Complementizers in Niuean and Tongan

Diane Massam & Yuko Otsuka

University of Toronto & University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

In this paper we examine interesting differences between complementizers and relativization strategies in Tongan (Tg) and Niuean (N). These two languages are the only two members of the Tongic subgroup of Polynesian languages (Pawley 1966, 1967), so they provide an ideal grouping for the study of syntactic micro-variation, which has not previously been exploited. We develop a featural analysis of the complementizers in the two languages, and discuss the consequences of this analysis.

Tg and N behave differently with regard to relativization. Tg shows an ergative pattern: ABS arguments undergo normal relativization (the gap strategy) whereas ERG relatives require a resumptive pronoun (RP). In contrast, the gap strategy is used for both ABS and ERG arguments in N.  See (1) and (2). Otsuka (2002) proposes that the distribution of RPs is explained in terms of C’s features, specifically, strong/weak [+pron(ominal)] and a Case feature associated with it. C’s [+pron] feature must be checked under Agree, in the sense of Chomsky (2000), with the matching features of a relative pronoun. When this feature is strong, it induces movement and a gap occurs. When it is weak, the relative pronoun remains in situ and a RP results. The difference between N and Tg is then attributed to the types of Cs available in each language. C in N is analyzed as having a strong [+pron] but no case feature, consistent with the claim that the N left periphery lacks nominal features and specifier positions (Massam 2002), and with the absence of clitics in N as compared to Tg.

There are further differences between the Cs in Tg and N. For example, in N, they change form in the context of operator extraction (see (3)), whereas in Tg they do not. We argue that in N, T moves to C, whereas the verb does not (given the VP-fronting analysis of Massam, 2000). This results in a portmanteau morpheme denoting both tense and complementation status in N, which is demonstrably separate from the verb. In operator extraction cases, movement to specifier is prohibited (see above), so an operator must head-adjoin to C, resulting in a portmanteau operator/tense/complementizer morpheme spelled out in this position. The Tongan fact, on the other hand, suggests the following: a) what moves to C is T+V complex, in accordance with the V-to-T-to-C movement analysis (Otsuka 2001) and b) the Tg left periphery has nominal features and specifier positions. C and T cannot form a single unit independent of the verb, nor can they combine with an operator, which, unlike in N, is in Spec rather than adjoined to C. Hence the lack of portmanteau forms.

In closing, we discuss the summary of C features in Tg and N as provided in (4).

 (1)                    Tongan

1. e      fefine [na’e t/*ne tangi]

def woman pst       she. cry                                    ‘the woman who cried’

      b.   e       fefine [na’e   fili t/*ia ‘e Sione]

def woman pst choose her erg Sione         ‘the woman who Sione chose’

c.   e      fefine [na’e *t/ne    fili    ‘a Sione]

def woman pst      she choose abs Sione      “the woman who chose Sione’

(2)                    Niuean (Seiter 1980: 94)

      a.   e      tama  ne    hau    (*a ia) i Makefu

            def child nft come abs he loc Makefu

            ‘the child who (he) comes from Makefu’

      b.   ke he  tama   ka kai   (*e ia)   e tau pateta

            to def child fut eat erg he abs pl potato

            ‘to the child who (he) is going to eat the potatoes’

      c.   mo     e   tagata    ne  moto     e   koe (*a ia)

            with abs person nft punch erg you abs him

            ‘with the person who you punched (him)’

(3)  a.   Niuean Sentence-Initial Complementizers (TAMs) in Matrix Clauses

b.   Niuean Sentence-Initial Complementizers (TAMs) in Operator-Extraction

(4)                    C’s features in Niuean and Tongan

References:

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka eds. Step by step, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp.91-155.

Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean Word Order. In A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle, eds. The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 97-117.

Massam, Diane 2002. Questions and the left periphery in Niuean. Paper presented at AFLA9, 2002. Cornell University.

Otsuka, Yuko 2001. Syntactic ergativity and the nature of pronouns in Tongan. Paper presented at AFLA8, 2001. MIT.

Otsuka, Yuko. 2002. Syntactic ergativity in Tongan: Resumptive pronouns revisited. Paper presented at Workshop on ergativity, 2002. University of Toronto.

Pawley, Andrew. 1966. Polynesian Languages: a subgrouping based on shared innovations in morphology. Journal of the Polynesian Society 75:39-64.

Pawley, Andrew. 1967. The relationships of the Polynesian Outlier languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 76:259-96.

Seiter, William: 1980. Studies in Niuean Syntax. Garland Press, New York.