Advances in Role and Reference Grammar

A SYNOPSIS OF ROLE AND REFERENCE GRAMMAR 155

29. All Acehnese examples are from Durie (1985, 1987). In the clause structure
    schemata on the right, "NPA " = Actor NP, "NPy" = Undergoer NP, "A-" =
    Actor proclitic, "-U" = Undergoer enclitic.


30. The undergoer clitic cannot occur if the verb is immediately followed by the
    undergoer NP, unless the NP is marked by the focus particle di.


31. The passive translation does not indicate that the Acehnese construction is a pas­
    sive; it is not. Durie (1985, 1988) shows that this construction is an active sentence
    with a postposed actor dokto "doctor"; note that the actor is still cross-referenced
    on the verb in the usual way by a proclitic. Aneuk agam nyan "that boy" is the
    actor of tern "want" and the undergoer of peuréksa "examine".


32. See Van Valin (1981), FVV, Foley & Van Valin (1985), Durie (1987), Andrews
    (1985), among others, for detailed discussion.


33. "Syntagmatic" is used here as a general term for structural relations between ele­
    ments in a construction. It is neutral with respect to whether the relations are syn­
    tactic (grammatical) or semantic in nature.


34. The RRG analysis of these constructions will be given in sections 6 and 7; it does
    not involve either deletion or movement. Cf. also FVV, section 6.5.


35. An example of a non-subject pivot in English is the obligatorily omitted argument
    in a purpose clause like He brought that book (for his sister) to read (*it). The
    obligatorily omitted argument is the pivot, and it is postverbal, not preverbal;
    therefore it cannot be the subject of the dependent core. See Cutrer (1987, this
    volume) for detailed discussion of this construction.


36. This is something of an idealization, as in many languages direct core arguments
    which are not undergoers may become pivot in a passive; cf. section 4.5, Van
    Valin (1991b) for a detailed examination of this situation in Icelandic. This ideali­
    zation does not affect the larger point at hand.


37. Barai, another Papuan language, and Eastern Pomo, a Hokan language of
    California, are exceptions to this generalization (for different reasons). See Olson
    (1978, 1981) and McLendon (1978) for detailed discussion.


38. For extensive discussion and cross-linguistic exemplification of this distinction, see
    FVV, chap. 4, Foley & Van Valin (1985), Van Valin (1981, 1987b).


39. There are two ways in which focus structure can be grammaticalized in clause
    structure. The first is in relational clause structure, yielding [+pragmatic influ­
    ence] pivots, and the second is the grammaticalization of the predicate focus pat­
    tern into non-relational structure, yielding a VP category (cf. section 2.5). These
    two possibilities yield a typology of four potential language types with respect to
    this grammaticalization: (1) none at all, e.g. Lakhota, Warlpiri; (2) relational
    structure only, e.g. Dyirbal; (3) non-relational structure only, e.g. Nanai, Ulcha
    (Manchu-Tungus); and (4) both, e.g. English, Malagasy.