Non-configurationality in Tagalog.

The central aim of the dissertation is to demonstrate that configurational clause structure is not universal, counter to what is argued to be the case by most theorists working within the framework of Government Binding (GB) Theory. I achieve this goal by considering a range of evidence from one language, Tagalog, pointing to a non-configurational analysis of that language. For the dissertation, 'configurational clause structure' is defined as clause structure in which arguments of the verb st and in an asymmetric c-comm and relation. Hence, in showing that Tagalog is non-configurational, I demonstrate that Tagalog has a clause structure in which arguments of the verb st and in a symmetric c-comm and relation, which is to say that arguments of the verb mutually c-comm and each other. The case for a non-configurational analysis of Tagalog consists of a series of arguments based on principles relating to NP-raising, operator binding, A-binding, and control. I also consider the scope of negation, demonstrating that contrary to the position taken by Byma (1987), the scope of negation does not provide support for a configurational analysis of Tagalog. To make as strong a case as possible, I consider the Tagalog data in light of broadly three conceptions of phrase structure; these are (i) what I call the st and ard conception of phrase structure, according to which the subject NP is base generated outside the VP, (ii) the non-st and ard conception of phrase structure outlined in Speas and Fukui (1986) and elsewhere and (iii) the "dual projection" approach to grammatical structure as developed in Hale (1983, 1986). I discuss certain theoretical implications of the non-universality of configurational clause structure in the opening chapter of the dissertation and consider an important question raised by the non-configurational analysis of Tagalog in the concluding chapter: namely, whether Tagalog encodes a distinct subject and object grammatical relation. I present evidence to indicate that Tagalog does not encode a subject-object distinction.Ph.D.LinguisticsUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162097/1/8907104.pd