudinal, evaluative, evidential, epistemic and other speaker mood/stance-marking functions (as seen in the case of enclitic -nya and sentence-final punya constructions). Intensifier stance effects, often with mirative or exclamative effect, also emerged in the case of punya constructions. These intensifier-type punya constructions should prove interesting for future studies on the typology of exclamative constructions, which include among others the „scalar‟ or „intensifier‟ demonstrative constructions 30

31

like those involving English that (e.g. he’s that crazy, I can’t believe it), Classical Chinese zhi (e.g. Han zhi guang ye „the Han River so broad!‟ (< „the Han River that broad‟; see Yue 1998:265), and Czech tak (e.g. tak velký „so big‟ (exclamative reading) < „that big‟; see Landman & Morzycki 2003; also cited in Sio & Tang 2007:72). As noted earlier, the intensifier usage of punya can be traced back to the elision of a deictic adverb with scalar values, namely begitu „like that, to that extent‟ (e.g. begitu punya nakal lit. „like.that + linker + mischievous‟ > punya nakal „so mischievous‟), an elision process which leaves genitive linker punya to assume the pre-adjectival intensifier function, and thus essentially behave much like English that, Classical Chinese zhi and Czech tak investigations into these intensifier-type understanding of the distinctions between stance constructions. To conclude, this paper has shown

in exclamative expressions. Further exclamatives will contribute to our nominalizer vs. non-nominalizer type how three different nominalizers in

Malay—namely, yang, -nya and punya—give rise to a wide range of constructions that capture various shades of speaker mood. Their different stance effects can be traced back to differences in etymological origin and preferred structural configurations, and in the case of punya can be attributed to language contact as well. Their development from referential to expressive marker is consistent with a general tendency for linguistic items to often grammaticalize into pragmatic markers (e.g. Traugott 1982, 1989, 1995, 2003, 2010; Traugott & König 1991; inter alia), and thus points to strong cognitive motivations underlying a process of semantic extension to meet pragmatic needs.

Acknowledgments I wish to gratefully acknowledge generous research funding from the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Faculty of Arts Direct Grant 2006-2007 and Departmental Research Grant (Linguistics) 2008-2009) and from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Faculty of Humanities Start-Up Research Fund 2010-2012). I also wish to thank an anonymous reviewer, and also Karen Grunow-Hårsta, Daniel Kaufman, František Kratochvíl, Hongyong Liu, Naonori Nagaya, Eric Potsdam, Lawrence Reid, Seongha Rhee, Masayoshi Shibatani, Andrew Simpson, Joanna Sio, and Janick Wrona for constructive comments and helpful discussions. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Conference on Beyond „Focus‟ and Ergativity: Towards a More Comprehensive View of Austronesian Morphosyntax, organized by the Centre for General Linguistics, Typology and Universals Research (ZAS), Berlin (September 12-16, 2007) and the Workshop on Definiteness and Referentiality: Theory and Description, organized by the Australian Linguistic Society, University of Adelaide, Australia (September 26-28, 2007), and I wish to thank participants at these conferences for their helpful feedback. This paper has at various stages been inspired by the earlier works of David Gil, Robert Englebretson, and Don van Minde, whose research and earlier insights on punya, -nya and yang respectively paved the way for my present analysis.

31

32

Abbreviations 1 First person 2 Second person 3 Third person AF Actor Focus AGT Agent APPL Applicative (also Transitivizer) ART Article/Definiteness marker ASSOC Associative CAUS Causative CL Classifier COMP Complementizer DEF Definite DEM Demonstrative DIST Distal EXCL Exclusive EXST Existential verb „be/have‟ FOC Focus FUT Future marker GEN Genitive

INCL INTJ LOC NEG NMZ PASS PERF PL PN POSS PRON PROX PRT Q REL SFP SG TOP TRANS

Inclusive Interjection Locative Negator Nominalizer Passive marker Perfective aspect Plural Pronoun/Pronominal Possessive Pronoun Proximal Particle Question marker Relativizer Sentence Final Particle Singular Topic marker Transitivizer

References Adelaar, Karl Alexander. 1985. Proto-Malayic: The Reconstruction of Its Phonology and Parts of Its Lexicon and Morphology. PhD thesis, Leiden University. Bickel, Balthassar. 1999. Nominalization and focus constructions in some Kiranti languages. In Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren G. Glover (eds), 271-296. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy Comrie, Bernard. 1988. General features of Uralic languages. In The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences [Handbuch der Orientalistik, Achte Abteilung, Handbook of Uralic Studies] Denis Sinor (ed), 451-477. Leiden: E. Brill. Coupe, Alec R. 2006. Nominalization, relativization and genitivization in Mongsen Ao and Chang. Paper presented at the Workshop on Nominalization and Its Discontents, Sino-Tibetan Special Interest Group, La Trobe University, August 24. Cummings, Susanna. 1988. Syntactic Function and Constituent Order Change in Malay. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Relativization as nominalization in Tibetan and Newari. Paper presented at the Nineteenth International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, September 11. Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81-138. Englebretson, Robert. 2003. Searching for Structure: The Problem of Complementation in Colloquial Indonesian Conversation. (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Englebretson, Robert. 2008. From subordinate clause to noun-phrase: Yang constructions in colloquial Indonesian. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining, Ritva Laury (ed.), 1-33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gil, David. 1999. The grammaticalization of punya in Malay/Indonesian dialects. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the South-East Asian Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley, USA, May 22. Givon, T. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, NeuroCognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed), 73-113. London: MIT Press.

32

33

Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. (this volume). Innovations in Magar nominalization. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Herring, Susan C. 1991. Nominalization, relativization, and attribution in Lotha, Angami, and Burmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1): 55-72. Horie, Kaoru. 2000. Complementation in Japanese and Korean. In Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, Kaoru Horie (ed), 11-32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Horie, Kaoru. 2008. The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive study. In Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds) in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, 169-187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Horie, Kaoru (this volume). Versatility of nominalizations: Where Japanese and Korean contrast. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Huang, Shuanfan. 2002. The pragmatics of focus in Tsou and Seediq. Language and Linguistics 3(4): 665-694. Huang, Chu-Ren & Ahrens, Kathleen. 2003. Individuals, kinds and events: Classifier coercion of nouns. Language Sciences 25(4): 353-373. Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang. 1983. Kata yang sebagai pengetat. Majalah Pembinaan Bahasa Indonesia 4(3): 175-185. Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian typology and the nominalist hypothesis. In Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Kwan, Wing Man. 2005. On the Word Order of Locative Prepositional Phrases in Cantonese: Processing, Iconicity and Grammar. MPhil thesis, University of Hong Kong. Lahaussois, Aimée. 2003. Nominalizations and its various uses in Thulung Rai. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 26(1): 33-57. Landman, Meredith & Morzycki, Marcin 2003. Event-kinds and manner modification. In Proceedings of the Western Conference in Linguistics (WECOL) 2002, N. M. Antrim, G. Goodall, M. Schulte-Nafeh, & V. Samiian (eds), California State University, Fresno. LaPolla, Randy J. 1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman: Evidence of Sapir‟s drift. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17(1): 61-80. LaPolla, Randy J. 2008. Nominalization in Rawang. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2): 45-65. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matisoff, James A. 1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In Syntax and Semantics, Volume 1, John Kimball (ed), 237-258. New York: Seminar Press. Matthews, Stephen & Yeung, Lousia Y.Y. 2001. Processing motivations for topicalization in Cantonese. In Cognitive-functional Linguistics in an East Asian Context, Kaoru Horie & Shigeru Sato (eds), 81-102. Tokyo: Kurosio. [Chinese version in New Ideas about Topic and Focus, Xu Liejiong & Liu Danqing (eds), 2003, 145-63. Shanghai Educational Publishing.] Mees, C.A. 1969. Tatabahasa dan Tatakalimat. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Morey, Stephen. 2006. Nominalisation and its discontents: Clausal nominalisation in Numhpuk Singpho. Paper presented at the Workshop on Nominalization and Its Discontents, Tibeto- Burman Special Interest Group, La Trobe University, Melbourne, August 3. Morey, Stephen. (this volume). Nominalization in Numhpuk Singhpo. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Noonan, Michael, 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 373-394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Noonan, Michael. 2008. Nominalization in Bodic languages. In Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), María José

33

34

López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds) in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, 219-237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Noonan, Michael. (this volume). Aspects of the historical development of nominalizers in the Tamangic languages. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ophuijsen, Ch. A. van. 1910. Maleische Spraakkunst. Leiden: S.C. van Doesburgh. (cited in van Minde 2008). Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Characterization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reid, Lawrence A. 2010. Palauan velar nasals and the diachronic development of PMP noun phrases: A response to Blust. Oceanic Linguistics 49(2): 438-479. Rhee, Seongha. 2008. On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers. In Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds) in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, 239-264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rhee, Seongha. (this volume). Nominalization and stance marking in Korean. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sheikh Othman bin Sheikh Salim (Chief Editor). (1989). Kamus Dewan, new edition. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Shibasaki, Reijirou. 2005. Personal Pronouns and Argument Structures in Japanese: Discourse Frequency, Diachrony and Typology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Shibasaki, Reijirou. (forthcoming a). From nominalizer to stance marker in the history of Okinawan. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Volume 18, 101-113. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Shibasaki, Reijirou. (forthcoming b). From relativizationto nominalization and more: Evidence from the history of Okinawan. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 101-113. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2009. Elements of complex structures, where recursion isn‟t: The case of relativization. In Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-cognition, Evolution, Talmy Givon & Masayoshi (eds), 163-198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shibatani, Masayoshi & Khaled Awadh bin Makhashen. 2009. Nominalization in Soqotri, a South Arabian language of Yemen. In Endangered Languages: Contributions to Morphology and Morpho-Syntax, W. Leio Wetzels (ed), 9-31. Leiden: Brill. Shinzato, Rumiko. (this volume). Nominalization in Okinawan: From a diachronic and comparative perspective. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Siewierska, Anna, Rijkhoff, Jan & Bakker, Dik. 1998. Appendix—12 word order variables in the languages of Europe. In Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, Anna Siewierska (ed), 783-812. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Simin, Azhar M. 1988. Discourse-syntax of ‘yang’ in Malay (Bahasa Malaysia). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Simpson, Andrew. 2008. The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Burmese. In Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds) in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, 265-288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sio, Ut-seong Joanna & Tang, Sze-wing. 2007. The indexical expressions gam2 and gam3 in Cantonese. Studies in Cantonese Linguistics 2, Joanna Ut-seong Sio & Sze-wing Tang (eds), 55-73. Hong Kong: Linguistics Society of Hong Kong. Steinhauer, Hein. 1992. On the meaning of yang in Indonesian. In The Language Game: Papers in Memory of Donald C. Laycock, Tom Dutton, Malcolm Ross & Darrell Tryon (eds), 427-439. Pacific Linguistics C-110. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Perspectives on Historical

34

35

Linguistics, Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds), 245-271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31-55. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds), 37-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Motives for Language Change, Raymond Hickey (ed), 124-139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 29-71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume 1, Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 189-218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Breugel, Seino. 2006. Nominalisation in Atong. Paper presented at the Workshop on Nominalization and Its Discontents, Tibeto-Burman Special Interest Group, La Trobe University, Melbourne, November 2. van Minde, D. 2008. The pragmatic function of Malay yang. Journal of Pragmatics 40(11): 1982-2001. van Wijk, Gerth. 1909. Spraakleer der Maleische Taal. Batavia: G. Kolff en Co. [1st edition 1889]. (cited in van Minde 2008). Verhaar, John W.M. 1983. On the syntax of yang in Indonesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Volume 4: Thematic Variation, Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & S.A. Wurm (eds), 43-70. Pacific Linguistics C-77. Watters, David E. 2008. Nominalization in the Kiranti and Central Himalayish languages of Nepal. Languages of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31 (2): 1-44. Wouk, Fay. 1996. Transtitivity in Toba Batak and Tagalog. Studies in Language 10: 391-424. Xu, Liejong. 2004. Manifestation of informational focus. Lingua 114(3): 277-299. Yap, Foong Ha. 2003. On native and contact gramaticalization: A diachronic analysis of Malay empunya. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the South-East Asian Linguistics Society, University of California, Los Angeles, May 2-4. Yap, Foong Ha, Choi, Pik-ling & Cheung, Kam-siu. 2010. Delexicalizing di: How a Chinese noun has evolved into an attitudinal nominalizer. In Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research, An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yap, Foong Ha & Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2010. Non-referential uses of nominalization constructions: Asian perspectives. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 1-21. Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen & Wrona, Janick. (this volume). Nominalization strategies in Asian languages. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yap, Foong Ha & Matthews, Stephen. 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds) in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, 309-341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yap, Foong Ha, Matthews, Stephen & Horie, Karou. 2004. From pronominalizer to pragmatic marker: Implications for unidirectionality from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language 59), Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), 137-168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yap, Foong Ha & Wang, Jiao. (this volume). From light noun to nominalizer: The grammaticalization of zhe and suo in Old and Middle Chinese. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Yue, Anne O. 1998. Zhi in Pre-Qin Chinese. T'oung Pao, LXXXIV, 239-292.

35