On Austroasiatic Clause and Phrase Structure in Light of Data from WALS Mark J. Alves AA workshop 2016: Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective Chiang Mai University, Thailand September 5-7, 2016

Goals of this Presentation To show WALS (http://wals.info/feature) as a point of reference through its comparative data and maps to investigate Proto-AA syntax and AA diachronic history based on language contact To consider the applications and limitations of WALS in answering questions articulated in this ICAAL workshop’s position paper (https://sites.google.com/site/icaalprojects/aa- workshop-2016/position-paper) To look at patterns of word order of AA noun phrase and sentence structure in Mainland Southeast Asia, but including surrounding areas for additional context

Using WALS Typological Data Application: Convenient access to geographically presented data allowing quick comparison of languages in the region Focusing: Must noted various language families included in the maps (AA, TK, TB, HM, AN, IE, DR) Assessment: Must assess possible origins of patterns across language families, or acknowledge when that is impossible to know Limitations: (a) many AA languages in the region are not included in the maps and (b) overgeneralizations of the linguistic data miss many important details.

Parameters in Noun Phrases Nouns and numerals Nouns and classifiers Nouns and adjectival modifiers Nouns and genitives Nouns and relative clauses Nouns and demonstratives

WALS Feature 89A: Order of Numeral & Noun Main areas: (1) Vietnam and some AA; (2) Tai, ST, and other AA; (3) Munda following IE/DR patterns

WALS Feature 55A: Numeral Classifiers Required: most AA languages; Optional: in Khmer, some Aslian, some Munda lgs; Caveat: insufficient AA data shown.

Feature 87A: Order of Adjective and Noun MSEA noun-adj dominant; TB exceptions (Hani, Achang, Lahu); Munda following IE/DR patterns

Feature 86A: Order of Genitive and Noun CH/TB adj-noun region; MSEA noun-adj region; Munda following IE/DR patterns

WALS Feature 90A: Order of Relative Clause and Noun CH/TB pre-nominal; MSEA post-nominal; Munda unclear

WALS Feature 88A: Order of Demonstrative and Noun CH/TB and Munda prenominal; MSEA postnominal

On AA Noun Phrases (1) Right-branching of modifiers is dominant in MSEA AA, while Munda patterns with IE/DR. The positions of quantifiers vary with clear regional tendencies (cf. Jones 1970). Some syntactic structures in geographic regions across multiple language families are likely the result of contact and cannot easily be assigned to single language families. Grammaticalization of classifiers is likely later than the AA dispersal.

On AA Noun Phrases (2) Exceptions to common patterns in secondary aspects of syntax (e.g., relative clauses, recurring patterns within specific semantic domains (e.g., stative verbs referring to pain/sickness), etc.) and unexpected patterns (e.g., Vietnamese post-nominal modifiers despite Chinese influence on noun-phrase structure) can be considered likely original Austroasiatic patterns.

Feature 81A: Order of Subject, Object and Verb CH/TB and Munda SOV; MSEA SVO

Feature 82A: Order of Subject and Verb Subject-initial everywhere

Feature 83A: Order of Object and Verb CH/TB and Munda OV; MSEA VO

On Stative Verbs with Body Parts as Oblique Objects Occurs in AA, Tai (but in China?), and Malay, but not CH. Evidence of old comment-topic order? ‘sick/hurt’ + ‘head’ Vietnamese: đau/nhức đau Pacoh: ʔa.ʔaj plo: Khmer: cʰɨɨ kbaal (ឈឺក្បាល) Thai: puat hua (ปวดหัว) Malay: sakit kepala

On Core AA Sentence Structure Modern subject-verb are dominant. Was this the case in the past? MSEA is largely verb-medial, while Munda again patterns with IE/DR. How certain are we that this is result of contact? Some instances of verb-initial structures are documented (variation in Katu, subordinate clauses in Wa and Rumai of Palaungic, some instances in Aslian). Should this change our assumptions? Oblique-objects with stative verbs. Is this evidence of a comment-topic pattern? Is it originally AA or is it regional without the possibility of determining origins?

Discussion Questions USEFULNESS: How much can modern typological patterns be used to make assumptions about Austroasiatic syntax 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 years ago? FOCUS OR NOT: How much progress can researchers make focusing solely on their own area of specialization (e.g., ? EXTRALINGUISTIC SOURCES: What kinds of historical, archaeology, and ethnological information is also needed to make claims about AA morphosyntax in the past and how and why is has changed? WHAT TO ADD: What can the group in attendance do to remedy the obvious limitations of such typological data?