Abstract
This thesis aims to provide an explanation for the mapping between arguments and voice markers of Atayal from a stance of the applicative structure. In Formosan and Philippine-type languages, it is believed that some voices in their function combine applicativization and undergoer selection effect. Besides, Shibatani (2005) observes that the applicatives decouple from the voice morphology in Austronesian. However, I find that the Rackowski’s (2002) pioneering work of Tagalog applicative structure, which still treats voice affixes as equally case agreements on the verb, cannot reflect the fact of Atayal that subject raising does not all conform to the voice morphology. Here I look into Atayal, and suggest a dichotomy between voice and applicative heads for the former voice affixes. Based on both functional and morphosyntactic asymmetries among the four voice affixes of Atayal─AV, PV, LV and I/BV, they are reanalyzed as two voices─AV on one hand and NAV with two applicative heads on the other (Starosta 1986, Ross 2006 and Wu 2007). The two applicative heads recognized in this study are the suffix -an and the prefix s(i)-. Following the research on the applicative structure (Marantz 1993, Pylkkänen 2002 and McGinnis 2001 among others), I further identify different projections for the two applicatives in terms of their semantic and syntactic restrictions. The applicative structures can lighten the burden of voices and reconcile the argument configurations. The applicative head -an has three different projections. The low one is merged below VP, which complements the argument structure of the verb by introducing goal/source or location. The high one is merged above vP, which relates location/goal, affectee or percept to the event of the verb. In particular, the middle applicative head –an is hypothesized when the “possessor affectee” involving both the event itself and the inner of the event is discovered. On the other hand, the applicative head s(i)- has two projections at least. The ‘transported theme’ sports the lower applicative head s(i)-, and the low applicatives s(i)- and –an parallel a dative alternation. In addition, a variety of thematic roles (including instrument, beneficiary/malefactor, affectee and reason etc.), determined by predicate type and agentivity, dominates the high applicative s(i)-. The study shows that the applicative -an and s(i)- have their own spectrum respectively but divide the labors of (extra-)argumentality into two directions─-an is lower and s(i)- is higher.