Multiple extraction andvoice in Toba Batak
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore
mitcho@nus.edu.sg

Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association 23
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, June 2016

TodayToba Batak has a Malay/Indonesian-type voice system and is thought toonly allow extraction of one DP at a time (Cole and Hermon, 2008).
1

Multiple, simultaneous extractions to the left-periphery—including
extraction of multiple DPs—is possible, under certain circumstances.
• When multiple DPs are fronted, voice morphology tracks the DP moved

to immediately preverbal position.
2The pattern of possible multiple extractions motivates ahead-splitting view of the C-T connection (Martinović, 2015;Aldridge, 2015): CT starts as a single head, but sometimes splits.
• Different probes associated with C and T, but they first probe together.

2

Batak Toba

• Often simply Hata Batak‘Batak language’• Spoken in northern

Sumatra, around Lake Toba
• Two million speakers,according to Ethnologue• Data here from elicitation

with two speakers inSingapore
U. Michigan Museum of Anthropology

3Roadmap§1 Background§2 Multiple extractions§3 Proposal

4Roadmap§1 Background• Voice in Toba Batak; previous work
• A-movements§2 Multiple extractions§3 Proposal

5

Voice in Toba Batak
Toba Batak exhibits a two-way voice alternation, similar to
Malay/Indonesian languages:(PN = proper name marker)(1) Schachter (1984a, p. 123):
a. Mang-ida si Ria si Torus.
ACT-see
PN Ria PN Torus
b. Di-ida si Torus si Ria.
PASS-see PN Torus PN Ria‘Torus saw Ria.’☞ The voice prefix tracks the choice of pivot argument (heresentence-final). I refer to maN- (16a) as ACTIVE and di- (16b) as PASSIVE.

6Voice in Toba Batak

Verb-initial order is the canonical declarative order, but more than one
third of declaratives in some texts have a fronted pivot (Cumming, 1984):(2)

a. Si Torus [mang-ida si Ria
PN Torus ACT-see
PN Riab. Si Ria [di-ida si Torus
PN Ria PASS-see PN Torus‘Torus saw Ria.’].
].

Cumming (1984) describes this fronting as associated with topichood andreports that such fronted topics are “overwhelmingly definite” or generic.

7

Voice in Toba Batak
In transitive clauses, the DP argument that is not the pivot (Schachter’s“internal noun phrase”) must be strictly verb-adjacent:(3) Adding nantoari ‘yesterday’ to (16a,b): (Schachter, 1984a, p. 125)a. (✓Nantoari) mang-ida (⋆) si Ria (✓) si Torus (✓).
ACT-see
PN RiaPN Torusb. (✓Nantoari) di-ida (⋆) si Torus (✓) si Ria (✓).
PASS-seePN Torus
PN Ria‘Torus saw Ria yesterday.’
Emmorey (1984) shows that this argument always forms a unit together
with the verb for the purposes of nuclear stress assignment.

8

Voice in Toba Batak: Extracting a DP
If a DP is fronted, it must be the pivot:(4) Actor wh-question:a.

✓b.

* Ise [di-allang
who PASS-eat

Ise [mang-allang pinahan-on
who ACT-eat
pork-this]?

pinahan-on]?
pork-this‘Who ate this pork?’(5) Patient wh-question:a.

* Aha [ma-nuhor
who ACT-buyb.

✓

si Poltak]?
PN Poltak

Aha [di-tuhor si Poltak
who PASS-buy PN Poltak]?

‘What did Poltak buy?’
9

Voice in Toba Batak: Extracting a non-DP
Fronting of non-DPs does not interact with voice; both voices are possible,with corresponding postverbal word order:(6) Oblique wh-question:a.

✓[Tu ise] [ma-nuhor buku si Poltak]?
book PN Poltak
DAT who ACT-buyb.

✓[Tu ise] [di-tuhor si Poltak buku]?
DAT who PASS-buy PN Poltak book‘[For who] did Poltak buy the book?’(4–6) are my examples but Clark (1984, 1985) and Cole and Hermon (2008)
describe the same pattern.

10Cole and Hermon (2008)

Based on such facts, Cole and Hermon (2008) argue for aV(oice)P-fronting analysis for Toba Batak clauses:• The non-pivot DP argument, if there is one, stays in-situ in VoiceP;• All other arguments are moved out of VoiceP;• VoiceP remnant-moves, freezes;⇒ The non-pivot DP argument will be adjacent to the verb and cannot
subsequently move
Related to more general questions about the derivation of verb-initiality;
see also discussion in Chung (2008).

11

A-movements: wh-DPs
Two types of A-movements will be relevant here: wh-movement andfocus movement.
Wh-words prefer to front, but can stay in-situ. Wh-in-situ is not an echoquestion, as diagnosed by question embedding:(7) True optional wh-movement:a. Hu-boto[ise [mang-allang pinahan]].
pork
PASS.1sg-know who ACT-eat
b. Hu-boto[mang-allang pinahan ise].
pork
whoPASS.1sg-know ACT-eat
c. Hu-boto[di-allang ise pinahan].
PASS.1sg-know PASS-eat who pork
‘I know [who ate the pork].’12

A-movements: wh-non-DPs(8) Wh-movement is optional for adjuncts too:a. Andigan ma-nuhor buku si Poltak?
when ACT-buy book PN Poltak
b. Ma-nuhor buku si Poltak andigan?
ACT-buybook PN Poltak whenc. Ma-nuhor buku andigan si Poltak?
book when PN Poltak
ACT-buy‘When did Poltak buy the book?’(Passive variants all possible, with positions of Poltak and book reversed.)13

A-movements

Only-phrases are also best when fronted:(9) Focus-fronting preferred but both ok:a. [Holan si Poltak] [mang-allang indahan
only PN Poltak ACT-eatrice].

b. Mang-allang indahan [holan si Poltak].
rice
only PN PoltakACT-eat‘Only POLTAK ate rice.’

14

Roadmap§1 Background§2 Multiple extractions§3 Proposal

15

Multiple extractions: wh-DP + DP
Q1: Can you front two DPs at the same time?
A1: At first glance, no.

(10) Wh-actor, regular DP patient:‘Who ate the pork?’a.

Ise [mang-alang pinahan
who ACT-eatpork]?

b.

Pinahan-on [di-allang ise
pork-this PASS-eat who]?

c.

* Ise pinahan-on [mang/di-allang
who pork-this ACT/PASS-eat]?

Cole and Hermon (2008, p. 183) discuss data such as (10c, 11c) and say
this is predicted by their account.
16

Multiple extractions: wh-DP + DP
Q1: Can you front two DPs at the same time?
A1: At first glance, no.

(11) Wh-patient, regular DP actor:‘What did Poltak buy?’a.

Aha [di-tuhor si Poltak
what PASS-buy PN Poltakb.

Si Poltak [ma-nuhor aha
PN Poltak ACT-buy
whatc.

* Aha si Poltak [maN/di-tuhor
what PN Poltak ACT/PASS-buy]?
]?
]?

Cole and Hermon (2008, p. 183) discuss data such as (10c, 11c) and say
this is predicted by their account.
17

Multiple extractions: wh-DP + only-DP
Q2: But what if they’re both A-operators that prefer to front?
A2: They can both be fronted!

(12) Wh-actor, only patient:‘Who ate only rice/pork?’a. Ise [mang-allang holan indahan
who ACT-eat
only riceb. Holan pinahan [di-allang iseonly pork
PASS-eat who]?
]?

c. Ise holan pinahan [{*mang/✓di}-allang
who only pork{*ACT/✓PASS}-eat]?

18

Multiple extractions: wh-DP + only-DP
Q2: But what if they’re both A-operators that prefer to front?
A2: They can both be fronted!

(13) Wh-patient, only actor:‘What did only Poltak eat?’a. Aha [di-allang holan si Poltak
what PASS-eat only PN Poltak
b. Holan si Poltak [mang-allang aha
only PN Poltak ACT-eatwhat]?
]?

c. Aha holan si Poltak [{✓mang/*di}-allang
what only PN Poltak {✓ACT/*PASS}-eat]?

19

Multiple extractions: Non-DP wh + DP

Q3: What about non-DP whs? I remember those don’t interact with voice.
A3: I’m glad you asked!

(14) Non-DP wh, regular DP:a.

Andigan buku-i[{*maN/✓di}-tuhor howhen book-that {*ACT/✓PASS}-buy 2sg]?

‘When did you buy that book?’b.

Andigan si Poltak [{✓maN/*di}-tuhor buku
when PN Poltak {✓ACT/*PASS}-buy book]?

‘When did Poltak buy the book?’

20

Summary(15) Summary:a.

* DP[wh] DP V...

(10–11)b.

✓DP[wh] DP[only] V...

(12–13)c.

✓Non-DP[wh] DP V...

(14)

Lesson 1: The non-pivot DP (internal noun phrase) can be moved, incertain circumstances, contra Cole and Hermon (2008).
Lesson 2: Voice tracks the choice of immediately preverbal DP.

21

Roadmap§1 Background§2 Multiple extractions§3 Proposal• Voice• Technical background: C and T• Proposal

22

Multiple extractions and voice

Recall that when multiple DPs are extracted, voice tracks the immediately
preverbal DP.
⇒ The pivot DP is fronted first.
☞ The pivot DP is in a designated position (Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis,1992, a.o.) at the edge of the lower phase. DP probing from above
will find the pivot first.

23

Voice(16) Working assumptions for voice (Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk,
2015, to appear, in progress):a. One DP (the pivot) is attracted to a designated position (butmay be pronounced low or to the right)
b. Voice morphology tracks this choice of pivot.
c. DPs need licensing (abstract Case):• the pivot DP must be licensed from above (nominative)• one DP (the non-pivot) can be licensed by PF adjacency

with the verb (Levin, 2015, and references there)⇒ this is the source of strict verb-adjacency for thenon-pivot argument (when postverbal)
The voice details in (16) could conceivably be swapped out for different
approaches to voice morphology.
24

Voice in Batak
VoiceP is the lower phase; actors are generated in Spec,vP below Voice(pace Legate, 2014). The pivot is Spec,VoiceP (pronounced to the right).
Active voice:
VoiceP,DPvP

Voice+v+V
maNt

tv+V

VPtV,DP(verb-adjacent)25

Voice in Batak
VoiceP is the lower phase; actors are generated in Spec,vP below Voice(pace Legate, 2014). The pivot is Spec,VoiceP (pronounced to the right).
Passive voice:
VoiceP,DP
Voice+v+V
di-vP,DP(verb-adjacent)

tv+V

VPtVt
26

Theoretical background: C and T(17) Traditional division of labor: (Chomsky, 1986, a.o.)a. C: A-movement probe(s)b. T: A-movement probe, fills Spec,TP with one DP (EPP)
CPC

TP

A-probe(s)T...

A-probe with EPP,
ϕ-agreement,
nominative case, etc.

27

Theoretical background: C and T

Many languages exhibit an interdependence between C and T (seee.g. Fortuny, 2008 for a review), motivating a tighter connection:• Feature inheritance: T features originate on C (Chomsky, 2008;Ouali, 2008; Fortuny, 2008; Legate, 2011, a.o.)• CT splitting: C and T begin as a single head, with option of splitting(Martinović, 2015; Aldridge, 2015, last talk)“the splitting occurs in cases where a feature cannot bechecked... or because there is no available position for its
goal to move into.”
Martinović (2015, p. 64)

28

Proposal(18) Proposal:a. I adopt CT splitting: CT starts as one headb. C is associated with a probe for wh- and only-phrases: [uFOC](cf last talk’s [uWH])
c. T is associated with a probe for a DP: [uD](cf last talk’s [uϕ])d. These probes can (Case-)license their agreement targets;
subsequent movement is generally optionale. CT will first probe to satisfy [uD,uFOC] together;
C and T split if no [D,FOC] target is found.
(Partially matching targets will trigger defective intervention.)29

FOC DP pivot

CT probes for [uD,uFOC] together:CTPCT[uD,uFOC]

VoiceP,DP[FOC](pivot)

VoiceAgree; license the pivot; optionally move to preverbal position30

Two FOC DPs at the edge
CT probes for [uD,uFOC] together again:
CTP,DP[FOC](pivot)CT[uD,uFOC]

VoicePt,DP[FOC](non-pivot)

Voice

Agree; license the non-pivot; move to preverbal position☞ Postverbal non-pivot DPs need verb-adjacency for licensing, but
multiple fronting (agreeing with CT) satisfies licensing.

31Non-FOC DP pivot
CT probes for [uD,uFOC] together:
CTPCT[uD,uFOC]
DP(pivot)

VoiceP

Voice☞ If the pivot is not [FOC], CT will not find any [D,FOC] target at thelower phase edge, and must split into C and T.

32

Non-FOC DP pivot
C and T splits; T probes for [uD]:
CPC[uFOC]TPT[uD]

VoiceP,DP(pivot)

Voice

Agree; license the pivot; optionally move33

Non-FOC DP pivot
C probes for [uFOC]:CP
C[uFOC]TPT[uD]
DP(pivot)

VoiceP

Non-DP[FOC]
Voice

Agree; move the FOC non-DP
34

Summary again(19) Summary, based on (15):a.

DP V...

b.

DP[FOC] V...

c.

* DP[wh] DP V...

CT splits; T attracts pivotCT attracts pivot
CT sees non-FOC pivot; CT must split;(defective intervention)d.

DP[wh] DP[only] V...

CT attracts pivot; probes againe.

Non-DP[wh] DP V...

CT splits; T attracts pivot; C probes

35Conclusion

1

Multiple DPs can be simultaneously extracted, but only if both areformally focused (wh or only).
• Motivates initial joint probing by [uD] and [uFOC], then separate probing;☞ In turn motivates a CT-splitting approach as in Martinović (2015);
Aldridge (2015): [uD] and [uFOC] must start on the same head.

2The non-pivot DP can move, contra Cole and Hermon (2008)• Takes away the primary motivation for V(oice)P-fronting;• Adjacency facts are better explained by a need for licensing byadjacency (Levin, 2015);• Voice tracks the pivot, which will be the first DP attracted (if any).

36

Further researchSome further directions for study:• A- and A-properties of these movements• Multiple non-DP extractions• Left-dislocated topics, as in Cumming (1984)37

Thank you!

Thank you! Questions?
This project would not be possible without my Batak teachers, Paris Lubis
and Richard Simalungun. I also thank Hannah Choi, Hadas Kotek,
František Kratochvíl, Theodore Levin, David Pesetsky, Nora Samosir,
Yosuke Sato, Coppe van Urk, and the Sihombing family. Errors are mine.

38

References I
Aldridge, Edith. 2015. Origin of the extraction restriction. LSA 2015 summer
institute lecture notes.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory:
Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, andMaria-Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. MIT Press.
Chung, Sandra. 2008. Indonesian clause structure from an Austronesian
perspective. Lingua 118:1554–1582.
Clark, Robin. 1984. The syntactic nature of Logical Form: Evidence from Toba
Batak. In Schachter (1984b), 9–16.
Clark, Robin. 1985. The syntactic nature of Logical Form: Evidence from Toba
Batak. Linguistic Inquiry 16:663–669.
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2008. VP raising in a VOS language. Syntax
11:144–197.

39

References IICumming, Susanna. 1984. The syntax and semantics of prepredicate word orderin Toba Batak. In Schachter (1984b), 17–36.
Emmorey, Karen. 1984. The intonation system of Toba Batak. In Schachter(1984b), 37–58.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. 2015. Whatmakes a voice system? On the relationship between voice marking and case. InAFLA 21: The Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Austronesian Formal
Linguistics Association, ed. Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile, andNozomi Tanaka, 51–68.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. to appear.
Ergativity and austronesian-type voice systems. In Oxford Handbook ofErgativity, ed. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis. Oxford
University Press. URL
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002629/current.pdf.
Fortuny, Jordi. 2008. The emergence of order in syntax. John Benjamins.

40

References III
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP:
Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
10:375–414.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2011. Under-inheritance. Presented at NELS 42.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. MIT Press.
Levin, Theodore. 2015. Licensing without case. Doctoral Dissertation,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Martinović, Martina. 2015. Feature geometry and head-splitting: Evidence fromthe morphosyntax of the Wolof clausal periphery. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T feature transfer: the nature of agreement andanti-agreement in Berber. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D’Alessandro.
Schachter, Paul. 1984a. Semantic-role-based syntax in Toba Batak. In Schachter(1984b).
Schachter, Paul, ed. 1984b. Studies in the structure of Toba Batak. Number 5 in
UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics.

41