1932

Abstract

Over the past four decades, the nature of western Austronesian voice—typically subcategorized as Philippine-type and Indonesian-type—has triggered considerable debate in the typological and syntactic literature. Central questions in these debates have been concerned with how voice alternations in western Austronesian languages interact with grammatical relations, transitivity, and syntactic alignment. In this review, we reassess the syntactic properties of voice alternations in western Austronesian languages, in some cases focusing on more controversial alternations, including the putative antipassive and applicative constructions in Philippine-type languages and the passive constructions in Indonesian-type languages. We discuss reasons that favor a valency-neutral approach to western Austronesian voice and evidence against a valency-changing and/or ergative approach to the analysis of these languages.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011731
2019-01-14
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/5/1/annurev-linguistics-011718-011731.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011731&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aldridge E 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages PhD thesis Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY:
  2. Aldridge E 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118:1440–69
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldridge E 2011. Antipassive in Austronesian alignment change. Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes D Jonas, J Whitman, A Garrett 332–46 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aldridge E 2017. Φ-feature competition: a unified approach to the Austronesian extraction restriction. Proceedings of the 52nd Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 52) J Kantarovich, T Truong, O Xherija Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc20 pp
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arka IW 2003.a Balinese Morphosyntax: A Lexical–Functional Approach Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
  6. Arka IW 2003.b Voice systems in the Austronesian languages of Nusantara: typology, symmetricality and Undergoer orientation. Linguist. Indones. 21:113–39
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arka IW 2005. The core–oblique distinction and core index in some Austronesian languages of Indonesia Paper presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology VI Conference Padang, Indones.:
  8. Arka IW 2008. Voice and the syntax of =a/−a verbs in Balinese. See Austin & Musgrave 2008 70–89
  9. Arka IW 2009. On the zero (voice) prefix and bare verbs in Austronesian languages of Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Discovering History Through Language: Papers in Honour of Malcolm Ross B Evans 247–70 Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Arka IW, Manning CD 2008. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: a new perspective. See Austin & Musgrave 2008 45–69
  11. Arka IW, Ross M 2005. The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
  12. Arka IW, Simpson J 2008. Objective voice and control into subject clauses in Balinese. See Austin & Musgrave 2008 90–127
  13. Artawa K 1994. Ergativity and Balinese syntax PhD thesis La Trobe Univ. Melbourne, Aust.:
  14. Artawa K, Blake BJ 1997. Patient primacy in Balinese. Stud. Lang. 21:483–508
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Asikin-Garmager ES 2017. Sasak voice PhD thesis Univ. Iowa Iowa City, IA:
  16. Austin PK, Musgrave S 2008. Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  17. Blust R 2013. The Austronesian Languages Canberra: Pac. Linguist. , 2nd ed..
  18. Blust R 2015. The case-markers of Proto-Austronesian. Ocean. Linguist. 54:436–91
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cartier A 1979. De-voiced transitive verb sentences in formal Indonesian. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations F Plank 161–83 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chafe WL 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. See Li 1976 25–55
  21. Chang YL 2011. Triadic encoding in Tsou. Lang. Linguist. 12.4:799–843
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chang YL 2013. Double transitives and double applicatives Paper presented at A Minimalist Workshop on Austronesian Verbal Syntax Taipei, Taiwan:
  23. Chen V 2016. “Pivot” ≠ absolutive: evidence from Formosan. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 42) E Clem, V Dawson, A Shen, AH Skilton, G Bacon et al.253–72 Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen V 2017.a A reexamination of the Philippine-type voice system and its implications for Austronesian primary-level subgrouping PhD thesis Univ. Hawai‘i Mānoa Honolulu, HI:
  25. Chen V 2017.b Philippine-type voice affixes as A′-agreement morphology: evidence from causatives. Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 23) H Nomoto, T Miyauchi, A Shiohara 35–49 Canberra: Asia-Pac. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen V, Fukuda S 2016. “Absolutive” marks extractions, not Case: against the syntactic ergative analysis for Austronesian-type voice system. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS 46) C Hammerly, B Prickett 201–11 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chen V, Fukuda S 2017. Re-labeling “ergative”: evidence from Formosan. Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistic Association (AFLA 23) H Nomoto, T Miyauchi, A Shiohara 50–65 Canberra: Asia-Pac. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chung S 1976.a On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. See Li 1976 59–98
  29. Chung S 1976.b An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesia. Linguist. Inq. 7:41–87
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Chung S 1994. Wh-agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguist. Inq. 25:1–44
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chung S 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  32. Cole P, Son M-J 2004. The argument structure of verbs with the suffix -kan in Indonesian. Ocean. Linguist. 43:339–64
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Cole P, Hermon G 2005. The typology of Malay reflexives. Lingua 115:627–44
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Cole P, Hermon G, Yanti R 2008. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118:1500–53
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cumming S, Wouk F 1987. Is there ‘discourse ergativity’ in Austronesian languages. Lingua 71:271–96
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Davies WD 2010. A Grammar of Madurese Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  37. De Guzman VP 1988. Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: an analysis. See McGinn 1988 323–45
  38. Dixon RMW 1994. Ergativity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  39. Erlewine MY, Levin T, van Urk C 2017. Ergativity and Austronesian-type voice systems. Oxford Handbook of Ergativity J Coon, D Massam, L deMena Travis 373–96 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ferrell R 1979. Construction markers and subgrouping of Formosan languages. South-East Asian Linguistic Studies 3 ND Liem 199–212 Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Foley WA 2008. The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. See Austin & Musgrave 2008 22–44
  42. Foley WA, van Valin RD 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  43. Gerdts D 1980. Antipassives and causatives in Halkomelem. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 6) BR Caron, MAB Hoffman, M Silva, J Van Ooste, DK Alford et al.300–14 Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gerdts D 1988. Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: evidence for an ergative analysis. See McGinn 1988 295–321
  45. Guilfoyle E, Hung H, Travis L 1992. SPEC of IP and SPEC of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 10:375–414
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Heaton R 2017. A typology of antipassives, with special reference to Mayan PhD thesis Univ. Hawai‘i Mānoa Honolulu, HI:
  47. Heine B, Kuteva T 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  48. Hemmings C 2015. Kelabit voice: Philippine-type, Indonesian-type or something a bit different. Trans. Philol. Soc. 113:383–405
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hemmings C 2016. The Kelabit language: Austronesian voice and syntactic typology PhD thesis. Sch. Orient. Afr. Stud., Univ. London London, UK:
  50. Himmelmann NP 2002.a Voice in two northern Sulawesi languages. See Wouk & Ross 2002 123–42
  51. Himmelmann NP 2002.b Voice in western Austronesian: an update. See Wouk & Ross 2002 7–16
  52. Himmelmann NP 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: typological characteristics. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar KA Adelaar, NP Himmelmann 110–81 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Himmelmann NP, Riesberg S 2013. Symmetrical voice and applicative alternations: evidence from Totoli. Ocean. Linguist. 52:396–422
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Huang SF 2005. Split O in Formosan languages—a localist interpretation. Lang. Linguist. 6:783–806
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hopper PJ 1983. Ergative, passive, and active in Malay narrative. Discourse Perspectives on Syntax F Klein-Andreu 67–88 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hopper PJ 1988. How ergative is Malay?. See McGinn 1988 441–54
  57. Keenan E 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. See Li 1976 247–301
  58. Kiss K 1995. Introduction. Discourse-Configurational Languages K Kiss 3–28 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kroeger P 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  60. Kroeger P 2014. Passive agents in Malay: the binding properties and discourse functions of agentive =nya. Current Trends in Malay Linguistics S-F Chung, H Nomoto 5–29 Tokyo: Tokyo Univ. Foreign Stud.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kuo CC 2015. Argument alternation and argument structure in symmetrical voice languages: a case study of transfer verbs in Amis, Puyuma, and Seediq PhD thesis Univ. Hawai‘i Mānoa Honolulu, HI:
  62. Li CN 1976. Subject and Topic New York: Academic
  63. Li CN, Thompson SA 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. See Li 1976 457–61
  64. Liao HC 2004. Transitivity and ergativity in Formosan and Philippine languages PhD thesis Univ. Hawai‘i Mānoa Honolulu, HI:
  65. Legate JA 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88:495–525
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Legate JA 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  67. Manning C 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  68. McDonnell B 2016. Symmetrical voice constructions in Besemah: a usage-based approach PhD thesis Univ. Calif. Santa Barbara:
  69. McGinn R 1988. Studies in Austronesian Linguistics Athens: Ohio Univ. Cent. Int. Stud.
  70. Mithun M 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. Voice: Form and Function B Fox, P Hopper 247–77 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Mithun M 2008. Does passivization require a subject category?. Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie GG Corbett, M Noonan 211–40 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Miyagawa S 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  73. Miyagawa S 2017. Agreement Beyond Phi Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  74. Musgrave S 2001. Non-subject arguments in Indonesian PhD thesis Univ. Melbourne Melbourne, Aust.:
  75. Paul I, Travis L 2006. Ergativity in Austronesian languages: what it can do, what it can't do, but not why. Ergativity: Emerging Issues A Johns, D Massam, J Ndayiragije 315–36 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Payne T 1982. Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup'ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Stud. Lang. 6:75–106
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Pearson M 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: a minimalist approach PhD thesis Univ. Calif. Los. Angel.:
  78. Pearson M 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A′-element. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 23:381–457
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Polinsky M 2016. Deconstructing Ergativity: Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  80. Polinsky P 2017. Antipassive. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity J Coon, D Massam, L deMena Travis 308–31 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Rackowski A 2002. The structure of Tagalog: specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments PhD thesis MIT Cambridge, MA:
  82. Rackowski A, Richards N 2005. Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study. Linguist. Inq. 36:565–99
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rafferty E 1982. Discourse Structures of the Chinese Indonesian of Malang Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri Nusa
  84. Richards N 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics I Paul, V Phillips, L Travis 105–16 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Riesberg S 2014. Symmetrical Voice and Linking in Western Austronesian Languages Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  86. Ross M 2002. The history of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. See Wouk & Ross 2002 17–62
  87. Ross M 2006. Reconstructing the case-marking and personal pronoun systems of Proto-Austronesian. Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei Li on His 70th Birthday H Chang, L Huang, D Ho 521–63 Taipei: Inst. Linguist., Acad. Sin.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Ross M 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: a reappraisal. Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust KA Adelaar, A Pawley 295–326 Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Schachter P 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above?. See Li 1976 491–518
  90. Schachter P, Otanes FT 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  91. Shibatani M 1985. Passives and related constructions: a prototype analysis. Language 61:821–48
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Shibatani M 1988. Passive and Voice Amsterdam: Benjamins
  93. Sneddon JN 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar London: Routledge
  94. Teng FC 2008. A Grammar of Puyuma, an Austronesian Language of Taiwan Canberra: Aust. Natl. Univ.
  95. Verhaar JW 1983. Ergativity, accusativity, and hierarchy. Sophia Linguist. Work. Pap. Linguist. 11:1–23
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Verhaar JW 1988. Syntactic ergativity in Indonesian. See McGinn 1988 347–84
  97. van Urk C 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: a case study of Dinka Bor PhD thesis MIT Cambridge, MA:
  98. Wechsler S, Arka IW 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: an argument structure based theory. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 16:387–442
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Wolff JU 1973. Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. Parangal Kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in Honor of Cecilio Lopez on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday A Gonzalez 71–91 Quezon City: Linguist. Soc. Philipp.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Wolff JU 1996. The development of the passive verb with pronominal prefix in Western Austronesian languages. Reconstruction, Classification, Description: Festschrift in Honor of Isidore Dyen B Nothofer 15–40 Hamburg, Ger.: Abera
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Wouk F, Ross M 2002. The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
  102. Wu CM 2013. The syntax of linking constructions in Mayrinax Atayal and Sinvaudjan Paiwan PhD thesis Natl. Tsing Hua Univ Hsinchu, Taiwan:
  103. Zobel E 2002. The position of Chamorro and Palauan in the Austronesian family tree: evidence from verb morphosyntax. See Wouk & Ross 2002 405–34
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011731
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011731
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error