本篇論文旨在研究賽夏語疑問詞問句及其左緣結構，主要課題著重在各類疑問詞的語意詮釋機制及其在句法結構上的分佈。
賽夏語的疑問詞，根據句法和構詞上的表現，大致可以區分為名詞性、狀語性等兩類。其中，名詞性疑問詞如同一般名詞可以被格位記號(case-markers)標記，也可以在等同結構(equational construction)中擔任謂語(predicate)；狀語性疑問詞的自由分佈，違反了主語優勢(subject-sensitive)理論，但可由蔡(2004)的時態特徵假說(T-feature checking hypothesis)獲得合理說明；我們也討論了一些具有雙重角色(dual status)而可以擔任中心語或者修飾語的疑問詞。
我們認為賽夏語是典型的疑問詞在位(wh-in-situ)語言。由於名詞性疑問詞透過「運符-變數約束」(operator-variable binding)得到認證(licensing)，不涉及句法移位，故缺乏地域效應(locality effects)，且違反空號原則(ECP)及承接條件(Subjacency)。嚴格來講，其詮釋過程(interpretation procedure)是雷因哈特(1998)所倡議的選擇函數(choice function)，即疑問詞具有選擇函數的功能並挑選由名詞制約(N-restriction)所指涉的群組變數(set variable)，接著此選擇函數再轉譯(translated)為f-變數(f-variable)，最後由遠端的一個「疑問-運符」(Q-operator)進行長距離約束(long-distance binding)。如此，解決了無擇約束(unselective binding)蘊含(entailment)不正確的問題，也說明了疑問詞的無定用法是其他的量化詞(quantifiers)與「疑問-運符」相互干涉(intervention)的結果。
我們提出賽夏語中的狀語性疑問詞nak ’ino’(怎麼)和’am powa’(為什麼)會因結構位置而產生不同語意。透過詞序、主語限制(subjectivity restriction)、干涉作用(intervention effects)、範域互動、無論-結構、句子補語、多重疑問結構等證據，我們認為「致使-怎麼」和「原因-為什麼」位於句子左緣(left periphery)，作為整個句子的運符；「方法-怎麼」、「工具-怎麼」、「目的-為什麼」則佔據輕動詞組左緣(vP periphery)，作為事件謂語。「方法-怎麼」為副詞性狀語，具有量化特徵，必須進行邏輯位移(LF-movement)，「工具-怎麼」及「目的-為什麼」則透過「運符-變數」得到認證。由於認證過程不同，產生不同程度干涉作用；「結果-怎麼」則作為論元，出現在動詞組的補語位置，由動詞管轄(govern)。採用芮茨(1997)和藍姆康德(2003)的製圖理念(cartographic approach)以及蔡(2007)內狀語-與事性(comitativity)和外狀語-致使性(causality)的區分，我們描繪了賽夏語疑問詞的句法-語意地圖，同時認為疑問詞間干涉作用的不對稱性(asymmetry)，可以透過芮茨(1997)提出的廣義相對性近距原則(Generalized Relativized Minimality)得到合理解釋(或見蔡2008)。

The thesis deals with wh-questions and left periphery in Saisiyat. We focus on the topics regarding the interpretation and the syntactic distribution of wh's.
The interrogatives in Saisiyat are grouped into two types: nominal and adverbial according to their corresponding syntactic and morphological behaviors. Among them, nominal wh-words like general nouns can either be marked by case markers or function as predicates in equational constructions. On the other hand, the free distribution of adverbial wh-words, which violate subject-sensitive theory, can be reasonably illustrated under the T-feature checking hypothesis proposed by Tsai (2004). Moreover, we will also discuss some wh-words with dual-status, which can serve as a head and as a modifier.
We argue that Saisiyat is a true wh-in-situ language. Since nominal wh-words are licensed by operator-variable binding involving no syntactic movement, it lacks locality effects, and violates ECP and Subjacency. Crucially, the interpretation procedure is through the choice function put forward by Reinhart (1998). That is, wh’s serve as a choice function which selects the set variable denoted by N-restriction. The choice function, in turn, is translated as an f-variable being long-distantly bound by a Q-operator far away. Thus, it solves the problems of incorrect entailment resulting from applying unselective binding mechanism. Furthermore, the indefinite wh construals are due to the intervention between the Q-operator and other quantifiers.
We propose that the adverbial wh-words, i.e. nak ’ino’ ‘how’ and ’am powa’ ‘why’, in Saisiyat have different significance depending on their corresponding syntactic positions. According to the evidence from subjectivity restriction, intervention effects, no-matter constructions, multiple wh-constructions, etc., it follows that causal how and reason why are directly merged into left periphery and function as sentential operators, whereas manner how, instrumental how and purpose why occupy the vP periphery and serve as event predicates. Manner how as an adverb with quantifier feature must undergo LF movement. However, the latter two are licensed by operator-variable binding. Dissimilar licensing procedure results in intervention effects with different degree. Besides, reason how as an argument occurs in the complement position of predicate and is governed by the verb. Adopting the cartographic approach (cf. Rizzi 1997, Ramchand 2003) and inner-outer dichotomy (cf. Tsai 2007), we depict the syntax-semantics map of the wh’s. Thus, the asymmetry of intervention effects on wh’s can get a reasonable explanation under Rizzi’s (1997) Generalized Relativized Minimality (see also Tsai 2008).

Chinese Abstract...........................................i
English Abstract..........................................ii
Acknowledgements.........................................iii
List of Abbreviations......................................v
List of Tables and Figures...............................vii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION...................................1
1.1 An Overview............................................1
1.2 A Sketch of Saisiyat...................................4
1.2.1 General background...................................4
1.2.2 The linguistic position of Saisiyat..................5
1.2.3 Language vitality....................................8
1.3 Phonology..............................................9
1.3.1 Phonemic inventory...................................9
1.3.2 Syllable structure..................................12
1.3.3 Consonant clusters..................................13
1.4 Syntax................................................13
1.4.1 Word order..........................................13
1.4.2 The case-marking system.............................17
1.4.3 Pronominal systems..................................21
1.4.4 The voice system....................................24
1.4.5 Tense, aspect and modality system...................27

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW.............................29
2.1 Previous Research on Saisiyat.........................29
2.2 Previous Research on Interrogatives...................31
2.2.1 Previous research on syntactic structure and devices31
2.2.1.1Watanabe’s (1992) proposal........................31
2.2.1.2 Kiss’s (1993) proposal...........................34
2.2.1.3 Reinhart’s (1998) proposal.......................37
2.2.1.4 Rizzi’s (1997, 2001) proposal....................41
2.2.2. Previous research on how and why...................44
2.2.2.1 Collins’s (1991) approach........................44
2.2.2.2 Ochi’s (2004) approach...........................45
2.2.2.3 Ko’s (2005) approach.............................47
2.2.2.4 Tsai’s (2008) approach...........................49
2.3 Previous Research on Interrogatives in Other Formosan
Languages.............................................50
2.3.1 Huang et al.’s (1999a) analysis....................51
2.3.2 Formal studies......................................52
2.3.2.1 Aldridge’s (2002) analysis.......................52
2.3.2.2 M. Chang’s (2000) and Tsai & Chang’s (2003)
analysis..............................................53
2.3.3 Others..............................................54

CHAPTER THREE WH-WORDS IN SAISIYAT........................57
3.1 Wh-words in Saisiyat..................................57
3.2 Nominal Wh-words: hiya’, kano’, ha’ino’,
piza’/koza’.........................................60
3.2.1 The distribution of nominal wh-words................60
3.2.2 Interaction with the voice system...................62
3.2.3 hiya’ ‘who’......................................69
3.2.4 kano’ ‘what’.....................................70
3.2.5 ha’ino’ which.....................................72
3.2.6 piza’ ‘how many’ vs. koza’ ‘how much’.........72
3.2.7 Summary.............................................73
3.3 Adverbial Wh-words....................................74
3.3.1 ’ino’ ‘where’...................................74
3.3.2 ’ino’an ‘when’..................................76
3.3.2.1 The distribution of ’ino’an ‘when’............76
3.3.2.2 Realis vs. irrealis temporal wh-adverbials........79
3.3.2.3 Case study from other Austronesian languages......81
3.3.3 Analyses of the free distribution of temporals......84
3.3.3.1 H. Chang’s (1997) proposal.......................84
3.3.3.2 Tsai’s (2004) proposal...........................87
3.3.4 Summary.............................................90
3.4 Verbal or Not Verbal..................................90
3.5 Wh-words as modifiers.................................93
3.5.1 ha’ino’ ‘which’.................................94
3.5.2 piza’ ‘how many’ vs. koza’ ‘how much’.........94
3.5.3 ’inak ’ino’an ‘what kind’......................96
3.6 Summary...............................................96

CHAPTER FOUR WH-MOVEMENT OR WH-IN-SITU....................99
4.0 Introduction..........................................99
4.1 Typological Dichotomy................................100
4.2 Saisiyat: A True Wh-in-situ Language.................101
4.2.1 Declarative sentences and wh-questions.............101
4.2.2 Direct and indirect questions......................102
4.2.3 Multiple wh-questions..............................103
4.3 No Movement: SS and LF...............................104
4.3.1 Absence of island effects..........................104
4.3.2 Subjacency violation...............................106
4.3.3 ECP violation......................................107
4.4 A Puzzle: Wh-in-Situ with Wide Scope.................108
4.4.1 Superiority Condition..............................109
4.4.2 ECP Condition......................................110
4.4.3 Absorption.........................................111
4.4.5 Unselective binding................................112
4.4.4 Interpretation problem.............................114
4.4.4.1 Entailment inadequacy............................114
4.4.4.2 D-linking vs. non-D-linking......................115
4.5 Choice Function......................................117
4.5.1 Existential quantification over choice function....117
4.5.2 Adjunct-adverbial wh’s............................120
4.5.3 Interface global economy...........................121
4.5.3.1 ECP..............................................122
4.5.3.2 Coreference......................................123
4.5.3.3 QR: Obligation or optionality....................124
4.6 Empirical Evidence...................................126
4.6.1 No locality effect.................................126
4.6.1.1 Wh-island constraint.............................128
4.6.1.2 Complex-NP island constraint.....................129
4.6.1.3 If-island constraint.............................129
4.6.2 Indefinite wh construals...........................130
4.6.2.1 Universal donkey sentences.......................132
4.6.2.2 Universal conditional-concessive sentences.......133
4.6.2.3 Modality sentences...............................134
4.6.2.4 Negative polarity licensing with overt trigger...135
4.7 Summary..............................................137

CHAPTER FIVE TWO TYPES OF WH-ADVERBIALS..................141
5.0 Introduction.........................................141
5.1 How-why Alternations.................................142
5.2 The Whys of How......................................146
5.2.1 Causal questions vs. instrumental questions........146
5.2.2 Causal questions vs. epistemic questions...........150
5.2.3 Agentivity restriction.............................152
5.3 The Hows of Why......................................154
5.4 The Delimitation Factors.............................158
5.4.1 Sentential operators vs. event predicates..........158
5.4.2 Intervention effects...............................161
5.4.3 Scope interaction..................................169
5.4.4 No-matter constructions............................172
5.4.5 Clausal complements................................174
5.4.6 Multiple wh-questions..............................176
5.5 The Topography of Wh-adverbials in Left Periphery....183
5.5.1 The cartographic approach..........................183
5.5.2 The topography of Saisiyat wh-adverbials...........184
5.5.3 Relativized minimality and intervention effects....190
5.6 Summary..............................................193

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION...................................197

References...............................................200

Agbayani, Brian K. 1999. The locality and optionality of scrambling. In Poceedings of Nels 29, ed. by Pius Tamanji, 1-9. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.
Aldridge, Edith. 2002. Nominalization and wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 3.2: 393-426.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR, word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539.
Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199-238.
Baker, C. L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6: 197-219.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-sook Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339-384.
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In The structure of CP and IP, ed. by L. Rizzi, 16-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blust, Robert A. 1977. The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austronesian subgrouping: a preliminary report. University of Hawaii working papers in linguistics 9.2: 1-15.
Blust, Robert A. 1999a. Subgrouping, circularity, and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun, and Paul Jen-kuei Li, 31-94. Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), No.1. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Blust, Robert. 1999b. Notes on Pazeh phonology and morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 38.2:321-365.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2004. Free word order in minimalist syntax. Folia Linguistics 37: 77-102.
Chang, Chung-liang. 1996. A study of Seediq Interrogatives. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Chang, Melody Ya-yin. 1997. Preliminary study of wh-question in Tsou. Paper in proceedings of NcEALL 1997, 101-112. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University,
Chang, Melody Ya-yin. 1998. Wh-constructions and the problem of wh-movement in Tsou. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Chang, Melody Ya-yin. 2000. On Tsou wh-questions: Movement or in situ. Language and Linguistics 1.2: 1-18.
Chang, Henry Yung-li. 1997. Voice, case, and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Chang, Henry Yung-li, and Wei-tian Dylan Tsai. 2001. Actor-sensitivity and obligatory control in Kavalan and some other Formosan languages. Language and Linguistics 2.1: 1-20.
Chen, Cheng-fu. 1998. Wh-words as interrogatives and indefinites in Rukai. M.A. thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Chen, Cheng-fu. 1999. Wh-words as interrogatives in Rukai. National Taiwan University Working Paper in Linguistics 2: 93-128.
Chen, Cheng-fu and Li-may Sung. 2005. Interrogatives as polarity items in Kucapungan Rukai. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 31.1: 95-117.
Chen, Shu-chuan. 2006. Endangered languages and phonetic change: A case study of Saisiyat (in Chinese). Journal of Language and Literature 13: 53-69. Hsinchu: Nation Hsinchu University of Education.
Chen, Shi-wei. 2007. Applicative construction in Atayal. M.A. thesis, Nationalal Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. 1997. On the Typology of Wh-questions. New York: Garland Pub.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and C.-T. James Huang. 1996. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics 4: 121-163.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Johan Rooryck. 2002. Types of wh-in-situ. Ms., Leiden University.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by S.R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale, and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by phrase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam, and H. Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by J. Jacbos, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann, 506-569. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Chou, Yi-ming Marc. 2008. Numerals in Saisiyat. Poster for 2008 National Conference on Linguistics (NCL-2008), National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan. May 2-3, 2008.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collins, Chris. 1991. Why and how come. In More Papers on Wh-Movement, ed. by Lisa Chen, and Hamida Demirdache, 31-45. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1988. Passive and voice. In Passive and Voice, ed. by Shibatani, 9-24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers Co.
Deng, Wan-zhen. 2007. Towards a unified analysis of consonant loss and its related phenomena in Saisiyat. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Dyen, Isidore. 1965. Formosan evidence for some new Proto-Austronesian phonemes. Lingua 14: 285-305.
Golan, Yael. 1993. Node crossing economy, superiority, and d-linking. Ms., Tel Aviv University.
Grodzinsky, Yoseph and Tanya Reinhart. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1: 69-101.
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375-424.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Ho, Dah-an, and Hsiu-fang Yang. 2000. An introduction: Austronesian languages and Formosan languages. In Series on Formosan Languages, ed. by Lillian M. Huang, 1-31. Taipei: Yuanliou.
Hsiao, Stella I-ling. 2004. Adverbials in Squliq Atayal. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Hsieh, Fang-yin Freda. 2007. Saisiyat phonology: With special reference to vowel variations. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Huang, Lilian M. 1995. A Study of Mayrinax Syntax. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, Lillian M. 1996. Interrogative constructions in some Formosan languages---A typological study. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-5), 43-63. Taipei: NTNU.
Huang, Lillian M. 2001. Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: A syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspective. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Humanities and Social Science 46.1/2: 51-69.
Huang, Lillian M., Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1998. A typological overview of nominal case marking systems of Formosan languages. In Selected Papers from the 2nd International Symposium Languages in Taiwan, ed. by Shuan-fan Huang, 21-48. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, Lillian M., Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1999a. Interrogative constructions in some Formosan languages. In Chinese Languages and Liguistics V: Interactions in Language, ed. by Yuen-mei Yin, I-li Yang, and Hui-chen Chang, 639-680. Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica, No.2. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.
Huang, Lillian M., Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1999b. A typological study of pronominal systems in some Formosan languages. Selected Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, 165-198. Taipei: Crane.
Keenan. Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 247-301. New York: Academic Press.
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5-47.
Kiss, Katalin É. 1993. Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11.1: 85-120.
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French Syntax: the Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ko, Vincent Fa-kuan and Wei-tien Dylan Tsai. 2001. Subject-sensitivity vs. agent-sensitivity. Paper presented in The Joint Meeting of the Tenth Annual Meeting of International Association of Chinese Linguistics and the Thirteenth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, UC Irvine, USA.
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of Wh-in-situ merger into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 867-916.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235-289
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1978a. The case-marking systems of the four less known Formosan languages. In Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings, fasc. 1, Western Austronesian, ed. by S. A. Wurm, and Lois Carrington, 569-615. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1978b. A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects (in Chinese). Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 49.2, 133-199. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1990. Classification of Formosan languages: Lexical evidence. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 61.4, 809-844. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1991. Orthographic systems for Formosan languages (in Chinese). In Selected Papers on Formosan Languages, ed. by Paul Jen-kuei Li, 413-1472. Taipei: Academia Sinica (2004 published).
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1997a. A History and Interaction of Plain Tribes in Taiwan (in Chinese). Taipei: Formosa Folkways.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1997b. A syntactic typology of Formosan languages---Case markers on nouns and pronouns. In Chinese Languages and Linguistics, no. 4, Typological Studies of Languages in China, ed. by Tseng, Chiu-yu, 343-378. Taipei: Symposium Series of the Institute of History & Philology, Academia Sinica, no. 2.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1997c. The Tribes and Their Migrations of Austronesian in Taiwan (in Chinese). Taipei: Formosa Folkways.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2001a. The Dispersal of the Formosan Aborigines in Taiwan. Language and Linguistics 2.1: 271-278.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2001b. Endangered languages in Taiwan. Paper presented at the International Conference on “Language and Society on the Threshold of New Millennium: Results and Prospects”, Moscow, October 23-25, 2001.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2006. The Internal Relationships of Formosan Languages. Paper presented at Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (10-ICAL), Puerto Princesa, Philippines, Jan. 17-20, 2006.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1992. Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 122-155.
Lin, Chiao-chun Beryl. 2005. Interrogatives in Squliq Atayal. M.A. thesis, Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Liu, Dorinda Tsai-hsiu. 1999. Cleft construction in Amis. M.A. thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 293-338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mohanan K.P. and Mohanan T. 1994. Issues in word order in South Asian languages: Enriched phrase structure or multidimensionality. In Theoretical perspectives on word order in South Asian, ed. by Miriam Butt, Tracy Holloway King, Gillian Ramchand, 153-184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ochi, Masao. 2004. How come and other adjunct wh-phrases: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language and Linguistics 5.1: 29-57.
Ogawa, Naoyoshi and Asai, Erin. 1935. The Myths and Traditions of the Formosan Native Tribes (in Janpanese). Taipei: Language Research Group, Taipei Imperial University (Taihoku Teikoku Daigaku, Gengo-gaku Kenkyu-shitsu ).
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Parsons, Terence. 1995. Thematic relations and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 635-662.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, ed. by E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, 98-129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. First phase syntax. Ms., University of Oxford.
Rau, Victoria Der-hwa. 1992. A Grammar of Atayal. Taipei: Crane.
Reid, Lawrence A. 1992. On the development of the aspect system in some Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics 31.1:65-92
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. A second Comp position. In Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, ed. by A. Belletti et al., 517-557. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1992. Wh-in-situ: An apparent paradox. In Proceedings of the 8th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by P. Dekker, and M. Stokhof, 483-492. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Natural Language Semantics 6.1: 29-56.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2003. The theta system—an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28.3: 229-290.
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where in which language? Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh criterion. In Parameters and Functional Heads, ed. by A. Belletti, and L. Rizzi, 63-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: handbook in generative syntax, ed. by L. Haegeman, 281-338. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, ed. by Guglielmo Cinque, and Giampolo Salvi, 287-296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Ross, Malcom D. 2002. The history and transitivity of Western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. by Wouk, Fay and Malcolm Ross, 17-62. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Ross, Malcom D. 2006. The argument structure undergoes voice. Paper presented at AFLA 13, 24-26 March, Hsinchu.
Saito, Mamoru. 1994. Additional wh-effects and the adjunction-site theory. Journal of East-Asian Linguistics 3: 195-240.
Shen, Yeshayahu. 1985. The structure of action in the short narrative text. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Simpson, Andrew. 1995. Wh-movment, licensing and the locality of feature checking. Ph.D. dissertation, SOAS University of London.
Simpson, Andrew. 2000. Wh-movement and the Theory of Feature-checking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Starosta, Stanley. 1974. Causative verbs in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 13: 279-369.
Starosta, Stanley.1986. Focus as recentralisation. In FOCAL I: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington, and S. A. Wurm, 73-95. Canberra: Australian National University.
Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A grammar subgrouping of Formosan languages. In Papers from the International Symposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, ed. by Paul Jen-kuei Li, Dah-an Ho, Ying-kuei Huang, Cheng-hwa Tsang, and Chiu-yu Tseng, 683-726. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Starosta, Stanley. 2002. Austronesian ‘focus’ as derivation: Evidence from nominalization. Language and Linguistics 3.2: 427-479.
Starosta, Stanley, A. K. Pawley, and L. A. Reid. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics 2: Tracking the Travelers, ed. by Amran Halim, Lois Carrington and S.A. Wurm, 145-170. Pacific Linguistics C-75. Canberra: Australian National University.
Sung, Li-may. 2006. Verbal reflexives/reciprocals in (some) Formosan languages. Papers presented at the 10-ICAL. Palawan, Philippines.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and extended X’-Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane.1999. On clausal complements in Paiwan. In Selected Papers from the English International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun, and Paul Jen-kuei Li, 529-578. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Preparatory Office, Academia Sinica.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane. 2001. Functional projections and adverbial expressions in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 2.2: 203-241.
Travis, Lisa .1988. The syntax of adverbs. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, McGill University.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 1994. On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 1997a. 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. 1997b. 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. 1999a. On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistic 8: 39-73.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 1999b. The hows of why and the whys of how. In UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 5, ed. by F. Del Gobbo, and H. Hoshi, 155-184. University of California at Irvine.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 2003a. Lexical courtesy revisited: Evidence from Tsou and Seediq wh-construction. Gengo Kenkyu 123: 331-361.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 2003b. Three types of existential quantification in Chinese. In Functional Structure(s), Form and Interpretation: Perspectives from Asian Languages, ed. by Audrey Li, and Andrew Simpson, 161-179. London: Routledge Curzon.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 2004. T-feature checking and temporal adjunct in Formosan languages. Paper presented in AFLA-11, Berlin, Germany, April 2004.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 2007. Review: The hows of why and the whys of how—On the inner and outer adverbial in Mandarin Chinese interrogative and retroflexive constructions (in Chinese). ZhongguoYuwen 318: 195-207.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 2008. Left periphery and how-why alternations. East Asian Linguist 17: 83-115.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan, and Melody Ya-yin Chang. 2003. Two types of wh-adverbials: A typological study on How and Why in Tsou. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 213-236. Amsterdam: Benjamin’s John Publishing Company.
Tsuchida, Shigera. 1964. Preliminary report on Saisiyat: Phonology. Gengo Kenkyu 46: 42-52.
UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. 2003. Language Vitality and Endangerment Document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages Paris, 10-12 March 2003. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/ src/00120-EN.pdf.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure ,ovement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1.3: 255-291.
Wu, Joy. 2007. “Voice” markers in Amis: A role and reference grammar analysis. Language and Linguistics 8.1: 95-142.
Yeh, Marie M. 1991. Saisiyat Structure. M.A. thesis, Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Yeh, Marie M. 1995. Focus and case marking system in Saisiyat. In Papers from the First International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, ed. by Feng-fu Tsao, and Mei-huei Tsai, 29-58. Taipei: Crane.
Yeh, Marie M. 1997. Pivotal constructions in some Formosan language. Papers for the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Taipei: Academia Sinica, Dec 28, 1997 - Jan 1, 1998.
Yeh, Marie M. 2000a. Syntax and semantics of the Saisiyat negators. In Grammatical Analysis: Morphology, Syntax and Semantics, Studies in Honor of Stanley Starosta, ed. by Videa P. De Guzman and Byron Bender. Honolulu: Oceanic Linguistic Special Publication No. 29.
Yeh, Marie M. 2000b. A Reference Grammar of Saisiyat (in Chinese). Series on Formosan Languages 2. Taipei: Yuanliou.
Yeh, Marie M. 2002. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Saisiyat Verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Yeh, Marie M. 2004. The grammaticalization of ’am in Saisiyat. Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on Chinese Language and Linguistics (IsCLL-9). 119-135. NUU.
Yeh, Marie M. 2006. The linguistic position of Saisiyat. Ms..
Yeh, Marie M. and Shan-he Chao. 1998. The interpretation for Saisiyat renewal (in Chinese). In The investigation reporter of the aborigine custom 3: Saisiyat, 9-14. Taipei: Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 1992. A study of focus and case markers in Tsou: Syntax and semantics. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 1997. The pronominal system of Mantauran (Rukai). Oceanic Linguistics 36.2: 312-346.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2001. Negation in Saisiyat: Another perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 40.1: 125-134.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2002. Reciprocals in the Formosan languages: A preliminary study. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (9-ICAL). Canberra. Jan 8-11, 2002.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2007. A Grammar of Mantauran Rukai. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series A4-2. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, and Chen-huei Wu. 2005. Saisiyat reduplication revisited. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 31.2: 31-56.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, and Lillian M. Huang. 1997. Toward a typology of tense, aspect and modality in Formosan language: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the IsCCL4, Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 4, ed. by Chiu-yu Tseng, 595-618. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1996. The temporal, aspectual and modal systems of some Formosan Languages: A typological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 35.1: 21-52.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, Marie M. Yeh, and Anna H. Chang. 1999. Existential, possessive, and locative constructions in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38.1: 1-42.