1. 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

2. Goals of this Presentation
To show WALS ( 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 ( 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

3. 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.

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

5. 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

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

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

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

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

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

11. 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.

12. 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.

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

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

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

16. 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

17. 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?

18. 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?