透過製圖理論，本論文主要研究苗栗縣泰安鄉泰雅語汶水方言之主題化現象。本論文主要有三個目的：第一，整理並將所有主題(Topic)分類。第二，透過製圖理論，將分類後主題排序。第三，探討主題化之結構。本文前兩章為泰雅語汶水方言簡介以及文獻回顧。第三章介紹並分類汶水方言之主題，並給予排序；第四章提供汶水方言的疑問詞，目的是為了舉證主題排序的規律性；第五章提供一些汶水方言之模態詞，進一步舉證汶水方言之主題的排列與規律性。第六章再次詳細並統整經過移位(A'-movement)之主題。第七章介紹孤島限制，並介紹非移位(Non A'-movement/Base-generation)之主題。第八章探討主題化之結構。第九章總結。

本論文總共分類出三大類主題 (Topic)。第一類為Fronted Topic(FT)，此類經歷移位 (A'-movement)。此又細分為Topic(Top)和Temporal Topic(TT)。第二類為Contrastive Topic，此非經歷移位(Non A'-movement/ Base-generation);語意上，跟其他主題形成對比。第三類為Discourse Topic(DT)，此也非經歷移位(Non A'-movement/Base-generation);語意上，並沒有跟其他主題形成對比。此又細分為Left Dislocation(LD)，Aboutness Topic(AT)，以及Concerning Topic(CNT)。Left Dislocation(LD)會有resumptive pronoun 跟主題(LD)共指。Aboutness Topic (AT)又細分為the Whole-part Topic (WPT) 和the Possessive Topic (PT)。WPT跟他的resumptive pronoun 會形成整體和部分的關係; 而PT跟他的resumptive pernoun 是形成所屬關係。CNT主要是引入新的話題，成為comment 裡的主題。最後，帶有ani 型式的詞組，將它歸類為焦點(Focus)，跟以上主題不同的是此必須出現在FocP，不可以留在原位。

透過製圖理論，將分類後的主題跟焦點，做出高低/順序之分。在汶水方言中，主題(Topic)跟焦點(Focus)的等級為:CNT > AT > LD > Top > TT > Foc。主題(Topic)都必須高於焦點(Focus)。以上排序也透過了汶水方言之疑問詞和模態詞證實此排序。

The paper aims to explore the topic field in Mayrinax Atayal as compared to Mandarin Chinese, Squliq Atayal, Seediq, and Tsou. Syntactically, there are two types of topic in Mayrinax Atayal: A’-movement and Base-generation/Non A’-movement. Topic related to A’-movement is called Fronted Topic (FT) which is sub-divided into Topic (Top), Temporal Topic (TT), and VP-fronting. On the other hand, Topic involved in base-geneation is called discourse Topic (DT), which contains Left Dislocation (LD), Aboutness Topic (AT), Contrastive Topic (CT), and concerning topic (CNT). In addition, the element introduced by the ani marker is analyzed as focus (Foc).

Topic (Top) means that only absolutive argument can undergo A’-movement, leaving a trace in the matrix clause. Temporal topic (TemP) refers to an temporal adverbial that is topicalized and leaves a trace in the matrix clause. Left dislocation (LD) stands for an ergative argument which can be topicalized, with the occurrence of resumptive pronoun co-indexed with the topicalized element. Aboutness topic (AT) is not the argument of the matrix verb. Concerning topic (CNT) illustrates a new topic of the following conversation. Following Badan and Gobbo (2010), aboutness topic (AT) can be sub-divided into two types: the whole-part topic (WPT) and the possessive topic (PT). The whole-part topic (WPT) means the topic is the whole kind of things and its resumptive pronoun is one part of it. Therefore, it forms the relation between the whole concept in the topic position and part one in the matrix clause. Unlike left dislocation (LD) , it is not the argument of the matrix verb but LD is. As for the possessive topic (PT) , it is the modifier of the resumptive pronoun, but it is topicalized rather than contained within the noun phrase in the matrix clause. Besides, the contrastive topic (CT) should occur in the pseudo-cleft structure,whose interpretation is applied to make a contrast to another. At last, ani marker can be used in two ways: even and indefinite reading. Both of which fall under Focus (Foc)

In my thesis, I propose that syntactically, topic involved in A’-movement should be lower than Topic involved in base-generation: Discourse Topic (DT) > Fronted Topic (FT). With the cartographic approach, the hierarchy between topic and focus is CNT > AT > LD > Top > TemT > Foc. In addition, the topic field in Mayrinax Atayal should be higher than Focus.

Evidence will be offered to support my thesis like modals and verbal interrogatives why. All of which reveal the fact that discourse topic (DT) should be higher than fronted topic (FT).

Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1. Research Questions 1
1.2. Background on Mayrinax Atayal 2
1.2.1. The Phonemic inventory 2
1.2.2. The Voice/Focus Marking System 3
1.2.3. Word Order 5
1.2.4. The tense/aspect/modality (TAM) system 6
1.2.5. The Case System 8
1.2.6. The Pronominal System 9
1.3. Sources of Data 10
Chapter 2. Literature Review 10
2.1. Italian 10
2.2. Mandarin Chinese 14
2.3. Swedish 20
2.4. Austronesian Languages 23
2.4.1. Malagasy 23
2.4.2. Squliq Atayal 24
2.4.3. Tsou and Seediq 25
2.4.4. Mayrinax Atayal 27
2.5. Summary 29
Chapter 3. Topic in Mayrinax Atayal 32
3.1. The definition of topic 32
3.2. Topic with Absolutive Case: FT (Fronted Topic) 34
3.3. Topic with Ergative Case: LD (Left Dislocation) 38
3.4. Topic with the Oblique Case 42
3.4.1. No Topic with the Oblique Case 42
3.4.2. Contrastive Topic (CT) 44
3.5. Aboutness Topic (AT) 46
3.5.1. The Whole-part Topic (WPT) 46
3.5.2. The Possessive Topic (PT) 48
3.6. Temporal Adverbial 50
3.7. Concerning Topic (CNT) 52
3.8. ani Marker (Foc) 54
3.8.1. Even-ani 54
3.8.2. Indefinite Wh-word 55
3.9. Interim Summary 57
3.10. The Hierarchy between FT and DT 57
3.10.1. FT v.s. LD 58
3.10.2. Multiple FTs 59
3.10.3. AT v.s. LD 60
3.10.4. CNT v.s. AT 61
3.10.5. AT v.s. FT 63
3.11. Interim Summary 63
Chapter 4. Interrogatives in Mayrinax Atayal 66
4.1. Introduction 66
4.2. Nominal Focus 68
4.2.1. Absolutive Case 68
4.2.2. Ergative Case 72
4.2.2.1. Ergative Case is Not Allowed 72
4.2.2.2. Ergative Case is Allowed 73
4.2.3. Oblique Case 74
4.2.4. Locative Case 75
4.2.5. Temporal Adverbial 77
4.3. Nominal Interrogatives 78
4.3.1. ima ’who/ whose’ 79
4.3.1.1. ima ’who’ 79
4.3.1.2. ima ’whose’ 80
4.3.2. nanuwan ’what’ 81
4.3.3. ainu’ ’which’ 82
4.3.4. mhananu ’what type’ 83
4.4. Adverbial Interrogatives 84
4.5. Verbal Interrogatives 86
4.5.1. piya’/pa-piay ’ ’how many/ much’ 87
4.5.2. micuwa and mhananu ’manner how’ 89
4.5.3. mhananu ’resultative how’ 90
4.5.4. mhananu ’how come’ 91
4.5.5. micuwa’ ’why’ 92
4.6. The Hierarchy between Topic, Nominal Predicate, and Verbal Interrogatives 94
4.6.1. The Order between Topic and Nominal Predicate 94
4.6.2. The Order between Focus and Verbal Interrogative why 96
4.6.3. The Order between Topic and Verbal Interrogative why 97
4.6.3.1. Fronted Topic (FT) and micuwa ’why’ 97
4.6.3.2. Left Dislocation (LD) and why 99
4.6.3.3. Aboutness Topic (AT) and why 100
4.6.3.4. FT, LD, and why 101
4.6.3.5. AT, LD, and why 102
4.7. Interim Summary 103
Chapter 5. Modality in Mayrinax Atayal 104
5.1. Introduction 104
5.2. Propositional Modality in Mayrinax Atayal 105
5.2.1. Evidential Modal 105
5.2.2. Epistemic Modal 107
5.3. Categorization of Propositional Modals 108
5.3.1. Non-verbal Properties 108
5.3.1.1. The Lack of TAM 108
5.3.1.2. The Lack of Voice Marker 109
5.3.2. Non-adjunct Properties 111
5.3.2.1. Limit Distribution 111
5.3.2.2. No AV-Only 112
5.3.3. Modal Adverbial 114
5.3.3.1. VP-ellipsis 114
5.3.3.2. VP-Preposing 117
5.4. Deontic Modal 118
5.4.1. TAM 119
5.4.2. Voice Marker 120
5.4.3. Bound Pronoun 122
5.4.4. Predicate without AV Only 122
5.5. Dynamic Modal 124
5.5.1. TAM 124
5.5.2. Voice Marker 124
5.5.3. Bound Pronoun 126
5.5.4. Predicate with AV-only 126
5.5.5. VP Ellipsis (VPE) 128
5.6. VP Topicalization 129
5.7. Syntactic Restrictions and Distributions of Modals 131
5.7.1. Modals and Predicate 131
5.7.2. Modals and Negation ini’ and iqaat 133
5.7.2.1. Propositional Modal and Negation 137
5.7.2.2. Deontic Modals and Negation 138
5.7.2.3. Dynamic Modal and Negation 139
5.7.3. Propositional, Deontic, and Dynamic Modal 140
5.7.3.1. Evidential and Epistemic Modals 140
5.7.3.2. Propositional and Deontic Modals 141
5.7.3.3. Propositional and Dynamic Modals 142
5.7.4. Modality and verbal interrogative why 143
5.7.4.1. Propositional Modals and why 143
5.7.4.2. Deontic Modals and why 143
5.7.4.3. Dynamic Modals and why 144
5.7.5. Event Modality and Topic 145
5.7.5.1. Dynamic Modal and Topic 145
5.7.5.2. Deontic Modals and Topic 146
5.7.6. Propositional Modality and Topic 147
5.7.6.1. Propositional Modals and Fronted Topic (FT) 147
5.7.6.2. Propositional Modals and Left Dislocation (LD) 148
5.7.6.3. Propositional Modals and Aboutness Topic (AT) 150
5.7.6.4. Propositional Modals, FT, and LD 151
5.7.6.5. Propositional Modals, FT, and AT 152
5.7.6.6. Propositional Modals, AT, and LD 154
5.8. Interim Summary 154
Chapter 6. A’-Movement 156
6.1. Absolutive Case 156
6.1.1. Personal Case Marker 'i' 156
6.1.2. Case Marker a’ 157
6.1.3. Case Marker ku' 159
6.1.3.1. Simple DP 159
6.1.3.2. Wh-question 160
6.1.3.3. Nominalization 161
6.1.3.4. Number 162
6.2. Temporal Adverbial 163
6.3. Other Adverbials 164
6.4. Psych Verb 165
6.4.1. balayq ’like’ 165
6.4.2. ’aqih ’hate’ 166
6.5. Factive Verb 167
6.5.1. baq-un ’know’ 167
6.5.2. ’ungi’-an ’forget’ 169
6.6. Relative Clause 170
6.7. Quantifier 171
6.8. Tough Construction 172
6.9. VP Topicalization 174
6.10. ani Marker (Focus) 174
6.10.1. Even ani 174
6.10.2. Idefinite wh-word ani 175
6.10.2.1. Existential Indefinite 177
6.10.2.2. Universal Indefinite 180
6.11. The Hierarchy between Indefinite wh-word Focus and Other Topic 184
6.12. The Hierarchy between ani DP and Deontic Modals 186
6.13. Inerim Summary 187
Chapter 7. Base-generation 189
7.1. Introduction 189
7.2. nia’ in Mayrinax Atayal 189
7.2.1. Ergative Case vs. Third-Person Pronominal 189
7.2.2. Resumptive pronoun vs. Genitive Case 190
7.2.3. Additional Linkers ku' and ka' 193
7.3. Resumptive Pronoun in Mayrinax Atayal 195
7.3.1. Ergative Case 195
7.3.1.1. Ergative Argument 195
7.3.1.2. Ergative Argument within Relative Clause 196
7.3.2. Epithet 197
7.3.3. The Whole-part Topic (WPT) 198
7.3.4. The Possessive Topic (PT) 198
7.3.5. Interim Summary 200
7.4. Indefinite Wh-word (Focus) 200
7.5. Relative Clause 201
7.6. Other Topic 202
7.7. Island Constraint 204
7.7.1. The Absolutive Case Marker ku’ and ’i’ 204
7.7.2. The Absolutive Case Marker a’ 207
7.8. The Hierarchy between Discourse Topic 209
Chapter 8. On the Syntax of Topic in Mayrinax Atayal 213
8.1. Previous Studies 213
8.1.1. Aldridge (2004, 2013) 213
8.1.2. Potsdam (2004) 217
8.1.3. Tsai (2015) 219
8.2. Analysis of Topic in Mayrinax Atayal 221
8.2.1. The Hierarchy of Topic 221
8.2.2. Topicalization in Mayrinax Atayal 224
8.3. Focalization 229
Chapter 9. Conclusion 232
References 235

Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Dissertation, Cornell University.
Aldridge, E. 2007. Minimalist analysis of ergativity. Sophia linguistica 55: 123-142.
Aldridge, E. 2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 2.5: 966-995.
Aldridge, E. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122 (2012) 192–203.
Alexiadou, Artemis 2006. Left Dislocation (including CLLD). In Everaert, Martin & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Vol. II, 668-699. Oxford: Blackwell.
Badan, Linda & Francesca Del Gobbo. 2010. On the syntax of topic and focus in Chinese. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery, 63-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bei, Tsai Li. 2014. Modal constructions in R'uyan Atayal. MA dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Beninca and Poletto 2004. Topic, Focus, and V2.
Beninca’P. 1988. L'ordine degli element della frase e le costruzioni marcate. in L. Renzi (ed.) Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Bologna: Il Mulino, vol. l, 129-194.
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656.
Chang, Henry Y. 1997. Voice, case and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. PhD dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Chang, Henry Y. and Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 2001. Actor-sensitivity and Obligatory Control in Kavalan and Some Other Formosan Languages*. Language and Linguistics.
Chang, Henry Y. 2005. “The Guest Playing Host: Adverbial Modifiers as Matrix Verbs in Kavalan,” in Hans-Martin Gartner et al., eds., Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages,Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 43-82.
Chao, Y.-R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cheng, Hui-Wen Wendy. 2015. Non-finite Clauses in Mayrinax Atayal: A view from Cartographic Approach. MA dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Chomsky, N. 1977. 'On Wh movement', in: A. Akmajian, P. Culicover and T. Wasow (eds.), Formal Syntax. Academic Press, New York, pp. 71-132.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser eds, The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, p. 1-52. Cambridge MA, MIT Press. dissertation. Los Angeles: UCLA.
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A' Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, G. 1982. Topic Construction in some European Languages and Connectedness."in K. Ehlich H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) Connectedness in Science, Text and Discourse. Tilburg: Tilburg, University, 7-14.
Culicover, Peter. 1992. Polarity, Inversion, and Focus in English, in Westphal et al. (eds), ESCOL1991, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, pp. 46-48.
Egerland. 2013. The Apropos-Topic, the Concerning-Topic & the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface.
Ernst, Thomas, and Chengchi Wang. 1995. Object Preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4:3, 235-260.
Gao, Q. 1994. Focus criterion: Evidence from Chinese. In: Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, J. Camacho and L. Choueiri (eds.), 51–73. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Guilfoyle, E., H. Hung, and L. Travis. 1992. “Spec of IP and Spec of VP: TwoSubjects in Austronesian Languages.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10: 375-424.
Gundel, Jeannette. 1977. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.
Hsiao, I-Ling Stella. 2004. Advebials in Squliq Atayal. MA Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1989. Pro drop in Chinese: A generalized control approach. In The null subject parameter, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli and Ken Safir, 185-214. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Huang, C.-T. James, Y.-H. Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Lillian M. 1995. A Study of Mayrinax Syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Huang, Lillian M. 2001. Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspective. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities and Social Science. 46. 1-2:51-69.
Huang, Lillian. M. 2002a. Nominalization in Mayrinax Atayal. Language and Linguistics, 3.2: 197-225.
Huang, Lillian. M. 2000b. Tàiyǎyǔ cānkǎo yǔfǎ (泰雅語參考語法). Taipei: Yuǎnliú Press.
Huang, Lillian. M. 2008. Tàiyǎyǔ fāngyán yánjiù (泰雅語方言研究). Project funded by the National Science Council of Taiwan (NSC 96-2144-H-158-008).
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. “Remarkable Subjects in Malagasy.” in Charles N. Li (ed.)
Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press.Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Subject and Topic: a new typology of language. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 457-489. New York: Academic Press.
Li, Y.-H. A. 2000. Topic Structures and Minimal Effort. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 20:1-20.
Lin. 2006. Interrogatives in Squliq Atayal. MA Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Liu, Dorinda Tsai-hsiu. 2011. Complementation in three Formosan languages—Amis, Mayrinax Atayal and Tsou. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai’i.
Lu, Yu-an. 2009. Quantifier stranding and reflexive stranding in Mayrinax Atayal. 25th Northwest Linguistics Conference (NWLC).
Massam, Diane. 2003. Questions and the left periphery in Niuean. In Proceeding of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Austronesia Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 9) [Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19], Anastasia Riehi and Thess Savella (eds), 94-106. Ithaca NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.
Paris, M.-C. 1998. Focus operators and types of predication in Mandarin. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie orientale 27: 139–159.
Paul, Ileana. 2000. Malagasy Clause Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.
Paul, Ileana. 2008. On the Topic of Pseudoclefts. Syntax 11:1,91-127.
Paul, W. 2005. Low IP and left periphery in Mandarin Chinese, Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, vol. 33: 111-134.
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach. PhD dissertation.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 355-426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Potsdam, Eric. 2004. Wh-Questions in Malagasy. In Proceedings of AFLA 11. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 34, ed. by Paul Law, 244-258. Berlin: Zentrum fü rAllgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the Clausal Typing Hypothesis. Lingua 116: 2154-2182.
Potsdam, Eric. 2007. Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:577-613.
Potsdam, Eric. 2009. Austronesain verb-initial languages and Wh-question strategies. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:937-771.
Riemsdijk, Henk van 1997. Left Dislocation. In: Materials on Left Dislocation. Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk C. van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts (eds.), 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rizzi, L. 1997 “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”, in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 281-337.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1999. On the Position “Int(errogative)” In the Left Periphery of the Clause. Ms. Universitá di Siena.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Ross, John R. 1986. Infinite syntax! Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Shi, Dingxu. 2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language 76: 383-408.
Shyu, S. 1995. The Syntax of Focus and Topic in Mandarin Chinese, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan.1994. On Economizing the Theory of A-Bar Dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1997a. taiwan nandaoyu yiwencide wudinyongfa – gamalanyu zouyu ji saidekeyu de bijiao yanjiu [Indefinite Wh-construals in Formosan languages: A comparative study of Kavalan, Tsou, and Seediq]. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 27.4:381–422. [In Chinese]
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 1997b. Indefinite Wh’s in Formosan Languages and Typology of Wh-Dependencies: Evidence from Seediq and Tsou, paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Taipei, Dec. 28-31.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1997c. “Indefinite Wh construals in Taiwan Austronesians—the Comparative Study on Kavalan, Tsou, and Seediq.” Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 27(4), 381-422.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. On Relativizing Adverbials. Language and Linguistics 9.4: 967-984.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Left Periphery and How-Why Alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17:83-115.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2015. Subjecthood and temporal adjunct in Atayal, Seediq, and Tsou*.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2015. On the Topography of Chinese Modals. In Beyond
Functional Sequence, ed. by Ur Shlonsky, 275-294. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wang, J. 2005. Resumptive Pronouns are not Optional.
Wei, Ting Chi. 2009. Possessor Extraction in Mandarin Chinese Revisited A pro Analysis
Wu, Chun-Ming. 2013. The Syntax of Linking Constructions in Mayrinax Atayal and Sinvaudjan Paiwan. PhD dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Yu, Xin-Xian Rex. 2008. Two types of adverbials in Mayrinax Atayal. Nanzan Linguistics: 125-137.
Yu, Xin-Xian Rex. 2015. Modals and Mood Particles in Mandarin Chinese and Mayrinax Atayal. PhD dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.