Asia-Pacific Linguistics
Open AccessCollege of Asia and the Pacific
The Australian National University

AFLA 21
The Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of theAustronesian Formal Linguistics Association
edited by
Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile and Nozomi Tanaka

A-PL 25

AFLA 21: The Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the AustronesianFormal Linguistics Association
edited by
Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile and Nozomi Tanaka
The Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) is an organization which promotes
the study of Austronesian languages from a formal perspective. The 21st annual meeting of
the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 21) was held at the University of
Hawaiʻi at Mānoa on 23-25 May, 2014. Of the 28 papers presented at the conference, 17 areincluded in this volume. The contributions include studies in the syntax, semantics, phonetics,
phonology, morphology, processing, and acquisition of Austronesian languages.

Asia-Pacific Linguistics____________________
Open Access

AFLA 21:

The Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of theAustronesian Formal Linguistics Association

edited by
Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile and Nozomi Tanaka

A-PL 25

Asia-Pacific Linguistics________________________________

Open Access

EDITORIAL BOARD:

Bethwyn Evans (Managing Editor),
I Wayan Arka, Danielle Barth, Don Daniels, Nicholas Evans,
Simon Greenhill, Gwendolyn Hyslop, David Nash, Bill Palmer,
Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross, Hannah Sarvasy, Paul Sidwell,
Jane Simpson.

Published by Asia-Pacific Linguistics
College of Asia and the Pacific
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Copyright in this edition is vested with the author(s)Released under Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International)First published: 2015
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/95329
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:
Creator:
Title:

Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile, Nozomi Tanaka, editors.
AFLA 21: the proceedings of the 21st meeting of the Austronesian Formal
Linguistics Association / Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile, Nozomi
Tanaka, editors.

ISBN:

9781922185280 (ebook)

Series:Subjects:
Other Creators/
Contributors:

Asia-Pacific Linguistics; A-PL 25.
Austronesian languages – Congresses.
Amber Camp, editor.
Yuko Otsuka, editor.
Claire Stabile, editor.
Nozomi Tanaka, editor.
Australian National University; Asia-Pacific Linguistics.

Dewey Number: 499.2
Cover: AFLA 21 logo designed by Ya-chi YehThis collection is dedicated to Professor Robert  Blust,  University  of  Hawai‘i at
Mānoa, both in recognition of his high quality scholarship in Austronesianlanguages and for his support for AFLA over the years.
Edward L. Keenan
Sandra Chung

Contents

Prefaceiii

by Amber Camp, Claire Stabile, Nozomi Tanaka, and Yuko Otsuka
Raúl Aranovich

1

Fijian weak quantification as head-internal relativization
Manuel F. Borja, Sandra Chung, and Matthew Wagers

15

Constituent order and parser control processes in Chamorro
James N. Collins

33

Ilokano free relatives with man
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk

51

What makes a voice system?:On the relationship between voice marking and caseVera Hohaus and Anna Howell69

Alternative semantics for focus and questions:
Evidence from Sāmoan
Haowen Jiang and Loren Billings

87

Person-based ordering of pronominal clitics in Rikavung Puyuma:
An inverse analysis
Edward L. Keenan and Baholisoa Ralalaoherivony

107

Correlational comparatives (CCs) in MalagasyiJonathan Kuo

127

The argument structure of Amis experiencer verbs:
Another look at the ma- morphology
Ferdinan Okki Kurniawan

149

Nasal assimilation in Jakarta IndonesianPaul Law

167

The syntax of Tagalog relative clauses
Diane Massam

185

Applicatives as secondary predicates
Marc Matthews

201

An acoustic investigation of Javanese stop consonant clusters
Hiroki Nomoto

219

Decomposing Malay anaphoric expressions
Yuko Otsuka

237

Relative clauses in Polynesian and the role of D
Eric Potsdam and Maria Polinsky

261

Control into nominalized complements in Malagasy
Nozomi Tanaka, William O’Grady,  Kamil  Deen,  Chae-Eun Kim,

279

Ryoko Hattori, Ivan Paul M. Bondoc, and Jennifer U. Soriano
Split focus preferences in Tagalog: Evidence from child language
Jozina Vander Klok and Lisa Matthewson
Diagnostics for already vs. perfect aspect: A case study of Javanese wis

ii

289

Preface
The 21st annual meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association(AFLA 21) was held on 23-25 May, 2014 at the University  of  Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
The program consisted of 28 presentations, including three plenary talks by
Diane Massam, Yuko Otsuka, and Kie Zuraw. This volume includes 17 papers
presented at the conference.
We gratefully acknowledge the generous support provided by thefollowing sponsors affiliated with the University   of   Hawai‘i at Mānoa:Department of Linguistics, College of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature,
National Foreign Language Resource Center, Center for Pacific Islands Studies,
Hawaiʻinuiākea  School  of  Hawaiian  Knowledge,  and  Prof.  Hsin-I Hsieh of the
Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures. Special thanks to thestudents who served on the organizing committee, who devoted countless hours
of support and energy to the success of the conference: Amber Camp, Victoria
Chen, Mayumi Oiwa, Colleen Patton, Claire Stabile, Nozomi Tanaka, Brittany
Wilson, and Ya-chi Yeh, who also designed the conference logo.
Finally, we would like to thank Edith Aldridge, Victoria Anderson, Marc
Brunelle, Henry Chang, Sandy Chung, Abby Cohn, Peter Cole, William Davies,
Dan Finer, Catherine Fortin, Shin Fukuda, Julie Jiang, Dan Kaufman, Paul
Kroeger, Paul Law, Diane Massam, Bill Palmer, Ileana Paul, Elizabeth Pearce,
Matt Pearson, Eric Potsdam, Ken Rehg, Norvin Richards, Joachim Sabel, Amy
Schafer, Lisa Travis, Kie Zuraw, and Elizabeth Zeitoun for reviewing theabstracts.
Amber Camp, Claire Stabile, Nozomi Tanaka, and Yuko Otsuka

iii

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

FIJIAN WEAK QUANTIFICATION AS HEAD-INTERNALRELATIVIZATION*
Raúl Aranovich
University of California Davis
raranovich@ucdavis.edu
Fijian weakly-quantified DPs are formed with a determiner preceded by aparticle and a word expressing number, quantity, or existence. These
anomalous constructions depart from the head-initial phrasal pattern generally
found in other nominal expressions. I propose to analyze weakly-quantified
DPs as internally-headed (IH) relative clauses. Evidence for this analysis isthat these DPs are structurally identical to regular existential sentences. Fijian
IH relatives, however, are restricted to existential sentences (Fijian follows astrict N-Rel arrangement in other cases). The use of IH relatives to express
weak quantification, then, is a highly restricted construction in Fijian,
motivated by the general structure of the Fijian clause, and in the semantics of
IH relatives. Following Basilico 1996, I argue that weakly-quantified DPs in
Fijian are presuppositional, being outside the scope of the existential quantifier
associated with VP (Diesing 1992). This is consistent with an analysis ofFijian as a pronominal argument language (Aranovich 2013), in which only
incorporated nouns, pronouns, and proper nouns are internal to the VP. An
objection to the IH relative analysis of weakly-quantified DPs in Fijian is that
IH relatives are found in OV languages, but Fijian is a VO language.
However, exceptions to the correlation between OV and Rel-N orders exist,
most of them in the Austronesian family. I speculate that the restricted use of
IH relatives in Fijian reflects a general feature of the Austronesian family,
preserved as a specialized construction to express weak quantification.

1.

Introduction

Fijian DPs seem well-behaved as head-initial syntactic structures, since they areheaded by a determiner (na), which is followed by an N. This N has its
modifiers to the right, as in (1a), and possessors to the left, between the N andthe determiner, as in (1b).1 But weak quantifiers are anomalous in that they seem*
The original examples in this paper come from fieldwork conducted in Fiji and Northern
California since 2006. Thanks to France Mugler for welcoming me at the University of theSouth Pacific, and to Mikaele Sela, Kalivati Qolicakota, Vasiti Ritova, and Isireli Volau forproviding me with examples and answering my questions about the language. I also benefited
from conversations with Masha Polinsky, Eric Potsdam, Heidi Harley, and the audience at the
AFLA meeting in Honolulu. All errors are my own.
1
The following abbreviations are used: ACC: accusative, ASP: aspectual, DEM:
demonstrative, DET: determiner, DIR: directional, EMPH: emphasis, HAB: habitual, INDEF:
indefinite, INT: intensive, LIM: limitation, LK: linker, PART: particle, PERF: perfective, PL:plural, POSS: possessive, PROG: progressive, REL: relativizer, SEQ: sequential, SG: singular,
SUB: subordinator, TR: transitive.

1

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
to precede the determiner, and are formed with the particle e and a word
expressing number, quantity, existence, etc. (2a-b) offer some examples.
(1) a. na no-na
lako
DET POSS-3.SG journey‘his journey’ (Milner 1956:11)
b. na vale levu
DET house big‘the big house’ (Milner 1956:11)(2) a. keirau dau rawata mai [DP elevu na ika]
1.PL HAB get.TR out
PART many DET fish
‘We would catch many fish.’b. au aqaravatiko [DP edua na bui-ni-qone ]1.SG PAST look.after.TR PROG
PART one DET grandmother‘I take care of an old lady’
I propose to analyze weakly-quantified DPs like the one in (2a-b) as internallyheaded relative clauses (IHRC). Evidence for this analysis is that the DPs in(1a-b) are identical to regular existential sentences.
I will first give an overview of Fijian syntax, including a more detailed
discussion of copulative and existential sentences. After that I will summarize
the similarities between existential sentences and weakly-quantified DPs,arguing that they can be accounted by analyzing those DPs as IHRCs. I will thenpresent evidence from the distribution of adverbial particles to support the claimthat weakly-quantified DPs are in fact clausal in nature. I will then address a
potential objection to the analysis based on the fact that Fijian is an OV
language. Before concluding the paper, I will examine the semantics of weaklyquantified DPs, in the context of Basilico’s (1996) proposal that IHRCs are
inherently quantificational, and my own analysis of Fijian as a pronominal
argument language (Aranovich 2013).
2.

An overview of Fijian grammar

Fijian is a VOS language. The verb is obligatorily preceded by a particle
expressing agreement with the subject, but an overt DP expressing the subject is
not obligatory. In (3a) the particle e expresses agreement with a 3rd person
singular subject (the proper noun o Kali), and in (3b) the 3rd person pluralsubject is expressed in the particle eratou only.2 These person/number particles
can co-occur with an overt subject pronoun, as in (3c). Because this emphatic
pronoun is optional, I take Fijian to be a pro-drop language.
2

The 3.SG particle e is often omitted before the emphatic particle sa, being used only inemphatic questions. Otherwise, sa may precede or follow other personal particles in Fijian. The
semantics of sa, however, is still poorly understood. Schütz (1985:262) suggests it indicatescontrast with a previous action or state.

2

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(3) a. etarāna vale oKali.
3.SG build.TR DET house DET Kali
‘Kali built a house.’b. eratou satară
oti na vale
3.PL EMPH build.TR PERF DET house‘they have already built the house.’c. au sacakava ko iau
1.SG EMPH do.TR DET 1.SG‘I did it myself.’ (Milner 1956:99)
A number of aspectual particles expressing tense, aspect, mood, and othercategories (including the aspectual/emphatic sa, the tense markers a PAST, andna FUTURE, the sequentials mani ‘then, accordingly’ and qai ‘then, next’, dui‘each’, dau HABITUAL, rui ‘excessively’, and some others) may separate theperson/number particles from the verb.
(4)

Au
se qai yadra mai.
1.SG ASP SEQ wake DIR‘I just woke up.’

Other particles that express a variety of aspectual, temporal, modal, directional,
and more adverbial meanings occur in a fixed position after the verb (I will referto them simply as ‘adverbial particles’). These postverbal particles are different
from the preverbal particles discussed earlier, even if sometimes they overlap infunction.3 Particles that occur in this position include tiko PROGRESSIVE, tX
INDEFINITE (in time or place), mai ‘here, hither’, yani ‘away, hence’, rawa
‘possible’, oti ‘finished’ or PERFECTIVE, sara EMPHATIC, and a few more. Thereis a fixed order among these postverbal adverbial particles, which may occur
alongside each other in a clause. Some examples are provided in (5). In (5b), theverb tubu ‘grow’ is followed by three such particles: tale ‘also’, tu ‘indefinite’,and ga ‘only’.
(5) a. sa

kani-a oti

nakoli na benu

EMPH eat-TR PERF DET dog DET leftovers‘the dog finished eating the leftovers.’b. etubu tale tu
ga na dalo
3.SG grow also INDEF only DET taro
‘taro grows also.’ (Milner 1956:93)

3

Some particles that appear after the verb can also occur before the verb, with a different
but related meaning. Mai, for instance, means ‘here’ or ‘hither’ in postverbal position, but it
behaves as a converb meaning ‘come and ...’ when it precedes the verb.

3

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
3.

Copulative and existential sentences

There is no copula in Fijian. Copulative sentences are formed by juxtapositionof two DPs, or by placing an adjective right after the subject marker.
(6) a. elekaleka na lawa
3.SG short
DET net‘the net is short.’ (Milner 1956:13)
b. na yaca ni gone o Tubarua
DET name of child DET Tubarua‘the name of the child was T.’ (Schütz 1985:79)
Existential sentences can be formed with an expression (usually an adjective) of
number or quantity as the head of the predicate. A couple of examples wereintroduced in (2). Besides levu ‘many’ and dua ‘one’, some of these expressions
include other numerals as in (7), and so ‘a little, a few, some’; vuqa ‘many’; andvica ‘a few, how many’, as in (8).4(7) a. e
dua na drau-ni-kau ka vakāna levu ni dua na sede.
3.SG one DET tree.leaf
REL resembles DET size SUB one DET cent.
‘there is a leaf that is about the size of a penny.’b. etolu na nodratou waqa na lewe-ni-koro.
3.SG three DET POSS.3.PL boat DET village.crew‘the villagers have three boats.’ (Milner 1956:37)5(8) a. eso na vulagi.
3.SG some DET visitor‘there were some visitors’ (Schütz 1985:329)
b. e
lewe
vuqa (na tamata)3.SG PERSONAL many DET person.
‘(there are) many people’ (Miner 1956:36)
c. evica na uvi oqori?
3.SG few DET yam there‘how many yams are there?’4.

Weakly quantified DPs

In general, the same quantificational expressions that occur in existential
sentences can also occur in DPs with a weak quantificational meaning.
4
Schütz includes also bini ‘plentiful’ and lailai ‘few’, but I have no examples of these
expressions being used. In fact, he reports that bini and lailai cannot be used in existential
constructions in standard Fijian (Schütz 1985:102). Thus, sentences like *e bini/lailai na vale.
‘there are lots of/few houses’ cannot be found in the standard dialect. He also notices that vuqa
used as a numeral with common nouns is not accepted by Fijian linguists.
5
Possessive sentences are expressed in Fijian as existential clauses with a possessed noun.

4The Proceedings of AFLA 21(9) a. e
tolu na waqa
3.SG three DET boat
‘three canoes.’ (Milner 1956:14)
b. evitu na gone lalai
3.SG seven DET child small‘seven small children’ (Milner 1956: 24)
c. era yaco mai [e so na vulagi]
3.PL arrive DIR 3.SG some DET foreigner‘some visitors arrived (Schütz 1985:329)
d. erau raica [elewevica (na yalewa)]
3.PL see.TR 3.SG PERSONAL few DET woman‘they saw a few women.’ (Milner 1956:37)
There are several reasons to think that existential clauses and weakly quantified
DPs must have a common source, sharing a representation at some level. First,
some of the expressions of quantity have identical selectional restrictions. The
numerals, vuqa ‘many’, and vica ‘a few’ must be preceded by lewe when theyrefer to people, as in example (9d). Compare it to the use of vica in anexistential sentence:
(10)

e
lewe
vica na tamata?
3.SG PERSONAL few DET person‘how many people are there?’

The particle so ‘some’, on the other hand, is exempt from this restriction inexistential clauses and in DPs as well. Second, some expressions have the same
idiosyncratic uses in existential sentences and in DPs. For instance, levu means‘many’ in these contexts, but as an adjective it means ‘big’. On the other hand,so ‘some’ cannot be used as an adjective at all.
The close connection between weakly quantified DPs and existential
clauses in Fijian has not escaped the attention of dedicated Fijian grammarians.
This can be glanced from the following quotes, the first one from Milner’s
grammar (Milner 1956), the second one from Schütz’s (Schütz 1985).
The Fijian numerals are bases. It is not possible to use dua (one) or rua (two)for example, as in the English: one house, two men, etc., without using either asentence, e.g. "the house is one" (see paragraph 35) or a phrase e.g. "the one
house." (Milner 1956:23)
The following examples show how a specified subject and object(respectively), definite because of sentence structure, are made contextually
general (...). In each sentence, the NP that has been more general is derived
from an existential VP. (Schütz 1985:329)

5

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
What these grammarians did not have at their disposal was a natural and elegant
way of making the connection between the two categories explicit, making it tofollow from more general principles about the structure of human language. I
will suggest that an analysis of weakly quantified DPs in Fijian as IHRCs.
5.

Relativization in Fijian and the interpretation of DPs

Example (11) shows an Internally headed Relative Clause in Ancash Quechua(from Cole 1987).
(11)[nuna bestya-ta ranti-shqa-n] alli bestya-m
ka-rqo-n.
man horse-ACC buy-PERF-3 good horse-VALIDATOR be-PAST-3‘The horse that the man bought was a good horse. ‘

In this sentence, the head of the main subject is bestya ‘horse’. But this noun
occupies a position inside the relative clause that modifies it. This head noun
bears the case suffix appropriate to its function inside the relative clause (i.e.
accusative), which is where a relative pronoun would originate from in an
externally-headed relative clause.
In Cole’s analysis, an IHRC is left-adjoined at S-structure to an empty
nominal head, which is coindexed with the internal head of the relative clause(12a). Basilico (1996) offers an alternative analysis in which there is no empty
head external to the clause. Rather, the internal head introduces a free variable
that is bound by an operator in D (12b). This D takes a sentence (i.e. an IP) as its
complement.
(12) a. [NP1 [S" nuna bestya-tai ranti-shqa-n] [NP2 ei]]b. [DP [D’ [IP nuna bestya-ta ranti-shqa-n] D ] ]In this paper I will follow Basilico’s analysis. The structure for a relative clause
like (9a) is presented in (13). Because Fijian is head-initial, I am placing thehead of DP to the left of the IP.
(13)[DP [D’ D [IP e tolu na waqa]]]

The IHRC analysis of weakly-quantified DPs captures the similarity in the useof numerals and expressions of quantity across DPs and existential sentences. It
also accounts for the presence of the particle e in those DPs, and for the word
order facts. But these facts are not enough, in my mind, to justify a clausal
analysis of weakly-quantified DPs. What is missing is some other piece ofevidence that those DPs do indeed have the internal properties of clausal
constructions. Adverbial particles provide that evidence.

6

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Like other predicates in Fijian, existential ones can be modified byadverbial particles: the locative kina in (14a), the progressive tiko in (14b), ga in(14c), and tu in (14d).
(14) a. elevu kina na kubou .
3.SG big there DET smoke‘there is a lot of smoke there.’b. e
rua tiko na turaga e na gauna koya
3.SG two PROG DET chief in DET day those‘there were two (rival) chiefs in those days’ (Milner 1956:29)
c. e
rua ga na yava-na
3.SG two only DET foot-3.SG. POSS
‘it has only two feet (i.e. wheels)’ (Schütz 1985:92).
d. sa
rua tuna tabua.
EMPH three INDEF DET whale.tooth‘There are two whale’s teeth (no more are expected).’The prediction made by the IHRC analysis of weakly-quantified DPs is thatthese particles will also show up between the numeral or quantity expression
and the internal DP in these expressions. The examples in (15) show that this isindeed the case.
(15) a. eratou arogoca ni sa
yaco mai [edua tale na waqa]
3.PL PAST hear.TR SUB PART arrive DIR 3.SG one also DET boat
‘they heard that another boat had arrived.’ (Milner 1956:49)
b. [e tolu ga na tamata] eratou kauta mai na kedratou kakana.
3.SG three only DET man 3.PL
bring.TR DIR DET 3.PL.POSS food‘only three of the men brought their own food.’c. evuku [e dua tale ga na qase-ni-vuli]
3.SG smart 3.SG also only one DET school.teacher‘There is also another teacher that is smart.’
6.

Fijian IHRC in the context of relativization in Fijian.

A serious objection to the IHRC analysis of weakly-quantified DPs in Fijian isthat IHRCs are usually found in OV languages, but Fijian is a VO language. In
Cole’s (1987) analysis, IH relatives are a sub-type of prenominal relative. He
makes the observation that IHRCs are restricted to left-branching languages(OV). To account for this generalization, he proposes the structure in (12a), in
which IHRCs are left-adjoined to a null anaphoric head. In this configuration,
the anaphoric head commands the antecedent, but it does not precede theantecedent (which is inside the relative clause), making it possible for theantecedent to bind the anaphoric head.
7

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
The problem with Cole’s analysis is that it is based on a false
generalization. IHRCs are found in Mooré, an SVO language of the NigerCongo family, spoken in Burkina Faso (Lehr et al. 1966, Tellier 1989). Comrie(2006) finds a score of exceptions to the correlation between OV and Rel-N
orders, most of them in the Austronesian family (the rest of them in the Sinitic
branch of Sino-Tibetan). In fact, Comrie suggests that the combination of OV
and Rel-N orders may be a distinctive typological trait of the Austronesianlanguages. Some languages in this family -- Tukang Besi (Donohue 1999),
Seediq, Tagalog (Aldridge 2004)-- display a mix of prenominal, postnominal,and IH relatives, while also being VO. The Tagalog sentences below, forinstance, show a head-initial relative (16a) and an internally-headed relative(16b) (Law 2014). These cases weaken the argument in favor of Cole’s empty
final head analysis, and turn the fact that Fijian has IHRCs in spite of being a
VO language into a non-issue.
(16) a. guron-ng dumating kahapon
teacher-LK PERF.arrive yesterday‘The teacher who arrived yesterday.’b. dumating na guro kahapon
PERF.arrive LK teacher yesterday‘The teacher who arrived yesterday.’
The conclusion I arrive at is that Fijian weakly-quantified DPs are IHRCs. But
the construction is not very productive in Fijian. In fact, I have not found it inother types of DP. Fijian relative clauses are normally postnominal, of theexternally-headed type. Example (17) shows an object relative.
(17)

au dau taleitaka [DP na sikoni [CP edau bulia
o koya]]1.SG HAB like.TR
DET scone
3.SG HAB make-TR DET she‘I like the scones that she makes.’

Fijian, then, is a "mixed type" language (like Tagalog) from the point of view of
its relativization strategies. The use of IH relatives to express weak
quantification, I suggest, is a highly specialized construction in Fijian, which
may have been inherited from a more productive construction in an ancestrallanguage. For some reason, however, IHRCs survived as the expression of weak
quantification in Fijian. As I will explain in the next section, the reason behind
this may be found in the general structure of the Fijian clause, and in thesemantics of IH relatives.
7.

The semantic interpretation of IHRCs in Fijian

In a recent paper (Aranovich 2013), I argue that Fijian is a Pronominal
Argument (PA) language. Except for incorporated nouns, pronouns, and proper
8The Proceedings of AFLA 21
nouns, all other arguments are external to the VP, and are introduced by apronominal affix. The PA hypothesis accounts for some observations abouttransitivity in Fijian. Transitive verbs are distinguished from intransitives by thepresence of a verbal suffix, often of a -Ca shape. In fact, many two-argument
verbs are also used as single-argument verbs when the suffix is absent. Thus,
besides bulu-ta ‘to bury it’ and lako-va ‘to go on/for something’ one finds bulu
‘to be buried’ and lako ‘to go’ as the intransitive counterparts. Based on datalike these, Schütz (1985) divides Fijian predicates into active (the same
argument is subject of the transitive and the intransitive forms, e.g. lako) andstative (the subject of the intransitive and the object of the transitive are thesame argument, e.g. bulu).
When the -Ca suffix is used, it is not necessary to specify a complement
by means of a DP, as (18) shows.
(18)eronqo-ta tiko na marama.
3.SG hold-TR PROG DET woman‘The woman is holding him.’

Pawley (1986) suggests that the -Ca ending consists of two suffixes: a transitive
extension of the form -Ci, and a 3.SG pronominal suffix -a. In a sentence like(18), then, the meaning of the suffix -a provides the reference of the internalargument of the verb, saturating the valence of the predicate. When the object
DP is overt, on the other hand, the suffix -a cross-references the DP. Under the
hypothesis that Fijian is a pronominal argument language, object DPs areadjoined to a projection above VP, and are coindexed with the pronominal
suffix -a.
Like many PA languages, Fijian allows for noun incorporation (NI). In(19), the object is immediately adjacent to the verbal root, without the transitive
suffix, and the adverbial particles follow the incorporated noun. Moreover, theobject has no article.
(19)

keitou tara-valetiko.
1.PL build-house PROG
‘we are building houses.’

It is worth noting that Fijian has a third construction type in which the object
also precedes the adverbial particles, but in which the verb keeps its transitive
suffix. This happens when the object is a pronoun or a proper noun.

9The Proceedings of AFLA 21
(20)

o

bu-qu
kau-tikeitou rawa
grandmother-1.SG.POSS 3.SG. bring-TR 1.PL POSSIBLE
mai kivanua.
DIR toland‘my grandmother managed to bring us to land.’
DET

Notice that in this case the transitive suffix has the -Ci form. In Aranovich(2013) I argued that these object DPs are bona fide complements of V, and that
therefore there can be no pronominal affix -a attached after the transitive suffix-Ci.
There are some consequences from an analysis of Fijian as a PA
language for the semantics of DPs, and the article na in particular. In Aranovich(2013) I argue that na-DPs are indefinites. They are interpreted as indefinites insome positions (i.e. when performing a predicative function),6 and they can also
be unselectively bound by a strong adverbial quantifier like kece.
(21) a. na gone levulevu o Lavinia
DET child big.big DET Lavinia‘Lavinia is a chubby baby.’b. ekani-a oti kece sara ga na benu
na koli.
3.SG eat-TR PERF all INT LIM DET leftovers DET dog‘the dog did finish eating all the leftovers indeed!’
The adverb kece ‘all’ deserves special mention here. As an adverbial particle,
kece occurs in a position that is not necessarily adjacent to the DP it modifies, as
shown in (21b). It must follow oti (and rawa), but it must precede the otheradverbial particles. The fact that kece has a fixed place in the sequence ofadverbial particles is evidence for its own adverbial nature.
Following Diesing (1992), I assume that sentences have a semantic
representation consisting of an operator, its restriction, and its nuclear scope.
Indefinite DPs introduce free variables into the semantic representation of aclause. If an indefinite is in the nuclear scope, the free variable it introduces isbound by an existential quantifier (existential closure), yielding a cardinality
reading. But indefinites are ambiguous between this cardinality reading, which
is nonpresuppositional, and a presuppositional reading, under which they behave
like strongly quantified DPs. Presuppositional indefinites, Diesing suggests,
must be outside the nuclear scope, inducing their own restriction. Diesing also
notes a syntactic effect on the interpretation of indefinites: only those indefinite
DPs that are inside the VP receive a cardinal interpretation, while indefinite DPsthat are extracted from the VP (either overtly or at LF) are always
6

Weakly quantified sentences are not "idiomatic" in that position. A sentence like #o koya
e dua na vu-ni-wai ‘He is a doctor’ sounds like a quick translation into Fijian of an English
sentence, a typical and frequent error in broadcasting (Schütz 1985:334).

10

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
presuppositional. Na-DPs, then, have no quantificational force of their own, andare usually placed outside the VP. In that structural position they can only havea presuppositional reading, not a cardinal one. This presuppositional reading is
the one that gives rise to the "definite" interpretation of na-DPs.
A weakly-quantified DP, then, must be presuppositional, since it isoutside the scope of the existential quantifier associated with VP. This isprecisely the kind of semantic structure that Basilico (1996) argues IH relatives
must have. IHRCs are inherently quantificational. They are associated with anoperator that binds a variable introduced by the head of the IHRC. I assume thatthe operator associated with a IHRC creates a generalized quantifier (anexpression of type <<e,t>,t>). Applying this analysis to a weakly quantified DP
like the one below would yield the semantic representation in (22).7(22) a. e rua na tamata‘two men’b. (λP)(∃x)(man(x) & two(x) & P(x))
For the analysis to work, however, it is crucial that the internal head beinterpreted as an indefinite, since it needs to introduce a free variable for the
existential operator associated with the IHRC to bind.8 This is not a problem,since I have already provided independent evidence that na-DPs are indefinites.
In fact, several languages allow the head of IHRCs to be marked with anindefinite pronoun. This is shown by the Lakhota example in (23).
(23)

Mary owįža wą kaǧe ki he ophewathų
Mary quilt a make the DEM buy.1.SG‘I bought the quilt that Mary made.’ (Williamson 1989:171)

There are, however, some Fijian examples that are still problematic for myapproach. Some existential sentences are formed with the help of verbs usuallyemployed to express bodily position (tiko, tu), instead of the adjectives denoting
quantity or number, which I discussed before. Some examples are presented in
(24).

7

Basilico’s analysis is an alternative to the "anaphoric head" analysis of Cole. In Cole’s
analysis, the internal head is anaphorically bound to an empty category which is the head of DP.
Regarding the interpretation of the operator, Basilico suggests it is an operator yielding an
expression of type e (an individual with a unique denotation), instead of the alternativeinterpretation as a generalized quantifier.
8
Moreover, this head must move to a position outside the domain of existential closure (i.e.
adjoined to V’ or I’). This accounts for the optional movement of the internal head in somelanguages, discussed in Basilico 1996.

11

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(24) a. etiko eso
na raisi?
3.SG stay 3.SG some DET rice
‘is there any rice?’ (Schütz 1985:101)
b. e
tu e
dua na vu-ni-niu mai Serua.
3.SG stay 3.SG one DET coconut.tree in Serua‘There is a coconut tree somewhere in Serua.’ (Milner 1956:28)
In these existential sentences, the verbs tu and tiko are followed by weaklyquantified DPs, but these are not in a position where presuppositional indefinites
should appear (i.e. in the scope of an existential operator). What I suspect is thatthe sentences in (24) do not have the semantics of true existential sentences, but
this is an area of Fijian grammar that should receive more attention in the future.
8.

Conclusions

I have reviewed the evidence for a common origin of some existential clauses
and weakly-quantified DPs. I suggested that this connection can be formalized
in an analysis that treats weakly quantified DPs as IHRC’s, in which the head isthe subject of a relativized existential clause. The occurrence of adverbial
particles in weakly quantified DPs is evidence of their clausal status, andprovides an argument for the IHRC analysis of those constructions. I have also
argued that there is nothing typologically abnormal about a language that has
IHRCs and is head-initial, as is the case in Fijian. In fact, other Austronesianlanguages are like Fijian in having a mixed group of relative clauses (including
IHRCs), and being of the VO type.
From a semantic point of view, The analysis of weakly-quantified DPs
as IHRCs is consistent with Basilico’s (1996) hypothesis that the internal headmust be indefinite, introducing a free variable to be bound by an operator
associated with the head of DP. The resulting picture shows a language in which
there are no nominal quantifiers to speak of. Strong quantifiers like kece areadverbial, while weak quantifiers are predicational. The only true common
determiner in Fijian is na, which ends up as an indefinite. I have also shown that
this system of expressing quantification works quite well for a PA language, ananalysis I have suggested for Fijian (Aranovich 2013).
I would like to speculate that the reason why Fijian preserved the IHRC
strategy precisely for existential clauses, and nothing else, is because they allow
for the expression of weak quantification without introducing a new category ofquantificational determiners, optimally fulfilling an expressive need within the
structure of a PA language. Of course, this assumes that Fijian has inherited its
IHRCs from its Austronesian ancestry, and that it is not an innovation of thelanguage. Whether this assumption is correct or not I will leave as a question forfurther research.

12

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Internally headed relative clauses in Austronesianlanguages. Language and Linguistics 5: 99-129.
Aranovich, Raúl. 2013. Transitivity and polysynthesis in Fijian. Language 89:465-500
Basilico, David. 1996. Head position and internally headed relative clauses.
Language, 72: 498-532 .
Cole, Peter. 1987. The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 5: 277-302 .
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Prenominal relative clauses in verb-object languages.
Language and Linguistics 9: 723-733.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Law, Paul. 2014. The syntax of Tagalog relative clauses. AFLA 21, Universityof Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.
Lehr, Marianne; James E. Redden, and Adama Balima (1966). Moré basic
course. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute.
Milner, George Bertram. 1956. Fijian grammar. Suva: Government Press.
Pawley, Andrew. 1986. A reanalysis of Fijian transitive constructions. Te Reo
29.81–112 .
Schütz, Albert. 1985. The Fijian language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Tellier, Christine. 1989. Head internal relatives and parasitic gaps in Moore.
Current approaches to African syntax 6, ed. by Isabelle Haik andLaurice Tuller, 298-318. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Williamson, Janis S. 1989. An indefiniteness restriction for relative clauses in
Lakhota. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Eric J. Reuland
and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, 168-190. Cambridge: MIT Press.

13

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

CONSTITUENT ORDER AND PARSER CONTROL PROCESSESIN CHAMORRO*
Manuel F. Borja
Inetnun Åmut yan
Kutturan Natibu

Sandra Chung
UC Santa Cruz
schung@ucsc.edu

Matthew Wagers
UC Santa Cruz
mwagers@ucsc.edu

Based on the comprehension of prenominal versus postnominal relative
clauses in Chamorro, we deconstruct the subject gap preference in relative
clauses into two parser control processes.

1.

Introduction

Evidence from syntactic typology, on the one hand, and language
comprehension, on the other, has revealed a privileged cross-linguistic status for
relative clauses in which the relativized element is the subject. On thetypological end, Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) theory of NP accessibility inrelativization includes the universal constraint that every language “must be able
to relativize subjects” (1977:67). This constraint has been overwhelmingly
confirmed by later typological research (although its status vis-à-vis
morphologically ergative languages remains less clear; see e.g. Polinsky et al.
2012). Keenan and Comrie speculated that their Accessibility Hierarchy“directly reflects the psychological ease of comprehension [emphasis theirs]”,
and therefore “subjects are easier to relativize than any other position” on the
Hierarchy (1977:88-89). And indeed, psycholinguistic research on various
languages has shown that relative clauses with subject gaps are easier tointerpret than relative clauses with nonsubject gaps (see e.g. Vasishth et al.
2013). In particular, if the gap in a relative clause is ambiguous, it is usuallyinterpreted as a subject gap—an effect we call the subject gap preference (SGP).
What interests us here is a strand of research that suggests that the SGP might
not hold in certain languages in which relative clauses precede their head NPs(e.g. Yip and Matthews 2007 on Cantonese, Hsiao and Gibson 2003 on
Mandarin, and Ekmeçi 1990 on Turkish).1 Much of this research is controversial* We acknowledge and thank the many groups and individuals who have contributed to our
research in the CNMI. Special thanks to Tita A. Hocog and Florine M. Hofschneider; to the
Dictionary working groups on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota; to our Saipan interns, Alejandro Agultoand Elvin Quitugua; and to our illustrator, Nicole Goux. Dångkulu na si Yu’us ma’åsi’! This
research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through Grant No. BCS1251249 to the University of California, Santa Cruz. Finally, we take this opportunity to express
our admiration for Robert A. Blust’s inspiring research on comparative Austronesian linguistics.
1
Also relevant is Carreiras et al. 2010 on Basque, but the situation in Basque is complicated bymorphological ergativity.

15

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(compare Lin and Bever 2006, Hsu et al. 2009, and Vasishth et al. 2013 on
Mandarin; and Özge et al. 2010 on Turkish); all of it focuses on languages thatallow only prenominal relative clauses.
Is the SGP sensitive to the order of relative clause and head NP, and if
so, why should that be? Here we investigate this question by probing thecomprehension of relative clauses in Chamorro, an Austronesian language of theMariana Islands. Like some other Austronesian languages (notably, Tagalog;
see Aldridge 2004), Chamorro allows a relative clause to precede or follow thehead NP. This pattern is typologically rare: just 31 of the 751 languages whose
dominant relative clause order is reported in the World atlas of language
structures (Dryer and Haspelmath 2013) to be Rel-N and/or N-Rel permit both
N-Rel and Rel-N orders.2 In addition, Chamorro has relative clauses in which
the gap can be interpreted as a subject gap or a direct object gap. In an
experiment conducted in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI) in 2013, we attempted to determine whether the language has auniform preference for interpreting these gaps, and how such a preference
interacts with the order of the relative clause with respect to the head NP. We
found that (a) relative clause order does affect where and how comprehenders
locate the gap in a relative clause; but (b) whatever the relative clause order,
there is also an early preference for subject gaps. Our account of these findings
deconstructs the SGP into two parser control processes that are familiar fromprevious literature: the Active Filler Strategy (Frazier 1987, Frazier and Clifton
1989, Aoshima et al. 2004, Wagers 2014) and the drive to link the verb to its
subject. We claim that hypotheses that are readily diagnosed by evidence in the
input strongly guide these processes and their interaction.
2.

Background: Relative Clauses in Chamorro

Chamorro is a head-initial language that allows a range of null arguments. In
clauses, the verb comes first, followed by its arguments and adjuncts, which areordered flexibly with respect to one another. The default word order is Verb
Subject Object. The verb is inflected for subject-verb agreement via a prefix or
proclitic that also signals mood and transitivity.3(1) a. Mañaibukipalåo’an lemmai.
AGR.AP.cook.in.coconut.milk the woman
breadfruit‘The woman cooked breadfruit in coconut milk.’

2

We exclude languages that also allow relative clauses that are internally headed, doubleheaded, or correlative.
3
The following abbreviations are used: AGR ‘agreement’, AP ‘antipassive’, C ‘complementizer’,L ‘linker’, LOC ‘local case’, OBJ ‘object’, PROG ‘progressive’, SUBJ ‘subject’, UNM ‘unmarked
case’, WH ‘Wh-Agreement’.

16

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. Un

gigiminihanum.
AGR drink.PROG the water‘You are drinking the water.’

In DP’s, the determiner comes first, followed by NP. The point ofinterest here is that certain modifiers, including relative clauses, can precede orfollow NP (Chung 1998, Chung and Ladusaw 2006). When a relative clause isprenominal, NP is inflected with the prenominal form of the linker, na (glossed
L below). The relative clauses in (2) are enclosed in brackets.
(2) a.

bÅgang
atyu i[mañaibuk
lemmai]na
callthat the AGR.AP.cook.in.coconut.milk
breadfruit Lpalåo’an.
woman‘Call that woman who cooked breadfruit in coconut milk.’
Estagui’irisuttan i
CCR... puti[un gigimin]
here.isthe result.L the CCR
about the AGR drink.PROGna hånum.
L
water‘Here are the results of the CCR...about the water that you drink.’(Commonwealth Utility News, July 2014, p. 8)

When a relative clause is postnominal, it begins with a complementizer that canbe viewed as simultaneously spelling out the linker. This complementizer isrealized as i when the head NP is preceded by a demonstrative plus the linker(see (3a)), and as ni otherwise (3b).
(3) a. Ågang
atyu na palåo’an [i mañaibuk
callthat L woman C AGR.AP.cook.in.coconut.milk
lemmai].
breadfruit‘Call that woman who cooked breadfruit in coconut milk.’
b. Impottånti
esti na infotmasion putihanum [ni un
AGR.important this L
information about the water C AGR
gigimin].
drink.PROG‘This information about the water that you drink is important.’(Commonwealth Utility News, July 2014, p. 8)
The gap in the relative clause is always a DP. When the gap is anargument, the verb of the relative clause registers its grammatical relation via
Wh-Agreement, a special agreement that supersedes the normal subject-verb
agreement. Wh-Agreement is not overt when the gap is an intransitive subject;
17

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
see (2a) and (3a), where the gap is the subject of an antipassive verb. It isrealized optionally when the gap is a direct object; see (2b), (3b), and (4).
(4)

un guma’ [ni finahån-ña/ hafåhan siJuan]a house C WH[OBJ].buy-AGR / AGR buy
UNM Juan‘a house that Juan bought’

When the gap is a transitive subject and the relative clause is realis, WhAgreement is usually realized as the infix -um-, as (5) shows.
(5) a. i[kumuentutusi
yu’ nigap]
na palåo’an
the WH[SUBJ].speak.to.PROG me yesterday L woman‘the woman who was speaking to me yesterday.’b. ilalåhi [ni kumakassiima’estra]the men C WH[SUBJ].tease.PROG the teacher‘the men who were teasing the teacher.’But here too, Wh-Agreement is not obligatory. It is possible for a realis relative
clause whose gap is a transitive subject to have normal subject-verb agreement
instead of Wh-Agreement. Compare (5) with (6).
(6) a. ilalåhi [ni ma kakassiima’estra]the men C AGR tease.PROG the teacher‘the men who were teasing the teacher’b. isupertyphoon
Kim [ni hadanchi ham mågi gi
the supertyphoon
Kim C
AGR
hit
us
here LOC
December 3]
December 3‘the supertyphoon Kim that hit us here on December 3’ (from a letter)
The overall result is that some relative clauses are systematically ambiguous:
their gap can be interpreted as a subject gap or a direct object gap. Importantly,
this holds true whether the relative clause precedes or follows the head NP, as
can be seen from (7).
(7) a. Hu

ågang atyu i[ha kadididak
i
biha]
call
that the AGR tickle.PROG the old.ladynapåtgun.
Lchild‘I called that child who was tickling the old woman.’ (subject gap)
‘I called that child who the old woman was tickling.’ (object gap)
AGR

18

The Proceedings of AFLA 21b. Huågang atyu na påtgun [i hakadididakibiha].
AGR callthat L child
C AGR tickle.PROG the old.lady‘I called that child who was tickling the old woman.’ (subject gap)
‘I called that child who the old woman was tickling.’ (object gap)

This systematic ambiguity is leveraged in the research reported on below.
3.

Experimental Method, Design, and Participants

We constructed an experiment to probe how speakers interpret the gaps inrelative clauses like (7), and how their interpretive preferences interact withrelative clause order.
3.1.

MethodThe task involved matching an audio stimulus to a picture via touch-tracking ona tablet computer (cf. mouse-tracking; Freeman and Ambady 2010). The
experimental software was created in OpenSesame (Mathôt et al. 2012) with an
Android back-end and deployed on Google Nexus 10 tablets. Participants heard
an audio request to move a small icon (the puck) centered at the bottom of thetablet screen to one of two target pictures, positioned at the left and at the rightof the top of the screen. The audio request began with the carrier frame in (8)and continued with a relative clause.
(8)

Chonnik ifloris guatu
gi …
push
the flower to.there LOC‘Push the flower over to…’

The target pictures showed the same individuals playing different participant
roles in the event named by the verb of the relative clause. For instance, if theverb was paini ‘comb’, participants would have to choose between the picturesin Figure 1 and hear an audio request that continued with the postnominal (andambiguous) relative clause in (9). Figure 2 schematizes the major trial events.
(9)

atyu
na biha[i hapapainiipalåo’an].
thatL
old.lady C AGR comb.PROG the woman‘that old woman who is combing the woman / who the woman is
combing’

19The Proceedings of AFLA 21

Figure 1. Picture choices for the verb paini ‘comb’
An old lady (biha) is depicted either as the agent of combing(left) or the patient (right) in this interaction with a younger
woman (palåo’an).
Participants who moved the puck to the picture on the left interpreted therelative clause in (9) as having a subject gap (as shown in Figure 2D);
participants who moved the puck to the picture on the right interpreted therelative clause as having an object gap.
3.2.

DesignOur experiment followed a 3 × 3 design that crossed Relative Clause type with
Verb type within the relative clause. The three Relative Clause types wereprenominal, postnominal, and headless. In prenominal relative clauses, the gap
precedes the head NP (henceforth, the filler); in postnominal relative clauses,
the gap follows the filler; in headless relative clauses—not discussed below—
the filler is unpronounced and so it is unclear whether the gap precedes orfollows it. The three Verb types, all realis, were transitive, passive, and WhAgreeing. As shown earlier, relative clauses whose transitive verbs have normal
subject-verb agreement are ambiguous: they can be interpreted as having a
subject gap or a direct object gap. Relative clauses whose verbs are passive or
Wh-Agreeing are unambiguous: the gap associated with a (realis) passive verb
corresponds to the internal argument, while the gap associated with a WhAgreeing verb has the grammatical relation that this special agreement registers.

20

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

A. Trial begins with flashing puck.

B. Picture revealed with audio onset

C. Response initiated at any time
following audio onset.

D. Desired picture selected andconfirmed.

Figure 2. Major trial events
Panel A. Participants are alerted that a new trial is about to startby a black screen and a flashing puck; 2 sec. In this case, thepuck is a plumeria blossom (floris måyu). Panel B. Audio onset
is synchronized to presentation of the two pictures. Panel C.
Participants may begin moving the puck at any point after audio
onset. Once participants touch and start to move the puck, we
register their trajectory ‘initiation time’; trajectory indicated by
the crooked arrow. Panel D. Once the puck enters the borders of
the photo—as defined by the minimum rectangle that contains all
the picture’s non-transparent pixels—participants may confirm
their choice by pressing a ‘check’ button. They may also change
their mind and move the puck to the other picture. At any timeafter audio offset, participants can press a ‘repeat’ button (notshown) to hear the sentence again.
Our stimuli (= the audio requests) were drawn from 36 item sets containing
relative clauses constructed from 18 reversible transitive verbs (e.g. dengkut‘peck’, lasa ‘massage’, galoppi ‘jump over’), combined with 18 pairs of nouns
that were equal in humanness and animacy and counterbalanced for position
21

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(e.g. sihik ‘kingfisher’ and gåyu ‘rooster’, or låhi ‘man’ and palåo’an ‘woman’).
These item sets were read by Borja and recorded with a Zoom H4 portable
recorder (Zoom Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Borja also recorded instructions in
Chamorro that introduced participants to the task, walked them through some
simple examples, and explained how to repeat a stimulus, how to advance to thenext stimulus, and when the task had been completed. The entire experiment,
including the instructions, took about 15 minutes to complete. Consistent with
our past practice, the initial contact with participants, the experiment itself, andthe debriefing were conducted in Chamorro (although during the debriefing,some participants switched to English). At the end, each participant was given
an information sheet in Chamorro and English about the research.
3.3.

Participants

During two weeks in September 2013, 135 Chamorro speakers in the CNMI
participated in the experiment: 58 on Rota, 65 on Saipan, and 12 on Tinian.
Demographic data were not collected for 2 speakers. The ages of the otherspeakers ranged from 20 to 70; the median age was 42. Fifty-eight of these
speakers were male. Participants received an 8 Gb flashdrive for their
participation.
4.

Results

4.1.

Error Rates

Data from 17 speakers were removed because there were too many errors in theunambiguous conditions. For each speaker, we calculated two measures toassess their ability to comprehend unambiguous relative clauses. Syntactic
subject d-prime assessed the ability to discriminate syntactic subjects fromdirect objects in phrase structure, and thematic agent d-prime, the ability todiscriminate agents from themes in argument structure. For each measure, weestimated the d-prime score by scaling percent correct in one condition against
the error rate in a matched condition, as defined in Table 1. We removed
participants whose syntactic subject d-prime or semantic agent d-prime was
below 0. In other words, a participant had to show some discrimination to be
included in further analysis. This disjunctive policy identified 9 and 6
participants respectively for exclusion, plus 2 participants who did not meet thecriterion in either category. Table 1 (next page) gives further details about thisanalysis.
We also removed trials with items containing the verbs hongngang‘startle’ and tattiyi ‘follow’. These verbs led to error rates above 30% on
unambiguous stimuli. In the case of hongngang, debriefings from multiple
participants indicated confusion over how to interpret the target pictures.
22

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Briefly, for unambiguous relative clauses, we see that participants
perform best on extractions marked by subject Wh-Agreement, better than they
do either with derived subjects (Passive conditions) or with objects (extractions
marked by object Wh-Agreement).
4.2.

Results

The interpretation rates for ambiguous relative clauses in the picture-matchingtask reveal that the SGP does indeed hold in Chamorro. However, this effect issensitive to relative clause order. 94% of the ambiguous postnominal relative
clauses in our experiment were interpreted as having subject gaps—clear
evidence of the SGP. However, just 43% of the ambiguous prenominal relative
clauses were interpreted with a subject gap. The size of the contrast between
these two interpretation rates suggests that in this language at least, the SGP
does not hold absolutely when the gap precedes the filler.
Discrimination

Hits: pH

False alarms: pFA

Semantic agent

WH[SUBJ] Passive

Syntactic subject

Passive

WH[OBJ]−2

D-prime formula

Z(pH) – Z(pFA)

−1

0

1

2

3

d-primeTable 1. Discriminative measures of error on unambiguous conditions
The ‘hits’ column lists the conditions from which correct
response rate was taken for the hit rate. The ‘false alarms’
column lists the conditions from which the error rate was taken
for the false alarm rate. To calculate the passive rates, we used
only item sets that had the corresponding Wh-Agreement
condition. The function Z is the inverse of the cumulative
Gaussian. Perfect scores (0 or 1) were corrected with a 0.05
increment. Score distribution for each measure, by participant, isindicated by the boxplots in the right column (maximum = 3.28).
However, inspection of dialectal variation (by island) suggests an interesting
asymmetry between subject gap interpretations and object gap interpretations.
As Figure 3 shows, speakers from all islands show a strong SGP for
postnominal relative clauses—above 90%. However, there is considerably morevariation for prenominal relative clauses. On average, prenominal relative
clauses show a relatively weaker SGP for all speaker groups. But this consistent
relative difference is anchored by different absolute interpretation rates forprenominal relative clauses that vary by island. On Saipan, the interpretation of23

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
prenominal relative clauses is evenly split (53% SGP), whereas on Rota there isan absolute preference for object gap interpretations (35% SGP). Finally, on
Tinian speakers show an absolute SGP even for prenominal relative clauses(66% SGP).
Table 2 shows the analysis of this pattern as a mixed-effects logistic
regression of subject gap interpretation on RC type and island. There are two
crucial statistically discernible effects: in RC Type—prenominal relative clauses
lead to fewer subject gap interpretations—and in the interaction between RC
Type and Island—for speakers from Rota, prenominal relative clauses lead toeven fewer subject gap interpretations. Details of the regression are in the tablecaption.

% subject gap
interpretations

100

50

0

SaipanTinianPrenominal

Rota
Postnominal

Figure 3. By-island variation in subject gap preference
Average SGP, expressed as a percentage, in each of the threeinhabited islands of the CNMI. Filled bars correspond toprenominal relative clauses, open bars correspond topostnominal. Standard error of the mean over participants isshown.
CoefficientIntercept
RC TypeIslandRC Type × Island

Estimate
1.47
-3.80
-0.11
-1.94

Std. err.
.19
.34
.38
.60

z
7.6 ***-11.2 ***
-0.3
-3.3 **

Random effects

Item
Subject

RC Type × Island
1 [Intercept only]

Table 2. Logistic regression of subject gap rate on RC Type &Island24

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Mixed-effects regression with random slopes and intercepts foritems, and random intercepts for subjects. Saipan and Tinian
speakers were collapsed into one group, since there were only 12
speakers from Tinian. Contrasts were centered and unit scaled:
for RC Type, the positive coefficient (0.5) was assigned toprenominal relative clauses; for Island, the positive coefficient
was assigned to the Rota group. Coefficient estimates are
expressed as logits. Stars are interpreted thus ** p < .01; *** p <.001. Calculated in R (R Core Team 2013), using the lme4
package (ver. 1.0-5, Bates et al. 2013).
To sum up the main results: our data show that there is a strong SGP for
ambiguous postnominal relative clauses, and a much weaker object gap
preference for ambiguous prenominal relative clauses. Moreover, this object gap
preference varies considerably depending on the speaker group, while the SGP
for postnominal relative clauses varies only minimally. Put another way: thesubject gap preference is either really strong, or else it is only somewhat weakeror occasionally reversed.
5.

Discussion

5.1

The Proposal

The relatively high, constant SGP in postnominal relative clauses, and the morevarying SGP in prenominal relative clauses, suggest to us an explanation interms of multiple factors. These factors either act in harmony, as in postnominal
relative clauses, or in competition, as in prenominal relative clauses. We
propose that two familiar factors are operative and that they interact withdifferent strengths and different timecourses. We conceive of these factors as
closely reflecting grammatical principles of locality. We assume the parser
attempts to optimize the satisfaction of these principles given the information it
has. Thus, we adopt an explanation in the spirit of principle-based parsing(Berwick et al. 1991, Merlo and Stevenson 2000).
The first principle is essentially the Active Filler Strategy (AF; Frazier1987): namely, the parser prioritizes linking fillers to gaps. If the parser
recognizes a filler, then it prefers to project a gap in an argument position rather
than wait for a pronounced argument. In doing so, it creates a representation thatsatisfies more grammatical principles. We do not hold, therefore, that the AF
needs to literally be a ‘strategy’. But a representation that includes a filler but nogap is not legal and the parser will seek to extend the representation to complete
the filler-gap dependency.
The second principle we call Subject Satisfaction (SS): the parser
prioritizes identifying the subject of a clause. Because subjecthood is correlatedwith many principles and constraints in grammar, this is really just a cover term.
25

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
But for the sake of argument, we assume that the relevant principle in Chamorro
is something like: insert into the specifier of T the DP whose agreement features
are compatible with the verb’s. This principle may be the same across languages
or it might differ; it may be reflected in other reinforcing constraints, like‘satisfy the Extended Projection Principle’; or it may compete in languages withother types of morphosyntactic organization (e.g. ergativity; see Carreiras et al.
2010, cf. Polinsky et al. 2012).
Given these two principles, let us first consider what happens in the caseof postnominal relative clauses in Chamorro. When the head noun and therelative clause complementizer are encountered, AF requires the parser topostulate a gap. The to-be-encountered relative clause may have an argument inobject position, but it will also, of necessity, have a subject. Therefore, the best
way of satisfying AF is the most local way: postulate a subject gap. The
inflected verb is encountered next. At this point, SS requires that a DP be
inserted whose agreement features are compatible with those of the verb.
However, given that AF extended the representation with a subject gap, SS isalready satisfied, because the filler is linked to a subject gap. The agreement
features of the subject are inherited from the filler and can thus be checkedagainst the verb’s agreement features. The remainder of the relative clause isconsistent with this analysis and activates no countervailing principles. Thus,
the subject gap interpretation is arrived at quickly and unanimously. We give an
illustration of how this parse is achieved in Figure 4 (on the next page).
Now we consider what happens in the case of prenominal relative
clauses. We assume that when the determiner i is encountered, immediately
followed by a subject-verb agreement morpheme, the comprehender recognizes
the relative clause. This is because the sequence i-plus-AGR can occur in just two
constructions in Chamorro: a prenominal relative clause and a sentential
complement (meaning ‘(the fact) that…’). This ambiguity is resolved in favor of
the relative clause given two pieces of evidence in our stimuli: first, thesyntactic context requires the larger constituent containing i to be a DP in thelocal case, and, second, the experimental context requires a choice to be madebetween two pictures. Adopting the relative clause analysis activates AF andthus leads to the postulation of a gap. However, the filler itself has not yet been
directly encountered and at this point can only be hypothesized to exist, so we
assume that the parser’s course of action in postulating a gap may becorrespondingly less confident. Concomitantly, because the verb’s agreement
features have been encountered, this triggers SS. This means that the parser islooking for a subject at roughly the same time as it is postulating a gap. AF and
SS can thus be tentatively satisfied by postulating a gap in the specifier of T.
This satisfaction is tentative in the sense that the identity of the filler is
unknown, and thus it is also unknown whether its agreement features arecompatible with the verb’s. When the first overt DP inside the relative clause isencountered, that DP offers a better way of satisfying SS because its agreement
features are known. This second analysis necessitates linking the gap to the26The Proceedings of AFLA 21
direct object, an outcome that is also consistent with the verb’s transitivity. We
give a partial illustration of how this parse is achieved in Figure 5 (on the nextpage).
In short, prenominal relative clauses trigger a competition between two
analyses – or, a rapid succession of analyses – in a way that postnominal relative
clauses do not. This is because the location of the relative clause with respect tothe head NP in a postnominal relative clause allows the linkage between filler,gap, and the DP in the specifier of T to be checked immediately upon
encountering the verb. But in a prenominal relative clause, the filler comes last
and thus must initially just be hypothesized to exist, usually with no evidence
about its contents. Consequently, the linkage between filler, gap, and subject
position cannot be checked right away. This is why the subject gap
interpretation for prenominal relative clauses arises early in comprehension but
will tend to give way to the object gap interpretation. The object gap
interpretation accrues greater strength because it links the subject with the overt
DP inside the relative clause.
A.

B.
NP

biha

NP

NP
CP

NPi

C.

Opi

biha

C0
C
i

CP

NPi

TP
... ei ...

Opi

biha
TP

C
i

CP

NPi
C0

T

0

TP

DP

DP

T0

ei

ha papaini i palåo’aneiFigure 4. Optimal parse of a postnominal relative clauseA.

D
iString: … biha i ha B.
papaini i palåo’an … (see(9))
C.
Tree A. After encountering the noun biha and theDPNPNP
complementizer i, there is enoughinformation to extend the treewith a relative clause, which triggers AF. Tree B. The optimal
CPNPi
CP further
positionNPto postulate an empty category, without?
information about the verb’s TP
transitivity, is the local one: subject
NPi
CP
position [specifier
shown on the right, to be consistentTPwith
0? order]. TTree
word
C.DP
Encountering AGR-plus-V (haOpi Chamorro
C0papaini) triggers SS.
This
principle
is immediately
T0 satisfiedDPei
ha papaini ...
ha papaini ...
because AF has inserted a DP in specifier of T, which inherits
eifeatures from NPi. The remaining DP, i palåo’an,
isi consistentha papainipalåo’anwith the projected representation.

NPi
?

C’.

NP
CP

NPi

27

?
TP

ha papaini i palåo’anei

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
A.

B.

C.
NP

DP

CP

NP

D
i

Opi

C0
ha papaini ...

?

NPi

CP

NPi

?

TP

NPi

CP

NP

?
TP

T0

DP

ha papaini ...

eiT0
ha papaini eiDPipalåo’anFigure 5. Optimal parse of a prenominal relative clause
String: … i ha papaini i palåo’an …
Tree A. Encountering determiner i and AGR-plus-V (ha papaini)is sufficient to postulate a relative clause. Although NPi has not
yet been heard, AF and SS are operative. Tree B. An empty
category is postulated in subject position, weakly satisfying both
AF and SS. Tree C. Encountering the DP i palåo’an leads toreanalysis, because SS is better satisfied by a DP whose features
are known. The empty category is now in object position.
5.2.

Further Support: Trajectory Dynamics

An important difference between the parsing of the two relative clause types isthat, in postnominal relative clauses, the subject gap interpretation can be
maintained as the preferred interpretation over time as information accumulates.
In prenominal relative clauses, however, there is a strong motivation toreanalyze away from the subject gap interpretation toward an object gap
interpretation. Nonetheless, the subject gap interpretation will tend to be arrived
at earlier, even if it may also be fleeting.
If the comprehender does not reanalyze toward an object gap
interpretation, this may be for several reasons. The motivation to reanalyze
away from the subject gap interpretation arises because of the near simultaneityof satisfying AF and SS and the higher value placed on checking agreementwith a DP whose features are known. Therefore, individual variation at the levelof speaker or trial may be found in (i) the weight placed on satisfying AF versus
SS, (ii) the perceived informativity of constituents that are encountered versus
merely hypothesized, and (iii) the onset of SS and the concomitant linking ofagreement features to the subject with respect to encountering the filler. For
example, a sample parse may postulate a gap in subject position well in advanceof attempting to link agreement to the subject DP. Reanalysis to the object gap
interpretation in this instance may not be sufficiently motivated as incoming
information is quickly integrated.
28

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
In our analysis of comprehenders’ touch trajectories, we found evidence
that subject gap responses enjoyed a temporal advantage even in prenominal
relative clauses. Table 3 shows two measures: the initiation time on thetouchscreen (cf. Figure 2C); and the average speed of the response, that is, thespeed with which the puck is moved from starting position to the selectedpicture.4 In both relative clause types, subject gap interpretations were initiatedsooner and executed faster.
Trajectory measurePrenominal Postnominal
Difference in initation time
162 ms
388 ms(object gap minus subject gap)
Difference in average speed(subject gap minus object gap)

34 px/s

179 px/s

Table 3. Subject advantage in two measures of trajectory dynamics
The ‘subject advantage’ was computed for two measures –initiation time and average speed – based on all trajectories
initiated between -1000 ms to 2000 ms with respect to audio offset.
For both measures, the effect of interpretation (subject v. object)
was significant in a linear mixed-effects model with full random
effects for subjects and an ‘interpretation’ intercept for items(which was the maximal, convergent model); the interaction ofinterpretation and RC Type was not significant.
We further considered just the speaker group from Rota, who showed a stronger
object gap preference in prenominal relative clauses. For such relative clauses,
they showed no advantage for subject gaps in average speed, but there was a
numerically-comparable advantage in initiation times (129 ms, t = 1.4, n.s.).
In sum, data from touch trajectories reveal that a preference for object
gaps in prenominal relative clauses did not translate into a timing advantage – atleast in terms of initiating and completing the response. This is consistent with
our theory. We predict subject gap interpretations will tend to be computed by
the comprehender sooner than object gap interpretations. Further, this pattern inthe data suggests that early subject gap interpretations do not always enter into
competition with object gap interpretations.

4

Each trajectory was normalized by computing a cubic spline of 15 points on its x, y and tcoordinates. Speed was estimated by calculating the Euclidean distance between successive,
normalized (x,y) coordinates and dividing it by the corresponding difference in normalizedt. Average speed was then computed per trajectory.

29

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
5.3.

Conclusion

In this study, we asked whether the order of an ambiguous relative clause withrespect to the head NP affects how speakers resolve the ambiguity. We foundthat the speakers’ ultimate preference does indeed depend on order. In
postnominal relative clauses, there was a strong preference to interpret an
ambiguous relative clause as containing a subject gap. In prenominal relative
clauses, there was a weak preference for object gaps. The object gap preference
varied considerably depending on the speaker group, but the subject gap
preference did not. Furthermore, analysis of touch trajectories showed that there
was a temporal advantage for subject gap interpretations, regardless of relative
clause type. Our account of these facts invoked two parser control processes:
Subject Satisfaction, which prioritizes identifying the subject, and the Active
Filler Strategy, which prioritizes completing the link between a filler and its
gap. The difference between relative clause types was derived as a consequenceof the difference in timing and strength of SS and AF. In postnominal relative
clauses, AF temporally precedes SS and supplies a known constituent for
insertion in the specifier of T. In prenominal relative clauses, AF and SS arecotemporaneous. The fact that the filler has not yet been encountered allows therelative-clause-internal DP to be construed as the subject. It is an importantcomponent of our account that encountered constituents act with greater
strength than merely hypothesized ones.
What is responsible for the by-island variation in the SGP? Namely, why
do speakers from Rota more strongly prefer object gap interpretations forprenominal relative clauses? Recall that transitive relative clauses need not be
ambiguous. When overt Wh-Agreement is present, it determines the position of
the gap. Although subject Wh-Agreement is optional on all three islands, we
conjecture that the loss of this special inflection has gone farther on Saipan andTinian than on Rota. Thus, for speakers on Rota, the absence of subject WhAgreement could be taken as an informative cue about what the gap is not.
Parsing a prenominal relative clause could be particularly sensitive to this cue,since there is greater uncertainty at the onset of the relative clause.
6.

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Internally-headed relative clauses in Austronesianlanguages. Language and Linguistics 5:99-129.
Aoshima, Sachiko, Colin Phillips, and Amy Weinberg. 2004. Processing fillergap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory andLanguage 51:23-54.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steven Walker. 2013. Lme4:
linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.05. Online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
30

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Berwick. Robert, Steven Abney, and Carol Tenny, eds. 1991. Principle-Based
Parsing. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carreiras M., J. Duñabeitia, M. Vergara, I. de la Cruz-Pavía, and I. Laka. 2010.
Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence
from Basque. Cognition 115:79-92.
Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chung, Sandra and William A. Ladusaw. 2006. Chamorro evidence forcompositional asymmetry. Natural Language Semantics 14:325-357.
Dryer, Matthew S. and Martin Haspelmath, eds. 2013. The world atlas oflanguage structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology. (http://wals.info, accessed on April 20,
2014.)
Ekmeçi, Ö. 1990. Acquisition of relativization in Turkish. Paper presented at theFifth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, SOAS, Universityof London, England.
Frazier, Lyn. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 5:519-560.
Frazier, Lyn and Charles Clifton, Jr. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar
and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4:93-126.
Freeman, J.B. and N. Ambady. 2010. MouseTracker: Software for studying
real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method.
Behavior Research Methods 42: 226-241.
Hsiao, Franny and Edward Gibson. 2003. Processing relative clauses in
Chinese. Cognition 90:3-27.
Hsu, Chun-Chieh Natalie, Gabriella Hermon, and Andrea Zukowski. 2009.
Young children’s production of head-final relative clauses: Elicitedproduction data from Chinese children. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
18:323-360.
Keenan, Edward L. and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility anduniversal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63-99.
Lin, Chien-Jer Charles and Thomas G. Bever 2006. Chinese is no exception:
Universal subject preference of relative clause processing. Paper
presented at The 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence
Processing, CUNY Graduate Center, New York, NY.
Mathôt, Sebastiaan, D. Schreij, and J. Theeuwes. 2012. OpenSesame: An opensource, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior
Research Methods 44:314-324.
Merlo, Paola and Suzanne Stevenson. 2000. Lexical syntax and parsing
architecture. Architectures and mechanisms for language processing,eds. M. Crocker and M. Pickering, 161-188. Cambridge University
Press.
Özge, Duygu, Theodoros Marinis, and Deniz Zeyrek. 2010. Comprehension ofsubject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children.
31

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish
Linguistics (ICTL), eds. S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen,
S. İşsever, and D. Peçenek. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
Polinsky, Maria, Carlos Gomez Gallo, Peter Graff, and Ekaterina Kravtchenko.
2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122:267-277.
R Core Team. 2013. R: Language and environment for statistical computing.
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online:
http://www.r-project.org.
Yip, Virginia and Stephen Matthews. 2007. The bilingual child: Early
development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Vasishth, Shravan, Zhong Chen, Qiang Li, and Gueilan Guo. 2013. Processing
Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage.
PLoS One 8(10): e77006. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077006
Wagers, Matthew W. 2014. Memory mechanisms for wh-dependency formationand their implications for islandhood. Experimental syntax and islandeffects, eds. Jon Sprouse and Norbert Hornstein, 161-185. Cambridge
University Press.

32

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

ILOKANO FREE RELATIVES WITH MAN ⇤James N. Collins
Stanford University
jamesnc@stanford.edu
I provide a compositional semantics for a particular kind of free relative construction (analogous to English wh–ever phrases) in Ilokano formed with theparticle man. I argue that Ilokano free relatives with man (mFRs) in episodic
sentences are definite, presupposing existence and uniqueness of the mFR’sreferent. This distinguishes mFRs from other kinds of “headless” DPs in
Ilokano that are formed without wh-morphology. With a variety of diagnostics, I demonstrate that other kinds of non-wh-DPs do not presuppose existence or uniqueness. I further show that mFRs in episodic contexts imply
that the conversational participants are collectively unable to pin down withcertainty the referent of the free relative.

1.

Introduction

This paper describes the semantics of free relatives marked with the morphememan (abbreviated as mFRs) in Ilokano (Northern Philippine), as in (1).1(1)

nanglukat ti
tawa[ti sinoman nga
immuna aAP.open
DET window DET who- MAN COMP OP .first COMP
simmangpet]
OP.arrive‘Whoever arrived first opened a window.’

In short, I argue that an mFR in an episodic context is a definite (following
Jacobson 1995), presupposing the existence and uniqueness of an individual who
instantiates its descriptive content. In (1), the bracketed mFR presupposes that
there is a unique individual who arrived first. Further, I argue that an mFR supplies
a not-at-issue meaning component of uncertainty. An utterance of (1) implies
that the conversational participants are mutually unable to uniquely pin down theidentity of the referent of the mFR. I show how this condition on the use of anWith sincerest thanks to Luvee Hazel Aquino and Romy Brillantes for their time as consultants. Thanks to Dylan Bumford, Ivano Caponigro, Cleo Condoravdi, Daniel Lassiter, Chistopher
Potts, and the audience at AFLA XXI at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa for comments on thiswork.
1
Abbreviations: AP actor pivot; COMP / C complementiser; DET / D determiner; ERG ergative;
GP goal pivot; NEG negative particle; OP object pivot; PERF perfect; PL plural; PROG progressive;
SG singular; STAT stativity marker; TOP topic marker⇤

33

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
mFR gives rise to so-called ignorance implications observed in previous work on
free relatives with wh–ever in English (e.g., Dayal 1997; von Fintel 2000).
I compare mFRs to another kind of DP constituent with an embedded clause,
namely a headless relative as in (2). Headless relatives lack morphosyntactic features of mFRs, namely the wh-item, the particle man and the overt complementiser(ng)a. A bare clause is simply combined with a determiner, ti in (2).
(2)

nanglukat ti
tawa[ti immuna asimmangpet]
AP.open
DET window DET OP .first COMP OP .arrive‘A certain one who arrived first opened a window.’

I show that these headless relatives do not impose the same contextual felicity constraints that mFRs impose. In particular, they may be used in contexts
where the uniqueness and existence of an individual instantiating the descriptive
content of the headless relative are not presupposed. I capture this discrepancy
by proposing a semantics for wh-morphology in mFRs which encodes presuppositions of uniqueness and existence. This accounts for the presuppositionalsemantics of mFRs, which demonstrate the requisite wh-morphology, and also accounts for the lack of presuppositional semantics in headless relatives, which lack
wh-morphology.
I also propose that the uncertainty implication of mFRs is contributed by
the particle man. I provide a lexical semantics for man which determines thatthe property denoted by the descriptive content is not held by any one individual across some contextually supplied modal base. Following Lauer (2009), in
episodic contexts (to which I devote my attention in this paper), this modal baseis the mutual public beliefs of the conversational participants. I show how thissemantics for man links with its usage in contexts other than in free relatives, inparticular its use as a marker of surprise (a mirative), and a marker of politenessin imperatives.
2.

mFRs as definites

This section explores the proposal that mFRs are semantically definite and compares them in this regard to headless relatives. I show that mFRs pass diagnostics
suggesting that they are only felicitous in contexts which entail the uniquenessand existence of their referent. I also show that headless relatives are infelicitousin the same contexts.
I use these results to motivate a particular view of the interpretation of whexpressions. Previous accounts of English free relatives (which lack a determiner)suggest that their definite semantics is derived by covert type-shifting or a phonologically null definite determiner. I suggest that the definite semantics is imposedby its wh-morphology, thereby alleviating the need for any additional machinery.
The data presented here focus on mFRs and headless relatives appearing withthe determiner ti. ti signals that the argument is core (as opposed to oblique),34

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
marking the sole argument of an intransitive, and the agent and patient of a transitive. Furthermore, the mFRs and headless relatives discussed in this paper are
for the most part the “pivot” of their containing clause. Ilokano demonstrates thematic role marking morphology on the verb, typical of Philippine languages. A
morpheme on the verb corresponds to a thematic role associated with the event
denoted by the verb (e.g., agent, patient, benefactive, instrument, etc.). The pivot
is the DP which denotes the participant bearing the thematic role in question.
The pivot has a number of particular properties including wide scope with respect
to sentential operators such as negation and conditionals. In comparing the semantics of mFRs and headless relatives, I will be careful to compare pivots withpivots, and non-pivots with non-pivots, in an effort to keep properties associatedwith pivothood constant across the compared sentences. A discussion of the compositional semantics of pivots and non-pivots is briefly elaborated on in §2.4.
2.1

UniquenessTo begin, I will examine whether mFRs or headless relatives entail that the descriptive content is uniquely instantiated by an individual or group of individuals.
The uniqueness entailment of a noun phrase with descriptive content P , abbreviated as U NIQUENESS throughout, is spelled out informally below.
(3)

U NIQUENESS: If there is an individual x who has property P then at mostone individual has property P .

If mFRs or headless relatives entail U NIQUENESS as defined in (3), theyshould allow at most one (plural or singular) individual to instantiate the descriptive content. If U NIQUENESS holds, the predicative content (in our example“opened a window”) should apply exhaustively to the entire plurality of individuals who arrived first. If U NIQUENESS doesn’t hold, it should be possible forthe predicative content to apply non-exhaustively to the set of individuals instantiating the descriptive content (some first-arrivers “opened a window” and somedidn’t).
The example below illustrates a clear contrast: an utterance of an mFR isinfelicitous in a context in which the predicate does not apply exhaustively to allindividuals instantiating the descriptive content of an mFR (4a). On the other
hand, an utterance of a headless relative is felicitous in the same contexts (4b).
The speaker’s judgement is slightly complicated by the uninformativity of (4b)in such a context: although the speaker judged (4a) as false and (4b) as true, she
cites (4b) as a non-complete description of the scenario.
(4)[Context: A lot of people requested tickets but I only gave
tickets to some, but not all the people.]
35

The Proceedings of AFLA 21a.

#inikkaktiticket [ti sinoman nga
GP . PERF.give.1 SG DET ticket DET who- MAN COMP
dimmawat]
AP . PERF.request#‘I gave a ticket to whoever requested one.’b.

inikkaktiticket [ti dimmawat]
GP . PERF.give.1 SG DET ticket DET AP. PERF.request‘I gave a ticket to a certain one who asked.’2

I take this paradigm to be evidence that mFRs entail U NIQUENESS, while headlessrelatives lack this entailment, being judged as true in contexts where the predicate
non-exhaustively applies to individuals instantiating their descriptive content.
2.2

Existence

Next, I will examine whether mFRs or headless relatives entail that an individual
instantiates their descriptive content. In addition I will examine how this entailment arises: is it an at-issue entailment, a presupposition, a conventional implicature etc? I abbreviate the entailment as E XISTENCE, spelled out for some descriptive content P below as simple existential quantification. U NIQUENESS entails at
most one individual has property P , while E XISTENCE entails at least one individual has property P . The combination of U NIQUENESS and E XISTENCE entails
exactly one individual has property P .
(5)

E XISTENCE: There is at least one individual x who has property P .

Both mFRs and headless relatives entail that their descriptive content is instantiated by an individual. For example, neither can be followed with continuations
which deny the existence of an instantiator.
(6)

nanglokatititawa[ti sinoman nga
immunaAP . PERF.open DET window DET who- MAN COMP AP. PERF.firstasimmangpet] #ngem awan
immunaCOMP AP . PERF.arrive but
not.exist arrive‘Whoever arrived first opened a window, (# but no one arrived).’
There is a person that arrived first(7)

nanglokatiti
tawa[ti immunaa
AP . PERF.open DET window DET AP . PERF.first COMP
simmangpet] #ngem awan
immunaAP . PERF.arrive but
not.exist arrive2

Speaker comment on (4b): but it’s not the whole truth, there’s a sea of people who asked fortickets and you didn’t give them. It’s true but it’s not true that whoever asked got a ticket.

36

The Proceedings of AFLA 21‘A certain one who arrived first opened a window, (# but no one
arrived).’
There is a person that arrived firstSo, at least in positive, episodic contexts, both mFRs and headless relatives
convey E XISTENCE. However, if we systematically apply the investigative toolkit
supplied by the literature on not-at-issue meaning (in particular Tonhauser et al.
2013), we arrive at the conclusion that mFRs and headless relatives convey E X ISTENCE in quite different ways. I will show that these diagnostics point towards
mFRs encoding E XISTENCE as a presupposition, while headless relatives encode
E XISTENCE in their asserted content. This puts mFRs, but not headless relatives,in a semantic category with English DPs headed by the which are generally taken
to presuppose E XISTENCE and U NIQUENESS (e.g., Strawson 1950; Sharvy 1980;
Barwise and Cooper 1981; Link 1983; Partee 1987; Chierchia 1998).
To establish the nature of these uniqueness and existence implications, I use
diagnostics from Tonhauser et al. (2013). An essential auxiliary definition is thenotion of m-positive and m-neutral contexts (where m is a proposition).
(8)

m-POSITIVE AND m- NEUTRAL CONTEXTS : An m-positive context is anutterance context that entails or implies m. An m-neutral context is anutterance context that entails or implies neither m nor ¬m. (Tonhauser et
al. 2013:75)

Given the definition of m-positive and m-neutral contexts we can establish
whether or not an entailment of some expression imposes a strong contextual felicity constraint. The use of the term ‘strong contextual felicity constraint’ follows
Tonhauser et al. 2013, referring to a constraint determining that the expression is
only felicitously uttered if the context of utterance entails a particular proposition.
(9)

STRONG CONTEXTUAL FELICITY : Let S be an atomic sentence that

contains trigger t of projective content m.
(i) If uttering S is acceptable in an m-neutral context, then trigger t does
not impose a strong contextual felicity constraint with respect to m.
(ii) If uttering S is unacceptable in an m-neutral context and acceptable
in a minimally different m-positive context, then trigger t imposes astrong contextual felicity constraint with respect to m. (Tonhauser et
al. 2013:76)
By using these diagnostics, we can determine that an utterance of an mFR is
acceptable in an E XISTENCE-positive context, a context entailing E XISTENCE,(10a), but unacceptable in an E XISTENCE-neutral context (10b).
37

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
(10)

a.

[E XISTENCE-positive context: Juan and Maria approach aclosed room which is not sound-proof. Maria walks inside for aminute. Juan hears singing inside. Maria then comes out andsays:]
napintastiboses [ti sinoman nga
STAT .beautiful DET voice DET who- MAN COMP
agkankanta]
AP . PROG .sing‘Whoever is singing has a beautiful voice.’b.

[E XISTENCE-neutral context: Juan and Maria approach aclosed, sound-proof room. Maria walks inside for a minute, thencomes out and says:]#napintas
tiboses [ti sinoman nga
STAT .beautiful DET voice DET who- MAN COMP
agkankanta]
AP . PROG .sing# ‘Whoever is singing has a beautiful voice.’

In (10a), both Juan and Maria’s belief states entail the existence of an individual
who is singing. In (10b), Juan’s belief state does not entail the singer’s existence(the sound-proof room may or may not contain a singer, as far as Juan believes).
As Juan’s belief state in (10b) neither entails E XISTENCE nor its negation, it is
E XISTENCE-neutral. Thus, the mutual beliefs of Juan and Maria are E XISTENCEneutral. As the mFR is infelicitous in this context, I conclude E XISTENCE is astrong contextual felicity constraint on the use of an mFR.
An utterance of a headless relative in an E XISTENCE-neutral utterance context
is perfectly felicitous (11). I therefore conclude that E XISTENCE is not a strong
contextual felicity constraint on the use of a headless relative.
(11)[E XISTENCE-neutral context: Juan and Maria approach aclosed, sound-proof room, Maria walks inside for a minute, thencomes out.]
napintastiboses [ti agkankanta]
STAT .beautiful DET voice DET AP . PROG .sing‘A certain one who is singing has a beautiful voice.’

These facts fall out of an analysis where the semantics of an mFR carries E X ISTENCE as a felicity condition on its utterance context: the use of mFRs are only
felicitous if E XISTENCE holds in the utterance context. My preliminary hypothesis is that E XISTENCE is a presupposition of an mFR but not of a headless relative.
38

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
This analysis predicts that the existential entailment of mFRs should “project”: itshould scope out of sentential operators such as negation and conditionals.
2.3

Projection of Existence

To diagnose whether or not E XISTENCE is projective when triggered by an mFR,
I again use diagnostics in Tonhauser et al. 2013. The tests for the projectivityof a proposition p differ based on whether or not p is a strong contextual felicity
constraint or not. E XISTENCE is a strong contextual felicity constraint on the useof a mFR. We therefore use the following diagnostic:• If the mFR remains unacceptable in an E XISTENCE-neutral context evenif we negate S or put S as the antecedent of a conditional, then E XISTENCE‘projects’ through negation/conditionals.
• If the mFR becomes acceptable in an E XISTENCE-neutral context when
we negate S or put S as the antecedent of a conditional, then E XISTENCE
does not ‘project’.
The data below shows that the former is true: the use of an mFR is still unacceptable in a context which is E XISTENCE-neutral, even when the sentence isnegated (12) or in the antecedent of a conditional (13).
(12)

(13)

a.

[E XISTENCE-positive context: Juan and Maria are entering acabin. They know that someone has been there before (the door
was unlocked), all the windows are closed. Juan:]haan ananglokat iti
tawa[ti sinoman nga
NEG COMP AP .open
DET window DET who- MAN COMP
immuna asimmangpet]
AP .first COMP AP .open‘It’s not the case that whoever arrived first opened a window.’b.

[E XISTENCE-neutral context: Juan and Maria are entering acabin. They don’t know whether anyone has been there before.
All the windows are closed. Juan:]#haan ananglokat ti
tawa[ti sinoman nga
NEG
COMP AP .open
DET window DET who- MAN C
immuna a simmangpet]
AP.first C AP .open#‘It’s not the case that whoever arrived first opened the window.’a.

[E XISTENCE-positive context: Juan and Maria are approachinga cabin. They are very hot, and they know someone has arrived
at the house and cooled the house down. Juan:]39

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
no nanglokat iti
tawa[ti sinoman nga
immunaif AP.open DET window DET who-MAN COMP AP.firstasimmangpet], namaliis diay balay
COMP AP .arrive,
PERF .cold that house‘If whoever arrived first opened a window, the house is cool.’b.

[E XISTENCE-neutral context: Juan and Maria are approachinga cabin. They are very hot, but they don’t know if anyone has
arrived at the house yet and cooled the house down. Juan:]#no nanglokat iti
tawa[ti sinoman nga
if
AP.open
DET window DET who- MAN COMP
immuna asimmangpet], namaliis diay balay
AP .first COMP AP.arrive,
PERF.cold that house#‘If whoever arrived first opened a window, the house is cool.’

Based on these data we can conclude that the existence implication triggeredby an mFR “projects” through negation and conditionals. Diagnosing the projective behaviour of a headless relative is a little simpler as there is no strong contextual felicity constraint. We merely need to see if E XISTENCE is still implied innegative and conditional sentences. If the implication of E XISTENCE survives, it
is projective. The following data demonstrate that if a headless relative is in thepivot position of the sentence, it still entails E XISTENCE even if the sentence isnegated or conditionalised.
In (14) and (15), the verb nanglokat bears the actor-pivot morpheme nangand therefore the headless relative is the “pivot” (being in the actor thematic role).
(14)

Negation[E XISTENCE-neutral context: Maria is entering a cabin. She
doesn’t know whether anyone has been there before. All the windows
are closed. Juan is already there, he says:]haan ananglokat iti
tawa[ti immuna a
NEG COMP AP.open
DET window DET AP .first COMP
simmangpet]
AP .open‘It’s not the case that a certain one that arrived first opened a window.’
Someone arrived first
(15)

40

Conditionals[E XISTENCE-neutral context: Maria is approaching a cabin. She isvery hot, but she doesn’t know if anyone has arrived at the house yet
and cooled the house down. Juan:]The Proceedings of AFLA 21
no nanglokat iti
tawa [ti immuna a simmangpet],if AP.open DET wind. DET AP.first C AP.arrive,
namaliis diay balay
coldthat house‘If a certain one that arrived first opened a window, the house is cool.’
Someone arrived first
We therefore conclude that both mFRs and headless relatives project throughnegation and conditionals, but only mFR requires E XISTENCE to be an entailmentof the utterance context. As a final diagnostic for the presuppositional status of
E XISTENCE for mFRs, we can test whether the entailment undergoes filtering, as
per Karttunen (1973). As the following filtering sentence cancels the E XISTENCE
entailment of the mFR, we have evidence that the E XISTENCE entailment behavesmuch like a presupposition.
(16)[Context: Maria doesn’t know whether or not her family has bought
flowers today, but she knows they have good taste in flowers]
no adda sabongda, napintas [ti aniaman daydiay]
if have flower.3 PL, beautiful DET what-MAN there‘If they have any flowers, then whatever flowers are there are
beautiful.’ does not entail “There are flowers that they bought.”

The preliminary hypothesis is therefore that the existence implication is apresupposition triggered by mFRs, but not by headless relatives. However, bothmFRs and headless relatives scope out of negation and conditionals. I therefore
suggest that mFRs are presuppositional definites in the sense of Strawson 1950,
but headless relatives are indefinites whose scope is constrained by Philippinetype verbal morphology.
3.

A semantics for ti

The scope of an indefinite is determined by whether or not the indefinite is a pivot
or not. As stated earlier, a DP’s status as pivot is determined by whether the verb
bears morphology matching the thematic role of the DP. If the DP is the pivot, it
will necessarily take wide scope with respect to sentential operators like negationand conditionals. If the DP is the logical subject (the intransitive sole argument
or the agentive argument of a transitive, regardless of whether it is a pivot), it also
necessarily takes wide scope.
If a transitive verb has actor pivot morphology, the non-pivot patient is necessarily a narrow scope indefinite. Obliques which are non-pivots are ambiguously
narrow or wide scope. This is summarised in the table below.
41

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Thematic roleIf pivot:
If not-pivot
Intransitive sole argument always wide scope always wide scope
Transitive actor
always wide scope always wide scope
Transitive patient
always wide scope always narrow scope
Obliquealways wide scope unspecified (both ok)
Non-pivot transitive patients must be non-specific indefinites. Inherently specific pronouns and proper names may not be in the non-pivot transitive patient
position. Non-pivot transitive patients are marked by either the determiner ti oriti, but I have not yet identified a semantic difference associated with this choice.
My working hypothesis is that iti is composed morphologically of a prepositionalcase marker i- and the determiner ti. In (17), the non-pivot transitive patient iti
tawa is interpreted as an indefinite obligatorily scoping below the negative particle
haan.
(17)

haan nga
nanglokat [i-ti tawa]O [ti baket]A
not COMP AP.open DET window DET woman‘A (particular) woman didn’t open any windows.’
9x[woman(x) ^ ¬9y[window(y) ^ open(x, y)]]To handle the wide scope indefinite facts, I employ free variable choice functions in the style of Reinhart (1997). The hypothesis is that ti takes a propertydenoting argument P , and introduces a free variable choice function f . Depending on the value of f , f will take P as its argument and return one individual
member of P . The choice function therefore shifts the property to an e-type expression and thus can compose with the rest of sentence.
(18)

ti

P.f (P ), where f 2 Dhhe,ti,ei

The clausal component of a headless relative is a property type. On composingwith the determiner ti, the choice function selects an individual who instantiates
the property.
(19)

immuna a simmangpet
arrived-firstti(immuna a simmangpet)f (arrived first)

The scoping properties of indefinites are handled by existentially closing thefree variable choice function. If the DP is a pivot, or an agent, the choice function
variable is existentially bound at the assertion level. If the DP is an non-pivot transitive patient, the choice function variable is existentially bound at the VP level,
ensuring the indefinite scopes below negation, conditionals and other operators
outside of the VP.
42

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
The modal implication of mFRs

4.

Besides E XISTENCE and U NIQUENESS, in episodic contexts, mFRs imply
U NCERTAINTY. By U NCERTAINTY, I mean that the conversational participants
are mutually unable to uniquely identify the referent of the mFR. I show this
implication in action where the preceding context sets up certainty about the freerelative’s referent. In such cases the mFR is infelicitous.
(20)

#Amok
nga
ni
Carlos ti
nagtakaw ti alahas ken
know-1SG COMP DET Carlos DET AP.steal the jewel andtimmakas idi Miyerkoles [ti sinoman nga
nagtakaw ti
AP.escape on Wednesday DET who- MAN COMP AP.steal
DETalahas].
jewel#‘I know that Carlos stole the jewels and whoever stole the jewels
escaped on Wednesday.’3

By the same token, we also find that mFRs are infelicitous with a tinnaga ket
DP (‘namely DP’) parenthetical (cf. Dayal 1997).
(21)#Timmakas [ti sinoman nga
nagtakaw ti
alahas]AP.escapeDET who- MAN COMP AP .steal
DET jewel(tinnaga ket Carlos) idi Miyerkoles.
OP.name TOP Carlos on Wednesday#‘Whoever stole the jewels, namely Carlos, escaped on Wednesday.’4

In (20)-(21), the mFR signals ignorance on the part of the speaker as to thereferent’s identity. However, the use of an mFR does not always imply uncertainty
on the part of the speaker. In the following “quiz show” context, ignorance can beon the part of the hearer.
(22)[Context: A asks B to guess what kind of animal is inside the box A is
holding. A drops a banana in the box and listens to the sound of theanimal happily eating the banana. A gives a clue:]kayat [ti aniaman nga
adda itikahon] ti
sabawant DET what.MAN COMP exist DET box
DET banana‘Whatever’s in this box likes bananas.’3

Speaker comment: I could say that if I’m trying to piece a puzzle, and I have two piecesof knowledge and I know that Carlos took it, and I know that whoever escaped on Wednesday,
therefore I know that Carlos escaped on Wednesday.
4
Speaker comment: Sounds awkward, it’s like, hey guys, we know for a fact that it’s Carlos
who did it, but I’m still using sinoman! I can actually say that with my friends and I’m likemocking, I can perhaps say I would say something ... Ok, I’m telling you this, but I’m pretending
not to know, but I’m saying ”you know who”, I drop the bomb at the end and say it’s Carlos.

43

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
In other uses, the speaker and the hearer may each be certain about the referentof the mFR but disagree on the referent’s identity, as in the following conversation(adapted from Condoravdi to appear).
(23)

A: immuna nga
simmangpet ni
Juan
AP.arrive COMP AP .first
DET Juan‘Juan arrived first.’
B: Saan! immunga nga
simmangpet ni
Mariano
AP .arrive COMP AP.first
DET Maria‘No! Maria arrived first.’
A: nanglokat ti tawa
[ti sinoman nga immuna nga
AP.openD window D who. MAN C
AP.arrive C
simmangpet]
AP.first‘Whoever arrived first was the one who opened the window.’

I hypothesise that U NCERTAINTY is a non-at-issue meaning component of
mFRs. I diagnose this by its insensitivity to sentential operators like negation (24).
In contexts which do not support U NCERTAINTY, i.e., contexts where the conversational participants are reasonably assured of the identity of the free relativereferent, the mFR is infelicitous even in negated and conditionalised sentences.
(24)

Amok
nga
ni
Carlos ti
nagtakaw ti alahas
know-1SG COMP DET Carlos DET AP.steal the jewel‘I know that Carlos was the one who stole the jewels.’#ken haan nga
timmakas idi Miyerkoles [ti sinoman
and not
COMP AP .escape on Wednesday DET who- MANnganagtakaw ti
alahas].
COMP AP .steal
DET jewel#‘...and it’s not the case that whoever stole the jewels escaped on
Wednesday.’At this stage I lack the empirical data to conclusively determine whether U N CERTAINTY is better characterised as a presupposition or conventional implica-

ture in the style of Potts 2005. I characterise U NCERTAINTY as a felicity conditionon the use of an mFR in a given utterance context, though this could be altered toa Potts-style alternate meaning dimension if new data support such an analysis.
44

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
5.

Analysis

In this final section I sketch an analysis of Ilokano free relatives and their compositional semantics. The syntactic analysis adapts the Guilfoyle et al. (1992) analysis
of Tagalog, with a right branching specifier subject. Following the Paul (2000),
Potsdam (2006) analysis of Malagasy, I analyse wh-questions as cleft structures:the wh-expression in predicate position and the prejacent clause as a sentential
subject. (25) is a syntactic analysis of an mFR.
(25)

DP

D
ti

IP

PredP

CP

sino manOpi [C 0 nga [IP immuna ti nga simmangpet]]

The internal CP constituent forming the “subject” of the cleft structure has anintensional property type.
(26)

nga immuna nga simmangpet

x w.arrived-firstw (x)Recall that mFRs, but not headless relatives encode a definiteness presupposition. Both kinds of DPs use the determiner ti, but only mFRs contain whmorphology. To capture this semantic discrepancy, I encode the definiteness presupposition of an mFR on its wh-morphology.
The following is a semantics for the wh-morphology found in an mFR. It must
encode a restriction property, e.g., sino, ‘who’, applies only to humans (or at least
animates), while ania, ‘what’, applies to inanimates. To capture this, the lexical semantics of sino includes an intensional property human, and ania includes
thing and so on. The wh-item is an expression of type hhe, sti, he, stii, a function
from properties to properties. In (25), the wh-item sits in the predicative position,and takes a wh-cleft CP as its subject. The wh-cleft is a property type and serves
as the first argument of the wh-item. The wh-item sino takes the property denotedby the cleft, and returns the property of being the unique maximal human instantiator of that property. For example, the wh-item sino, takes a property P , andreturns the property of being the unique maximal member of P which is human.
(27)

sino

P x w.x = ◆y[humanw (y) ^ Pw (y)]55◆y[Pw (y)] presupposes 9x[Pw (x)^8z[Pw (z) ! z  x]] (i.e., E XISTENCE and U NIQUENESS
hold for P ). ◆y[Pw (y)] denotes the unique individual y such that y holds P at w.

45

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
The semantics of man encodes a felicity condition, such that its use is only
felicitous if the condition is met. The condition is one of “modal variation”. For
some input property P , man implies that for every individual x in the domain, it
is not true that x holds P in every world in a contextually supplied modal base,or equivalently, there is some world in which x does not hold P . It is a wh-itemmodifier, and therefore is a function which takes a wh-item-type expression andreturns another wh-item-type expression. man is an identity function, returning
the same wh-item as its input, but adds the not-at-issue felicity condition of modal
variation.
(28)

man

µest,est P : 8y[9v 2 W [¬P (y)(v)]] . x w.µ(P )(x)(w)

The felicity condition contains a free variable, modal base W (of type hs, ti).
In episodic contexts, W will anaphorically refer to the conversational common
ground (the mutual public beliefs of conversational participants). The end result is that in episodic contexts, mFRs entail that for any given individual y, theconversational participants are mutually unable to say with certainty that y holds
property P . The following is the result of composing man with sino, yielding thecomplex wh-item sinoman.
(29)

man(sino)
P : 8y[9v 2 W [¬P (y)(v)]] .

x w.x = ◆z[human(z)(w) ^ P (z)(w)](29) states that for any property P , the use of sinoman is felicitous iff for
all individuals y, there’s a world in W in which y doesn’t hold P . It’s at-issue
content is is the property of being the unique human (or animate) instantiatorof P . Composing this function with our clausal argument gives the desired freerelative semantics.
(30)

man(sino)(nga immuna a simmangpet)
felicity condition: 8x[9v 2 W [¬arrived-first(x)(v)]],
at-issue content: y w.y = ◆z[human(z)(w) ^ arrived-first(z)(w)]

The free relative in an episodic context imposes the felicity condition that for
all individuals x, the conversational participants are unable to say with certainty
that x arrived first. The at-issue content of the free relative is that it denotes theproperty of being the unique, maximal individual which is human and arrived first.
As man(sino)(nga immuna a simmangpet) is a property type, it can combine with(an intensional version of) ti which shifts it to an e-type expression.

46

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
5.1

Extending the analysis of man

The implication of U NCERTAINTY triggered by the use of an mFR is captured
formally by a felicity condition of modal variation across some contextually supplied modal base W . Following Lauer (2009), in episodic contexts (to which I
have devoted my attention in this paper), I take this modal base is the mutual
public beliefs of the conversational participants. In episodic contexts, the referentof the mFR is inconsistent across the mutual public beliefs of the conversational
participants. This amounts to saying that for any individual, the conversational
participants are collectively unable to say that the individual instantiates the descriptive content of the FR. This gives rise to the uncertainty implications, similar
to those observed in Dayal (1997), von Fintel (2000) among others for English
wh–ever expressions.
This modal variation analysis of the semantics of man makes links with otherseemingly disparate uses of man in Ilokano besides its use in mFRs. For example, man can occur as a mirative particle (strictly in main clauses) marking the
speaker’s surprise about the propositional content of the utterance (31).
(31)

Napudot man ita
hot
MAN this‘It is surprisingly hot today.’Further, the particle may be used as a marker of politeness in imperatives, asin (32).
(32)

ManangBiday, ilukatmo
man ’ta bintana.
older.sister Biday, OP.open=2SG.ERG MAN that window‘Older sister Biday, please open that window.’

In Collins (2014), I suggested a unified account of the surprise marker and thepoliteness marker uses of man. In both cases, man takes a propositional argument
p and returns p again just in case a felicity condition is met: that p is not true inevery world across some modal base W . Where in the free relative use, the modalbase is the mutual beliefs of the conversational participants, in the mirative andpoliteness marker uses, the modal base is the set of worlds in which the speaker’s
expectations are fulfilled.
• Mirative in (31):at-issue content = it’s hot today,
not-at-issue content = it is not the case that in all the worlds in which mydefault expectations are true it is hot today

47

The Proceedings of AFLA 21• Imperative in (32):at-issue content = my preferences are that you open the window,
not-at-issue content = it is not the case that in all the worlds in which mydefault expectations are true you open the window
The politeness effect of man in imperatives arises through a face-saving act ofnegating the expectation that the listener complies with speakers preferences. The
analysis in (30) unites the semantics of the mirative, politeness marker and FRs.
man encodes a non-at-issue meaning component of ensuring that in some worlds
within a modal base, the prejacent is false.
Having set up the semantics of mirative and politeness man as imposing amodal variation condition, the link between these uses and the mFR use of man
emerges. The felicity condition imposed by the mFR use of man in (30) takes
the modal variation condition imposed by mirative/politeness-marker man, anditerates the condition over every individual in the domain. This way of conceptualizing the felicity condition in (30) is sketched in (33). It determines that for
any individual in the domain, there is a possibility given the conversational participants’ mutual beliefs that the individual did not arrive first.
(33) Jman(who)(arrived first)K is felicitous iff
9w 2 W [Juan didn’t arrive first at w] and9w 2 W [Maria didn’t arrive first at w] and9w 2 W [Carlos didn’t arrive first at w] and...
When the modal variation condition is iterated over every individual in thedomain and closed under conjunction, the use of an mFR is felicitous just in casethere is no individual such that the conversational participants are mutually certainthat they arrived first, giving rise to the U NCERTAINTY implication. The proposal
is that the basic function of man is to introduce a not-at-issue meaning componentof modal variation, and this generalizes to its uses as a mirative, politeness marker,
and a marker of uncertainty in a free relative.
6.

Conclusion

To summarise the analysis: the existence and uniqueness of a referent must
be a common ground belief of conversational participants for a felicitous use of
an mFR in an episodic context. The existence and uniqueness implications are
not contributed by the determiner: headless relatives with the same determiner donot show the same contextual felicity constraints, leading us to conclude they are
introduced by the wh-item. The modal implication of uncertainty is introduced bya felicity condition on the man particle, independently motivated by man’s use asa mirative/politeness marker.
48

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
References
Barwise, Jon and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4:159–219.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339–405.
Collins, James N. 2014. Expectations and the Ilokano mirative. Ms. http://
web.stanford.edu/˜jamesnc/collins2014-man.pdf
Condoravdi, Cleo. to appear. Ignorance, Indifference, and Individuation with whever. Epistemic indefinites, ed. by L. Alonso-Ovalle and P. MenendezBenito. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dayal, Veneeta. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings.
Proceedings of SALT VII, 99–116. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell
University.
von Fintel, Kai. 2000. Whatever. Proceedings of SALT X, ed. by B. Jackson and
T. Matthews, 27–39. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. SPEC of IP and SPECof VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 10:375–414.
Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives.
Quantification in natural languages, vol. II, ed. by E. Bach et al., 451–
487. Kluwer.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4:167–93.
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. Audiatur Vox Sapientia: A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow 52:287–
319.
Lauer, Sven. 2011. Free relatives with -ever: Meaning and use. Ms., Stanford
University.
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A latticetheoretical approach. Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. by
R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. v. Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: Mouton.
Matthewson, L. 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural
Language Semantics 7: 79–134.
Partee, Barbara H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles.
Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized
quantifiers, ed. by J. Groenendijk, D. de Jong, and M. Stokhof, 115–143.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
49

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Paul, Ileana. 2000. Malagasy Clause Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. The cleft structure of Malagasy wh-questions. Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, ed. by H.-M. Gärtner, P.
Law, and J. Sabel, 195–232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR andchoice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4):335–397.
Sharvy, Richard. 1980. A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 89:607-624.
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1973. Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2:447–
457.
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9:315–322.
Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Mandy Simons. 2013. Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89:66–109.

50

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

WHAT MAKES A VOICE SYSTEM?
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENVOICE MARKING AND CASE⇤
Michael Yoshitaka ErlewineMITmitcho@mit.edu

Theodore Levin
Coppe van Urk
MITMITtedlevin@mit.edu cvanurk@mit.edu

One of the major questions in Austronesian syntax concerns the relationship between voice marking, extraction, and case. Two common approaches have dominated previous literature. Either voice morphology marks extraction and case, or
voice morphology feeds extraction and case. These positions are difficult to distinguish, because of the prominent one-to-one correspondence of voice, case, andextraction. In this paper, we bring new insights to this debate, with original datafrom Balinese and Dinka, a Nilotic language of South Sudan, which we show exhibits a familiar Austronesian-type voice system. We observe environments in theselanguages where the correspondence between voice and case and voice and extraction breaks down, in a manner that we argue provides evidence that voice marks extraction. Unlike in other extraction-marking languages, however, voice also affects
case in Austronesian-type voice systems. We suggest that this is because extraction
targets a case position. We account for the changes in case marking in the clauseby suggesting that, when the external argument is not extracted, languages must
employ alternative strategies to license it.

1.

Introduction

In a striking example of syntactic uniformity across genetically and geographicallydisparate languages, many languages morphologically mark the difference between
non-subject (a) and subject (b) extraction. Consider first the behavior of English dosupport in (1). English non-subject wh-questions require the insertion of do to hosttense specification, while do-support is crucially unavailable in subject wh-questions.
(1)

English T-to-C movement:a. Who did Alex see?
b. Who saw Alex?

Similarly, in French the form of the embedded complementizer varies in long
distance wh-questions (2). This alternation is conditioned by which element is ex⇤ We thank Edith Aldridge, Julie Legate, David Pesetsky, Masha Polinsky, Norvin Richards,

and the audience at AFLA 21 for helpful comments. All errors are ours.

51

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
tracted. When a non-subject argument is extracted, as in (2a), the complementizer
que is realized. When the subject is extracted, as in (2b), qui appears.
(2)

French que/qui alternation:a. Qui penses-tu [que Marie a rencontré]?
who think-you that Marie has met‘Who do you think Marie has met?’b. Qui penses-tu [qui a rencontré Marie]?
who think-you that has met
Marie‘Who do you think has met Marie?’

A similar extraction asymmetry is observed in a subset of Mayan languages(see e.g. Stiebels 2006). When a non-subject argument is extracted (3a), the sameverb form is used as in a corresponding declarative clause. But when a subject is
extracted, the “Agent Focus” form of the verb must be used (3b).
(3)

Agent Focus in Kaqchikel (Erlewine to appeara):a. Achike xutëj ri a Juan?
b. Achike xtj-ö ri wäy?
what ate the CL Juan
who
ate-AF the tortilla‘What did Juan eat?’‘Who ate the tortilla?’

Lastly, we observe that in Moro (Niger-Congo; Sudan) non-subject extraction, suchas the case of object extraction in (4a), triggers optional wh-concord indicated by
prefixing all words after the wh-word with n@. This concord is unavailable in subject
extraction examples such as (4b).
(4)

Moro wh-concord (Rohde 2006; Rose et al. 2014):
a. Nw@dZeki (n@).Kuku (n@).g@taðoNo? b. Nw@dZeki g@taðo Kuku?
who(WH).Kuku (WH).abandon
whoabandon Kuku
‘Who did Kuku abandon?’‘Who abandoned Kuku?’

In contrast to languages that exhibit subject vs non-subject extraction marking, many Austronesian languages appear to display a more articulated form of extraction marking. Languages like Atayal (Formosan; Taiwan) have morphology on
the verb that not only differentiates subject extractions from non-subject extractions,but also distinguishes between different types of non-subject extractions.1 Each example in (5) below has one constituent marked with qu and in sentence-final position,and the choice of constituent in this position correlates with different voice morphol1 The “voice” morphology studied here has also been called “focus” and “topic” marking indifferent corners of the Austronesian literature. Note that this Austronesian voice morphology is distinguished from familiar Indo-European-style active/passive alternations, which arealso called “voice.”

52

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
ogy on the verb. This set of examples illustrates one of the most well-known aspectsof Austronesian syntax: the voice system.
(5)

Squliq Atayal voice marking (Liu 2004):2
a. M-aniq qulih qu’ Tali’.
AV -eat fish QU Tali
‘Tali eats fish.’b. Niq-un na’ Tali’ qu’ qulih qasa.
eat-PV GEN Tali QU fish that
‘The fish, Tali ate.’c. Niq-an na’ Tali’ qulih qu’ ngasal qasa.
eat-LV GEN Tali fish QU house that
‘In that house, Tali eats fish.’d. S-qaniq na’ Tali’ qulih qu’ qway.
IV -eat GEN Tali fish QU chopsticks‘With chopsticks, Tali eats fish.’Actor Voice (AV)Patient Voice (PV)

Locative Voice (LV)

Instrumental Voice (IV)4In the remainder of this paper, we will refer to the argument cross-referenced byvoice morphology as “subject,” and refer to movement to this subject position as“extraction.” The terms “actor” and “patient” will be used to refer to argumentswith these thematic roles.
There are two aspects of the Atayal voice system worth highlighting here,
which also hold of many other Austronesian languages. First, in non-actor voiceclauses (5b–d), the actor is marked with genitive case. Second, in Ā-constructions
such as wh-questions, only the “subject” can be Ā-extracted to the left.5 In Atayal,
we thus observe a strict correlation between (a) voice morphology on the verb, (b)the clause-final “subject” constituent, (c) the constituent which can be Ā-extracted,
and (d) the pattern of case marking on nominals.
The differences between plain extraction marking of the type illustrated in(1–4) and Austronesian voice systems have led to two different types of approaches:(i) voice morphology is like extraction marking, but by a different mechanism, suchas wh-agreement or case agreement (e.g. Chung 1994; Richards 2000; Pearson 2001,
2005); (ii) voice morphology actually encodes argument structure alternations which
result in extraction restrictions (Guilfoyle et al. 1992; Aldridge 2004, 2008; Legate
2012, e.g.). Amongst the former group of theories, it is held that voice morphology
2 Translations are modified from Liu (2004), so that the argument cross-referenced by voice

morphology is uniformly translated as a topic in English. See Erlewine (to appearb) for
evidence that the sentence-final “subject” position in Squliq Atayal tracks the discourse topic,
as well as for discussion of qu.
4 There is also a Benefactive Voice with the same prefix s- as Instrumental Voice.
5 This data is not shown here for reasons of space.

53

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
is ‘cosmetic’, like extraction marking. That is, voice morphology does not drive thederivation nor determine case, but simply reflects the results of that derivation. In
the latter group of theories, voice plays an important role in determining the courseof the derivation. The voice morphology chosen determines which argument canbe promoted to “subject” position as well as the case morphology of the externalargument. In practice, these two positions are difficult to distinguish, because bothproposals can handle the prominent one-to-one correspondence of voice, case, andextraction often found in Austronesian voice systems.
In this paper, we present arguments that voice morphology in Austronesianshould be viewed as extraction marking, much like the morphological alternationsin (1–4). We present two systems in which the one-to-one correspondence between
voice, case, and extraction breaks down, the Nilotic language Dinka and Indonesiantype languages like Balinese. In Dinka, which exhibits an Austronesian-type voicesystem, we can dissociate voice and case. In Balinese, we can dissociate voice andextraction. These breakdowns are inconsistent with a view of Austronesian-type
voice morphology as extraction feeding, because such a view predicts mismatches
to be impossible. Crucially unlike in the non-voice languages in (1–4), we proposethat voice affects case because the “subject” position (the argument referenced byvoice morphology) is a mixed A/Ā-position. The external argument must move to thisposition to be case-licensed. If this movement is unavailable, alternative strategies
must be utilized to license the external argument. Interestingly, it appears that languages make use of different alternative licensing strategies. We examine three suchstrategies below.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce the Nilotic language Dinka as a language with an Austronesian-type voicesystem, and we show that voice morphology can be dissociated from the processes
governing case marking in Dinka. Section 3 further argues that voice morphology
can be dissociated from the extraction restriction, in instances of multiple extraction
in Balinese. In section 4, we turn to the question of why voice morphology often
triggers changes in case marking throughout the clause. We argue that what distinguishes Austronesian-type voice systems is that extraction targets a case position, sothat extraction interferes with the licensing of the actor. We link differences between
voice systems to different strategies for licensing the actor in non-actor voices.
2.

Dissociating voice and case in Dinka

If voice morphology is extraction marking, we expect to find dissociations between
voice and case, since voice would not directly determine case. Rather, in this view,the mechanisms that give rise to case marking should in principle be independent ofvoice. We find such dissociations in Dinka, a Nilotic language of South Sudan, witha voice system highly reminiscent of Austronesian (Van Urk and Richards 2015).
54

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
2.1.

The Dinka voice system

Dinka is a V2 language of the Nilotic family spoken in South Sudan. While notgenetically related to Austronesian, it displays a voice system reminiscent of thosein the Austronesian family. Dinka has three voices, which reflect the grammatical
function of the clause-initial “subject” position:(6) a. Àyén à-càmcuîn nè pàl.
¨ P¨ knife
Ayen 3 S-eat.AV food‘Ayen is eating food with a knife.’
b. Cuîn à-cÉEmÁyènnè pàl.
¨food 3 S-eat.PV Ayen.NOM P¨ knife‘Food, Ayen is eating with a knife.’c. Pàl à-cÉEmè
Áyèn
cuîn.
¨
¨
knife 3 S-eat.OBLV Ayen.NOM food‘With a knife, Ayen is eating food.’

Actor Voice (AV)Patient Voice (PV)

Oblique Voice (OblV)As in Germanic V2 languages, the highest verb or auxiliary occupies second
position. Voice morphology appears on this verbal element, marking the grammatical
function of the constituent in clause-initial position. In (6), we observe that the verb
câam ‘eat’ takes distinct forms which cross-reference the element in first position. If
an auxiliary is present, it occupies second position instead of the main verb. Voicemorphology then appears on the auxiliary (7a–c).
(7) a. Àyén
à-cé
cuîn
câam nè pàl.
¨¨
Ayen.ABS 3 S - PRF. AV food.ABS eat.NF P¨ knife.ABS‘Ayen has eaten food with a knife.’
b. Cuîn
à-cíi
Áyèn
câam nè pàl.
¨¨
food.ABS 3 S - PRF. PV Ayen.NOM eat.NF P¨ knife.ABS‘Food, Ayen has eaten with a knife.’c. Pàlà-cénnè
Áyèn
cuîn
câam.
¨
¨
¨
knife.ABS 3 S - PRF. OBLV Ayen.NOM food.ABS eat.NF‘With a knife, Ayen has eaten food.’

AV

PV

OblV

Regardless of where voice morphology appears, the clause-initial XP always appears
in the unmarked case, usually called “absolutive” in the Nilotic literature (e.g. Dimmendaal 1985; Andersen 1991, 2002).
As in many Austronesian languages, voice marking restricts overt Ā-extraction.
The constituent undergoing Ā-extraction must be the argument cross-referenced byvoice morphology:
55

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(8) a. YeNà cécuîncâam nè pàl?
¨¨
who PRF. AV food.ABS eat.NF P¨ knife.ABS‘Who has eaten food with a knife?’
b. YeNú cíi
Áyèn
câam nè pàl.
¨¨what PRF. PV Ayen.NOM eat.NF P¨ knife.ABS‘What has Ayen eaten with a knife?’c. YeNú cénnè
Áyèn
cuîn
câam.
¨
¨
¨
¨
what PRF. OBLV Ayen.NOM food.ABS eat.NF‘What has Ayen eaten food with?’

AV

PV

OblV

It is important to note that non-initial actors appear in a dedicated case, the“marked nominative”, while non-initial patients are unmarked (i.e. absolutive). Case
alternations are not realized using affixes as is common cross-linguistically, but rather
by alternations in tone. Observe that the external argument, Àyén, in clause initial
position (6a,7a) bears a distinct tonal pattern from the same argument in non-initial
position: Áyèn, in the (b–c) examples above. In this respect as well, Dinka behaves
like Austronesian languages, which display dichotomies between subject and nonsubject actors. We will return to this point below.
2.2.

Voice is independent of case

V2 in Dinka, as in many other V2 languages, is limited to certain types of clauses.
In non-V2 clauses, no argument is extracted to the front of the clause, resulting inverb-initial order. We will use these environments to see whether voice morphology
patterns with case or with extraction. As we will see, voice patterns with extraction,and only default voice morphology appears in non-V2 environments.
Matrix yes-no questions are verb-initial in Dinka, with no constituent fronted
to the clause-initial position (9).
(9)

Verb-initial yes-no question with AV and marked nominative actor:
Nhiár MáyènÀdít?
love.AV Mayen.NOM Adit.ABS‘Does Mayen love Adit?’

As (9) shows, a novel pattern emerges in such a clause. Elements following thehighest verb or auxiliary appear just as they do when they are not in clause-initial
position in V2 clauses. Thus, word order is strict (the actor must come before thepatient) and the actor and patient are case-marked just as they are when not extracted.
The actor appears in the “marked nominative”, just as in Patient Voice or Oblique
Voice (e.g. 7b–c). The patient is in the absolutive, just as in the Agent Voice (7a)or Oblique Voice (7c). Voice morphology, however, is necessarily Agent Voice in
yes-no questions. We treat this as an instance of default marking, since Agent Voice
56

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
otherwise does not appear with “marked nominative” case on the subject (as in 7a).
There are a number of other verb-initial environments which make the same
point, that alternations in voice are not necessary to drive case marking on non“subject” nominals. Following the complementizer yè, verb-initial order is found,with (default) AV on the highest verb/auxiliary, but “marked nominative” on the
postverbal subject (10).
(10)

Verb-initial order under yè complementizer:
À-yùkkù
luêel, [yè nhiár Máyèn
wÔOk].
¨ .1¨ PL say.NF C love.AV Mayen.NOM 1 PL . ABS
3 S - PRF
‘We say that Mayen loves us.’

Another environment with verb-initial order is in bé-clauses. These clauses are found¨with a set of verbs that usually function as control verbs
in other languages. In Dinka,
these verbs select for a verb-initial clause always headed by the future auxiliary bé¨(11a). V2 is ungrammatical (11b).
(11)Verb-initial order in bé-clauses:¨Àyéna. Bòl
à-cé
lÔON
[bé
Máyèn
rÈEr].
¨
¨
¨¨ NF
¨
¨
Bol.ABS 3 S - PRF. AV Ayen.ABS beg.NF FUT. AV Mayen.NOM stay.
‘Bol has begged Ayen for Mayen to stay.’b.*Bòlà-céÀyén lÔON[Màyén(à-)bé
rÈEr].
¨
¨
¨¨ NF
¨
¨
Bol.ABS 3 S - PRF. AV A.ABS beg.NF Mayen.ABS (3 S-)FUT. AV stay.
‘Bol has begged Ayen for Mayen to stay.’

In a number of environments, then, case marking and voice morphology diverge inDinka.
It is not the case, however, that these verb-initial clauses have completely
fixed AV morphology. For example, when an argument is long-distance extracted
out of the bé-clause still drives changes in voice morphology. This supports the view¨that these verb-initialclauses simply do not front any constituent to initial position
and AV morphology is the default realization, rather than a view that these clauses
are somehow voice-deficient. Note also that the pattern of case-marking in the AV
embedding in (11b), with no marked nominative argument, clearly contrasts from the
AV clause in (11) above, with a marked nominative actor.
(12)Long-distance extraction triggers voice alternations in bé-clauses:
a. YeNó lÈN-kù Àyén
[bíi
Máyèn
gÔOr]?¨¨¨ NF¨¨¨ . PV Mayen.NOM write.
what beg-1 PL Ayen.ABS FUT‘What are we begging Ayen for Mayen to write?’

57

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. YeNà lÈN-kù Àyén[béàkékôol gÔOr]?
¨¨ NF¨¨ ABS write.
¨
who beg-1 PL Ayen.ABS FUT. AV story.
‘Who are we begging Ayen for t to write a story?’
These facts clearly show that voice morphology tracks extraction and does
not correlate with case marking on any particular nominal.This follows under a viewin which voice morphology functions as extraction marking. In contrast, under an
extraction feeding view of voice morphology, even if extraction was independently
blocked in verb-initial environments, we would expect voice and case to correlate.
Actor voice morphology on the verb should trigger absolutive case on the externalargument, while marked nominative case should be limited to non-actor voices.
In this section, we saw that voice and case can be dissociated in Dinka. In
verb-initial environments, verbs and auxiliaries are marked with AV morphology, but
the actor argument does not occupy clause-initial positon. Rather the actor surfaces
in its base position and bears “marked nominative” case. Crucially, this dissociation
is surprising if voice morphology is an argument structure alternation that affects thepattern of case assignment and feeds extraction to subject position. Adopting insteadthe view the that voice morphology marks extraction, we posit that AV is a default
form which arises when no argument occupies the subject position.
3.

Voice and multiple extraction in Balinese

In this section, we present another breakdown of the common one-to-one correspondence of voice, case, and extraction. Specifically, we observe a dissociation between
voice morphology and extraction in Indonesian-type languages, such as Bahasa Indonesia (Chung 1976; Cole and Hermon 2005), Jambi Malay (Yanti 2010), and Balinese. Here we focus on Balinese.
We concentrate here on the Actor Voice and Patient Voice in Balinese:6(13)a. Actor Voice (AV):Polisi ng-ejuk Nyoman.
police AV-arrest Nyoman‘A policeman arrested Nyoman.’b. Patient Voice (PV):Nyoman ;-ejuk
polisi.
Nyoman PV-arrest police‘A policeman arrested Nyoman.’In this impoverished voice system, any argument that is promoted to the pre-verbal
subject position other than the actor is cross-referenced with Patient Voice morphology. As we have seen above for Atayal and Dinka, voice morphology imposes anextraction restriction. When the actor argument appears in subject position, AV morphology must appear on the verb (14a). When the patient argument appears in subject
6 The Actor Voice and Patient Voice are described as the two “active” voices in Indonesian-type languages, which also have other “passive” voices. See e.g. Arka (2003); Aldridge(2008).

58

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
position, PV morphology must appear on the verb (14b).
(14)a. Actor extraction ) AV:
Nyen ng/*;-alih
ci ditu ibi?
who AV/*PV-search you there yesterday‘Who looked for you there yesterday?’b. Patient extraction ) PV:
Apa *ng/;-alih
ci ditu ibi?
what *AV/PV-search you there yesterday‘What did you search for there yesterday?’
However, in Balinese, extraction of multiple arguments to pre-verbal positionis also possible. Multiple extraction occurs when the actor is fronted to be in immediate preverbal position and subsequently another argument undergoes wh-movement.7
In such cases, the verb is PV:(15)

Buku cen
Nyoman *ng/;-paca?
book which Nyoman *AV/PV-read‘Which book did Nyoman read?’

We can explain these facts if we view voice morphology as extraction marking. If
PV surfaces whenever a patient is extracted and AV is the default realization, we
expect to see PV if multiple extraction is ever possible. Under an extraction marking view, voice morphology is logically independent of the extraction restriction. In
contrast, under a view in which voice morphology drives argument structure alternations, voice morphology is the mechanism by which the extraction restriction iscreated. As a result, we do not expect to find such dissociations.
Under this kind of proposal, the difference between a voice system like Balinese, in which multiple extraction is possible, and Dinka, in which it is not, must
be independent of the mechanisms behind voice. Rather, we might imagine thatthe difference between Dinka and Balinese is much like the difference between English, in which multiple instances of Ā-movement—such as topicalization and whmovement—cannot co-occur, and Italian, in which multiple instances of Ā-extraction
can target the same left periphery.

7 This configuration is reminiscent of the famed “bodyguard” construction in Malagasy(Keenan 1976). Due to space limitations, we will not describe our analysis for these multiple
extraction constructions here.
59

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
4.

The relationship between voice and caseWe now turn to the relationship of voice systems and case/nominal licensing. We
have argued so far that Austronesian-type voice morphology is extraction marking.
However, unlike extraction marking in non-voice system languages (English, French,
Kaqchikel, Moro in §1), voice often has repercussions for case throughout the clause.
We propose that what unifies voice systems is that the position in the clause peripherytargeted by Ā-extraction, the “subject” position, is a case position. Here we will callthis subject position Spec,CP.
In AV clauses, the actor is licensed in this case position. In non-AV (NAV)
clauses, when a XP that is not the actor undergoes Ā-movement, it deprives the actor of its licenser, since extraction targets its case position. Thus, the actor mustbe licensed using an alternative strategy. We suggest that differences between voicesystems arise in part because voice languages handle the problem of licensing theexternal argument actor in non-actor voices differently. In particular, we will demonstrate three strategies for licensing the actor in NAV:
1. Ergative/genitive marking in Formosan/Philippine-type voice systems;
2. Oblique (prepositional) case in the Dinka voice system;
3. Pseudo-noun incorporation in the Balinese voice system.
Even genetically close languages may use different strategies, while some genetically distant languages (e.g. Formosan or Philippine-type and Dinka) use conceptually very similar strategies.
4.1.

Strategy 1: ergativity

The first strategy we identify is to license the actor with ergative/genitive case. Thisis the strategy observed in Atayal. Here we will consider the following AV and PV
examples:(16)

Actor Voice (AV):M-aniq sehuy (qu) Yuraw.
AV -eat taro
QU Yuraw‘Yuraw eats taro.’(17)

Patient Voice (PV):Niq-un na Yuraw (qu) sehuy.
eat-PV GEN Yuraw QU taro
‘Yuraw eats taro.’

Consider first the derivation of the AV clause in (16). As mentioned previously,
we propose that the “subject” position is Spec,CP. In the AV clause, the externalargument Yuraw cannot be licensed in its base position, Spec,vP (18). It moves toSpec,CP and is licensed there (19).

60

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

(18)

vP

/DP

(19)
v

Yuraw

,DP

VP
V

maniq

CP

,DP

Yuraw

sehuy

C

TP
T

maniq

vP
t

tV sehuy

As in a number of Austronesian languages, the “subject” position is clause-final. TPfronting yields the observed word order (Aldridge 2004). Qu marks the DP in thesubject position, and is not a case marker (Erlewine to appearb).
In NAV clauses, the actor is genitive marked. This genitive-marked actor has
been analyzed as an ergative argument in some previous work (Huang 1994; Starosta
1999; Aldridge 2004). Consider the derivation of the PV clause in (17). We assume
that, in non-actor voices, the “subject”—in this case the patient sehuy—occupies thecase position that licenses the actor in AV clauses. As a result, the actor is deprivedof licensing (20).
(20)

CP

,DP
sehuy

C

TP

T
niqun

vP

/DP

tV t

Yuraw

This is precisely the configuration where the actor is given ergative/genitive case,using a particular choice of v (Aldridge 2004; Woolford 2006; Legate 2008). This
strategy allows the actor to be licensed in non-actor voices, when the “subject” position is unavailable.8
8 Under our proposal here, voice is extraction marking, not a v head, but moving a non-actor

to “subject” position necessarily correlates with the choice of an ergative/genitive-assigningv. There are important questions here regarding derivational look-ahead. We will leave theseissues for future work. We note that ergative/genitive-assignment could be conceived of as anapplication of a last-resort or default rule, as in Imanishi (2014), which avoids (or reframes)
this issue. See also footnote 9 below.

61

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
4.2.

Strategy 2: oblique caseWe find a different strategy in Dinka. In Dinka NAV clauses, actors appear in a
dedicated case, “marked nominative” (KÃűnig 2006; Van Urk and Richards 2015),
which is tonally marked:
(21)

(22)

Actor Voice (AV):
Ayén
à-cé
cuîn
câam.
¨
¨
Ayen.ABS 3 S - PRF. AV food.ABS eat.NF‘Ayen has eaten food.’
Patient Voice (PV):
Cuîn
a-cíi
Áyèn
câam.
¨
¨
food.ABS 3 S - PRF. PV Ayen.NOM eat.NF‘Food, Ayen has eaten.’“Marked nominative” is unlike familiar subject cases. “Marked nominative” does
not pattern like ergative case. It is not linked to transitivity or semantic properties ofthe verb and can be found with unergatives and unaccusatives in environments thatsuppress V2:(23)a. Adít
à-nìn.
Adit.ABS 3 S-sleep.AV‘Adit is sleeping.’b. NìnÁdìt?
sleep.AV Adit.NOM‘Is Adit sleeping?’(24)a. Galàm à-cédhuòN.
¨
pen.ABS 3 S - PRF. AV break.NF‘The pen broke.’
b. Cé
galám
dhuòN?
¨
PRF. AV pen. NOM break. NF‘Did the pen break?’“Marked nominative” also does not behave like nominative, however, because it is
the marked case. The absolutive appears in all default contexts, as in citation form
and on nominal predicates (Andersen 1991, 2002).
(25)

Adít
e-dupióoc.
Adit.ABS COP-teacher.ABS‘Adit is a teacher.’In addition, “marked nominative” is also assigned by some prepositions (Andersen
2002):(26)a. Yìn nhiàrGònè Máyèn.
¨¨¨you love.AV house.LNK P Mayen.NOM‘You love Mayen’s house.’
62

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. Cuîn
à-cîi
câam nè pàl
nè Áyèn.
¨¨¨food.ABS 3 S - PRF. PASS eat.NF P knife.ABS P¨ Ayen.NOM‘The food has been eaten with a knife by Ayen.’
Instead, we propose that “marked nominative” is an oblique case, assigned
by a null preposition, inserted as a repair to license a caseless nominal. We draw on
the notion of repair in Rezac (2012), who suggests that prepositional material may be
added at the end of a phase to license certain DPs that fail to acquire case. For similar
proposals regarding prepositions for nominals which would otherwise be unlicensed,
see Stowell (1981) on English of-Insertion and Halpert (2012) on Bantu augment
nominals.9
The derivation for Dinka NAV clauses is illustrated by the following trees.
As in Atayal, we posit that the “subject” moves to Spec,CP and deprives the actor of
its usual licensing position (27). To license the actor, a silent preposition is inserted,which assigns case to the actor (28).
(27)

(28)

CP

,DP
cuîn
¨

C

,DP

TP

à-cíi T
¨

/DP
Ayén

CP

cuîn
¨

vP

C

TP

à-cíi T¨vP

PP
câam tP,DPcâam tÁyènIn this view, “marked nominative” is actually a prepositional case, and absolutiveis the only real structural case (which is why it behaves like the unmarked case).
There is then no structural licensor for the subject outside of the voice system. As aresult, “marked nominative” emerges as a necessary repair in non-subject voices andin structures in which the voice system is not available.

9 Strategies 1 and 2 could be seen as very similar, if we analyzed ergative/genitive case in

Formosan and Philippine languages (Atayal above) as a last resort repair. See Imanishi (2014)
for such a proposal for ergativity in Mayan.
63

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
4.3.

Strategy 3: pseudo-noun incorporation

A different strategy is found in Balinese. In Balinese, the actor in non-actor voices
forms a single “phonological word” with the verb (Clynes 1995). In Balinese NAV
clauses, post-verbal actors undergo Pseudo-Noun Incorporation (PNI), by means ofMorphological Merger (Levin 2014). Such actors display strict head-head adjacency
with the verb.
Evidence for this adjacency requirement is presented here. First, pre-nominal
adjectives are banned on post-verbal actors. Adjectives that can normally appear preand post-nominally must appear post-nominally when modifying a post-verbal actor:(29)a. Actor Voice (AV):[(Liu) cicing (liu)] ngugut Nyoman.
(many) dog (many) AV.bite Nyoman‘Many dogs bit Nyoman.’b. Patient Voice (PV):Nyoman gugut [(*liu)
cicing (liu)].
Nyoman PV.bite (*many) dog (many)‘Many dogs bit Nyoman.’
In addition, the post-verbal actor shows a definiteness effect. The definite suffix -e
and overt determiners like ento ‘that’ are illicit (Wechsler and Arka 1998, 441):(30)a. I

Wayan gugut

cicing. b.* I

Wayan gugut

cicing-e (ento).

ART Wayan PV .bite dog

ART Wayan PV .bite dog- DEF (that)‘A dog bit Wayan.’‘The dog bit Wayan.’

We propose that this is because the presence of an NP blocks PNI of D. In
support of this, we see that pronouns and proper names can undergo PNI.
(31)a. Be-edaar ida.
fish-DEF PV.eat 3 SG‘(S)he ate the fish.’b. Be-edaar Nyoman.
fish-DEF PV.eat Nyoman‘Nyoman ate the fish.’

We can derive this if pronouns and proper names occupy D0 (e.g. Postal 1966; Longobardi 1994; Elbourne 2001) and lack an NP, satisfying head-head adjacency.
The behavior of non-subject actors in Balinese is inconsistent with either of
the two alternative licensing stategies above. If non-subject actors were case marked
either by lexical case or P-insertion, we would not expect to find the head-head adjacency requirement. However, if head-head adjacency is necessary to create a structure to which Morphological-Merger can apply, then the behavior of Balinese can be
captured.
64

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, we presented two examples where the one-to-one correspondence ofvoice, case, and extraction can break down in Austronesian-type voice system languages. We argue that voice morphology is a form of extraction marking, which
tracks the argument moved to the “subject” position (Chung 1994; Richards 2000;
Pearson 2001, 2005). By connecting this position to the licensing of the actor in AV
clauses, we arrive at a unified explanation for the quirky behavior of actors in NAV
clauses:
1. Ergative/genitive marking in Formosan and Philippine languages;
2. Oblique case marking in Dinka (Nilotic);
3. Pseudo-noun incorporation in Balinese.
Specifically, the idea is that (a) the external argument actor lacks structural licensing
in its Spec,vP position, (b) the actor is licensed in the subject position in AV, and (c)another strategy is necessary for licensing the subject in NAV clauses.
This view of voice morphology leaves open a number of questions. Firstof all, we have left open the question of why and how voice languages come toshow more articulated extraction marking, as we saw with in Atayal examples in(5). One appealing answer is that such non-PV non-actor voices reflect argument
structure alternations that are necessary to turn PP arguments into nominals that canoccupy the “subject” position, as in Rackowski’s (2002) treatment of Tagalog and
Van Urk’s (in preparation) analysis of the Dinka oblique voice. A second question iswhat mechanism ultimately yields non-subject extraction marking (e.g. Chung 1994;
Pesetsky and Torrego 2001; Rizzi and Shlonsky 2007; Erlewine to appeara). Thisissue is especially important, since some theories of extraction marking crucially link
non-subject extraction morphology to case, such as Pesetsky and Torrego’s (2001)
proposal.
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua
1118:1440–1469.
Andersen, Torben. 1991. Subject and topic in Dinka. Studies in Language 15:265–
294.
Andersen, Torben. 2002. Case inflection and nominal head marking in Dinka. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 23:1–30.
Arka, Wayan. 2003. Balinese morphosyntax: a lexical-functional approach. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Chung, Sandra. 1976. An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesia. Linguistic In65

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
quiry 7:41–87.
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic
Inquiry 25:1–44.
Clynes, Adrian. 1995. Topics in the phonology and morphosyntax of Balinese—
based on the dialect of Singaraja, North Bali. Doctoral Dissertation, Australia
National University.
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2005. Subject and non-subject relativization inIndonesian. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14:59–88.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit. 1985. Prominence hierarchies and Turkana syntax. In Proceedings of ACAL 14, 127–148.
Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics
9:241–288.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. to appeara.
Anti-locality and optimality in
Kaqchikel Agent Focus.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory URL
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001841/current.pdf.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. to appearb. Subject marking on non-subjects in Squliq
Atayal. In Proceedings of the 20th meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics
Association (AFLA 20).
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.
Halpert, Claire. 2012. Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Huang, Lillian Meijin. 1994. Ergativity in Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 33:129–143.
Imanishi, Yusuke. 2014. Default ergative. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Subject and topic, ed.
Charles N. Li and Sandra A. Thompson. Academic Press.
KÃűnig, Christa. 2006. Case in Africa. Oxford University Press.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry
39:55–101.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88:495–525.
Levin, Theodore. 2014. Pseudo noun incorporation is M-Merger: evidence fromBalinese. Handout from LSA 2014.
Liu, Adlay Kun-long. 2004. On relativization in Squliq Atayal. Master’s thesis,
National Tsing Hua University.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N movement
in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–665.
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A0 -element. Natural
66

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Language & Linguistic Theory 23:381–457.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language. MIT Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1966. On so-called “pronouns” in English. In 19th Monograph on
Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown University Press.
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: Specificity, voice, and the
distribution of arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Richards, Norvin Waldemar, III. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, ed. Ileana Paul, Vivianne Phillips, and Lisa
Travis, 105–116. Springer.
Rizzi, Luigi, and Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntaxsemantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin GÃd’rtner, number 89 in Studies inGenerative Grammar, 115–160. Mouton de Gruyter.
Rohde, Hannah. 2006. The syntax of questions in Moro. Handout from ACAL 37.
Rose, Sharon, Farrell Ackerman, George Gibbard, Peter Jenks, Laura Kertz, andHannah Rohde. 2014. In-situ and ex-situ wh-question constructions in Moro. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 35:91–125.
Starosta, Stanley. 1999. Transitivity, ergativity, and the best analysis of Atayal casemarking. In Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics.
Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent Focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 24:501–570.
Stowell, Timothy Agnus. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Van Urk, Coppe. in preparation. The syntax of phrasal movement: A Dinka casestudy. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Waldemar Richards, III. 2015. Two components
of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry
46:113–155.
Wechsler, Stephen, and Wayan Arka. 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: Anargument structure based theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16:387–
441.
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37:111–130.
Yanti. 2010. A reference grammar of Jambi Malay. Doctoral Dissertation, Universityof Delaware.

67

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

ALTERNATIVE SEMANTICS FOR FOCUS AND QUESTIONS:EVIDENCE FROM SĀMOAN⇤
Vera Hohaus
University of Tübingenvera.hohaus@uni-tuebingen.deAnna Howell
University of Tübingenanna.howell@uni-tuebingen.de

This paper investigates the semantics of the particle ‘o which marks noun phrases
under a variety of conditions in Sāmoan, a Polynesian language. We argue
that ‘o marks those noun phrases for which an alternative-semantic value needs
to be calculated. Evidence for such an analysis comes from distribution, theabsence of certain locality constraints, and intervention effects. Accordingly,
the ‘o-marking of wh-phrases in questions provides evidence for an alternativesemantics approach to interrogatives and against a quantificational one.

1.

Introduction

In Sāmoan, a Polynesian language with approximately 300,000 speakers, nounphrases are marked with the particle ‘o in a number of configurations. Amongthem, focused and topicalized noun phrases, wh-phrases as well as noun phrases
associated with the exclusive particle na‘o (‘only’) or with the free-choice itemso‘o (‘any’) receive ‘o-marking. The syntactic and information-structural function of this particle and its cognate ko in other Polynesian languages has beena subject of debate: For Sāmoan, the particle has been previously analyzed asnominative case marking by e.g. Downs (1949) or as serving some informationstructural purpose (Pawley 1966; R. Clark 1969; Chapin 1970; Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992). In other Polynesian languages, ko has received an analysis “. . . asa preposition, a copular preposition, a focus or topic complementizer, a pred morpheme, and a tense morpheme”, to quote the overview in Massam, Lee, and Rolle(2006: 3). However, the semantic implications of any of these analyses have neverbeen spelled out in detail. This paper offers a semantic perspective on the functionof ‘o in Sāmoan. We take as a starting point the observation that the distributionof the particle ‘o correlates with the main constructions for which a semantics
relying on a second tier of semantic interpretation, referred to as the alternative⇤

We are indebted to the Sāmoan native speakers that have contributed to this project at various
stages. Temukisa Grundhöfer, Malia Hackel, Laena Hermansen, Chrissy Lam Yuen, Jordanna
Mareko, Puaina Pfeiffer, Cecillia Sagota, Fata Simanu-Klutz, Tina Tauasosi, and Lomialagi
Vaiotu-Fuao, fa‘afetai, fa‘afetai tele lava! We also thank Nadine Bade, Polina Berezovskaya,
Sigrid Beck, Sasha Calhoun, Verena Hehl, and Sonja Tiemann as well as the audience at the 21st
Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association at the University of Hawai‘i
at Mānoa for feedback and discussion. Funding for this project was provided by the German
Research Foundation DFG (Collaborative Research Center 833, Project C1).

69

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
or focus-semantic value, has been proposed. We suggest that ‘o marks those nounphrases for which an alternative-semantic value (i.e. a semantic value different
from the ordinary semantic value) needs to be calculated. As a consequence, we
argue that the ‘o-marking found on wh-phrases indicates a semantics for interrogatives that operates on alternatives rather than one which treats wh-phrases as
quantifiers.
The plot of the paper is as follows: In section 2 we discuss the data pertaining to the distribution of ‘o-marking of focus and topics as well as with exclusive
particles and free-choice items. Section 3 then spells out the semantic analysis
in detail. In section 4, we look at constituent questions in Sāmoan, and extend
our analysis to explain the occurrence of ‘o with wh-phrases. Section 5 looks atfurther predictions of the proposed analysis, including predictions relating to island (in)sensitivity and intervention effects. Section 6 concludes and provides an
outlook on extensions of the analysis in Sāmoan and other Polynesian languages.
2.

Data

A primary motivation for the semantic account of the particle ‘o which we propose in this paper comes from its distribution: As we will show in this section,‘o-marking occurs in the core constructions for which a second tier of semanticinterpretation, the alternative- or focus-semantic value (Rooth 1985, 1992), hasbeen suggested to play a role:
The particle ‘o in Sāmoan occurs with noun phrases that are the focus, asin (1b), or topic, as in (3), of a sentence.1 This includes both new information
focus, in (1b), as well as contrastive focus, in (2b), and extends also to cases ofmultiple focus, as indicated by data from the literature in (4).2(1)

New Information Focus
a.

‘O

ā

mea‘ai na

ALT. what food

‘What food did Peter bring?’
1‘aumai e

TAM (past) bring

Pita?

ERG . Peter

Unless otherwise indicated all data come from work with Sāmoan native speakers conductedin Germany, Hawai‘i and Sāmoa. The material was designed following Matthewson (2004) andMatthewson (2011). The original orthography of the examples (especially with respect to diacritics) has been preserved. Abbreviations used in glosses are ABS . = absolutive case marker, ALT.
= alternative marker, DEM . = demonstrative, DET. = determiner (specific, singular), DIR . = directional particle, EMPH . = emphatic particle, ERG . = ergative case marker, fut. = future, INDEF.
= determiner (indefinite), NEG . = negation, PART. = particle, pl. = plural, PREP. = preposition,
PRN . = pronoun, prog. = progressive, sg. = singular, and TAM = tense-aspect marker.
2
We were however unable to replicate the finding of Chapin (1970)’s fieldwork that multiple‘o-marked constituents are acceptable in Sāmoan.

70

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b.

[‘O

le

talo] naaumai ePita.
ALT. DET. taro TAM (past) bring ERG . Peter‘Peter brought the TARO.’(2)

Contrastive Focus
a. Na
alu i
Apia lou tinā?
TAM (past) go PREP. Apia your mother‘Did your mother go to Apia?’b. Leai, [‘o lo‘u tamā] na
alu iApia, ‘a [‘o lo‘unoALT. my father TAM (past) go PREP. Apia but ALT. mytinā] na
nofo ilefale.
mother TAM(past) stay PREP. DET. house‘No, my FATHER went to Apia but my MOTHER stayed at home.’(Mosel and So‘o 1997: 52)

(3)

Topic
‘Afai [omea‘ai], efiafia Luka ipanikeke.
if
ALT. food
TAM like Luke PREP. pancakes‘As far as food is concerned, Luke likes pancakes.’(4)

Multiple Foci[‘O letama] [‘o leteine] sa
alofa iai.
ALT. DET. boy
ALT. DET. girl TAM (past) love PREP. PRN .
‘The BOY loved the GIRL.’(Chapin 1970: 375)Sāmoan ‘o also obligatorily co-occurs in the equivalent of English only, the exclusive particle na‘o, as in (5), and in the equivalent of English any, the freechoice item so‘o. Both items employ alternatives in their semantics. (See Rooth(1985, 1992) as well as Beaver and B. Z. Clark (2008) for analyses of the semantics of English only, and Krifka (1995), Aloni (2007), and Chierchia (2013) for
alternative-semantics analyses of English any.)(5)

Exclusive Particle[Na *(‘o) Luka] ‘o lo‘oia te a‘u.
only ALT. Luka TAM(prog.) be.with PRN .(1 sg.)
‘Only LUKE is currently here with me.’(6)

Free-Choice Item
E mafai ona tupu leositioafaraiti i[so*(‘o)
TAM possible that grow DET. arthritis
PREP. any+ ALT.
setagata].
INDEF.(sg.) person‘Anybody can get arthritis.’71

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
In the examples above, ‘o-marking always co-occurs with fronting of the focus or
topic, but there are examples of the in-situ use of ‘o as a means to mark focus in
the literature, such as (7) and (8). However, we were unable to reproduce theseexamples in our own fieldwork. ‘O-marked noun phrases are only acceptable tothe native speakers we have consulted when fronted. The exception to this generalization are noun phrases associated with the exclusive particle na‘o (‘only’)or with the free-choice item so‘o (‘any’), both of which can occur either fronted,
as in (5), or in situ, as in (9). One possible explanation for this pattern is that inSāmoan the initial phrase is prosodically maximally prominent and speakers aim
to align the different structural representations. (See also Calhoun (2013).)(7)

Ailava semauoloa [olou tama]?
perhaps EMPH INDEF.(sg.) rich
ALT. your father‘Perhaps your father is a rich person.’(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: p.264, no. (6.71))(8). . . ‘ae o‘o a‘e ia[‘o le‘autaunonofo],. . .
but reach DIR . EMPH . ALT. DET. harem‘. . . but the wives went up to her.’(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: p. 273, no. (6.141))

(9)

I

le

1960 na
pau ailefuainumera o tagata
PREP. DET. 1960 TAM (past) limit PRN . DET. numberof people
mamai ile3,000 ma ile1979 etusa[nasick PREP. DET. 3,000 and PREP. DET. 1979 TAM be.equal.to only*(‘o) le10].
ALT. DET. 10‘In 1960, it restricted the number of people that got sick to 3,000
and in 1979, it was equal to only TEN.’

Intonational focus marking is also available in Sāmoan (cf. Calhoun 2013). An
interesting question, which we have not pursued in this paper, is the interaction
between these two focus-marking strategies. For example, we have noted abovethat both focus and topics receive ‘o-marking. It might be the case that Sāmoandifferentiates sentences with ‘o-marked noun phrases as focus and sentences with‘o-marked noun phrases as topic intonationally, like in Māori (cf. Bauer 1991).
This remains to be tested empirically. Further investigation may also reveal evidence of competition between these two strategies, and in fact, Sasha Calhoun(p.c.) speculates that focus marking strategies might currently be in flux and anarea of linguistic change in the language.
72

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
3.

Alternative Semantics for Focus

In the previous section, we observed that ‘o-marking in Sāmoan occurs in exactly
those constructions whose semantics makes use of alternatives. To explain thisobservation, we propose in this section that the function of the particle ‘o is tomark those noun phrases for which alternatives need to be calculated. To do so,
we first need to spell out our assumptions about the way focus-alternatives are
generated and manipulated by the grammar.
The basic idea under this type of account is that focus gives rise to thegeneration of alternatives. For example, in the sentence in (5), the ‘o-marking on
the noun phrase Luka will give rise to the generation of the alternative set in (10).
Focus-sensitive operators work with these alternatives. In the case of an operator
like only, for example, the other alternatives are excluded as false.
(5)[Na ‘oLuka] ‘o lo‘oia te a‘u.
only ALT. Luka TAM(prog.) be.with PRN .(1 sg.)
‘Only LUKE is currently here with me.’

(10)

{that John is here with me, that Mark is here with me,that Matthew is here with me, that . . . }There are several ways of technically implementing an analysis of this kind forfocus, namely structured propositions (cf. e.g. Krifka 1992), a two-tier semantics
with focus- and ordinary-semantic values (cf. esp. Rooth 1985, 1992), and distinguished variables (cf. e.g. Beck 2006, to appear). Here, we will use distinguishedvariables, a framework in which, at the level of Logical Form, focus-marking isrealized as a distinguished variable that is bound by an alternative-evaluating operator higher up in the structure. (In this case: the squiggle operator ⇠.) Variables
as we know them receive a value assignment via the function g. Distinguishedvariables receive their value assignment via a second assignment function h. Essentially, the distinguished variable tells us where to compute alternatives and ofwhat type these alternatives are. Thus, (5) has the Logical Form in (11). Whenevaluated with respect to the assignment function h, the focused constituent, Luka,
is replaced by a distinguished variable, ii, as in (12b).
22

(11)

33g,h

66
77
66
77
hs,ti
66
77
66only Chhs,ti,ti
77
66
77
66
77
66
77
66
7
embedded proposition 7
66
77
66
7
7
⇠(ii,hei) Chhs,ti,ti
66
77
44
55

. . . Luke ii,hei . . .

73

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
(12)

a.
b.

ordinary semantic interpretation:
J -embedded proposition- Kg = w. be.here.with.mew (Luke)

focus-semantic interpretation:
J -embedded proposition- Kh = w. be.here.with.mew (h(ii, hei))

The squiggle operator ⇠, in (13), unselectively binds distinguished variables andadds a presupposition regarding the value assignment to a free variable C of typehhs, ti, ti it introduces. Namely, it adds the presupposition that the value assigned
to this free variable is a subset of the set of alternatives generated by replacing thedistinguished variable with all possible instantiations of it. Operators sensitive
to alternatives such as only and its Sāmoan equivalent in (14) also come with acontextual variable C, which receives the same value as the contextual variable
that comes with the squiggle operator. That is, they work with the alternatives thesquiggle operator generated with the help of the distinguished variable. For theexample from (5), this yields the desired truth conditions in (15), which state that
all alternative propositions to the proposition that Luke is with me are false.
(13)

(14)
(15)

If ↵ = [[⇠ C] ], then for any g, h:J↵Kg is only defined if g(C) ✓ {p : 9h [p = J Kh ]}.
Then J↵Kg = J Kg and J↵Kh = J K; .

J na K = J only K = Chhs,ti,ti . phs,ti . whsi . 8q [C(q) & q(w) ! q = p]

w. 8q [C(q) & q(w) ! q = [ w0 . Luke is with me in w0 ]]presupposition: g(C) ✓ {p : 9x 2 Dhei [p = [ w. x is with me in w]]}with e.g. g(C) = { w. Luka is with me in w, w. Paulo is with me in w,
w. Ioane is with me in w, . . .}In summary, this system of focus interpretation has three main ingredients: (i)distinguished variables to generate alternatives, (ii) alternative-evaluating operators such as ⇠ to bind distinguished variables and introduce a set of alternatives
into the semantics via the presupposition, and (iii) operators sensitive to alternatives such as only. This system is used for focus interpretation but not limited tofocus. There are a number of other alternative-evaluating operators and operators
sensitive to alternatives (cf. also Beck 2006), including questions, free-choice andnegative polarity items, disjunction and certain quantifiers. Thus, a prediction ofthis analysis of Sāmoan ‘o is that the particle show up in other constructions thathave been analyzed to involve alternative-evaluating and alternative-sensitive operators. This prediction is borne out. As we have seen in section 2, the particle‘o not only marks focus but also topics, and it co-occurs in the free-choice itemso‘o (‘any’). Wh-phrases, which we will discuss in detail in section 4, are also
obligatorily ‘o-marked as is disjunction, which we will discuss in section 5.
74

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
3.1.

Excursus on the Syntax of ‘o-Constructions

Let us point out that the semantic analysis we propose has syntactic implications
as well. Polynesian ko-constructions such as the Sāmoan example in (16) canpotentially be analyzed either as clefts, as in (17), as pseudoclefts, as in (18),or as dislocation structures, as in (19). (See especially Potsdam (2009) as well
as Potsdam and Polinsky (2011) for discussion.) Under the analysis presented
above, interpretation proceeds from structures that are not in any way bi-clausal.
Rather, the ‘o-marked constituent has undergone movement, as in (19). (This isalso the analysis adopted in Pizzini (1971).)
(16)

‘O

Ioane eumi.
ALT. John TAM long
‘John is tall.’(17)

Cleft:
It is John [RelCl who is tall].

(18)

Pseudo-Cleft:[RelCl Who is tall] is John.

(19)

Movement of Noun Phrase
and Verb Raising in Derivation of VSO(cf. e.g. Collins, to appear):

Because of the lack of an overt copula and of overt expletives in Sāmoan, arguments in favor of such a dislocation analysis are not straightforward (cf. also
Potsdam & Polinsky 2011). However, evidence in favor of the structure in (19)above comes from the following: First, tense-aspect markers are ungrammati75

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
cal in ‘o-marked constituents, as in (20), contrary to expectations for a bi-clausal
structure. (Mosel and Hovdhaugen (1992: 500) also observed that the ‘o-marked
constituent in Sāmoan is “. . . unmarked for tense-aspect or mood and does not
accept any verb or negative particle.”)(20)[(*Na)‘o lemeleni] [na‘ai eSioane analeilā].
TAM (past) ALT. DET. melon TAM (past) eat ERG . John yesterday‘It was the melon that John ate yesterday.’

Second, the possibility of multiple fronted ‘o-constituents, as in (4), is unexpectedunder both, a cleft- and a pseudocleft-analysis. Third, as far as they are acceptedby native speakers, the occurrence of ‘o-marked constituents in situ, as in (7)to (8) provides additional evidence against a bi-clausal structure. Finally, theunavailability of headless relative clauses as arguments elsewhere in Sāmoan, as
discussed in Mosel and Hovdhaugen (1992: 633), also weakens the empirical support for a cleft-analysis under which fronted ‘o marked constituents are headlessrelative clauses. We conclude from this brief discussion that for Sāmoan, a dislocation analysis is preferable.
4.

Interrogatives

As mentioned in the previous section, a prediction made by this analysis is that‘o-marking should be found in other environments where distinguished variables
are used in the semantic calculation. Wh-questions provide an interesting opportunity to test this prediction, because certain approaches derive the meaning of
wh-questions from a set of alternatives generated by a distinguished variable in
the wh-phrase. Interestingly, Sāmoan wh-phrases are also marked by the particle ‘o. Based on the occurrence of ‘o-marking in interrogatives, we argue in thissection that questions in Sāmoan should receive an alternative-semantics analysis
rather than a quantificational one.
4.1.

Data

Constituent questions in Sāmoan also obligatorily employ ‘o, as illustrated in (21)below.3 (See also the example in (1a) from section 2.)(21)

3[*(‘O) ai] na
sau ma letalo?
ALT. who TAM (past) come with DET. talo
‘Who came with the taro?’

In order to avoid unnecessary complexity, we focus only on argument questions here.

76

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
In embedded questions, like the one in (22), the question particle pē, is additionally present in the complementizer of the embedded clause.4 Examples from theliterature such as the one in (23) indicate that the question particle pē may havealso been realized overtly in matrix questions in Sāmoan in the past, though matrix
sentences marked with the question particle were rejected by our consultants.
(22)‘Ou te iloa [po [‘o ai] ealofa iai
Sina],. . .
I TAM know Q ALT. who TAM love PREP.+PRN . Sina
‘I know who Sina loves. . . ’

(23)

Po [o
le
tusi a ai] sa e fa‘aaogā?
Q ALT. DET. book of who TAM you use‘Whose book did you use?’(Downs 1949: 44)

4.2.

Approaches to the Semantics of Interrogatives

Questions denote the set of possible answers to them, an idea going back to Hamblin (1973). (Cf. also Krifka (2011) for an introduction to the semantics of questions.) There are multiple ways to derive these sets compositionally.
Quantificational Analyses of Interrogatives. The most prominent approach(e.g. Karttunen (1977) as well as Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984)), developed
primarily for English, derives this set of propositions by analyzing wh-words asexistential quantifiers, which obligatorily undergo movement to produce an interpretable structure, and by the covert question operator Q, in (25b). Thus, thequestion in (24) is assigned the Logical Form in (26), where wh-pronouns have alexical entry as in (25a), yielding the set of propositions in (27).
(24)

What did Mary eat?

(25)

a.
b.

(26)

[hhs,ti,ti what [he,hhs,ti,tii 1 [hhs,ti,ti Q [hs,ti Mary [ eat t1,hei ]] ]]](27)

J what K = Phe,hhs,ti,tii . phs,ti . 9x [(P (x))(p)]J Q K = phs,ti . qhs,ti . [p = q]

J what K( xhei . qhs,ti . [q = [ w. eat(x)(Mary)(w)]]), phs,ti . 9x [p = w. eat(x)(Mary)(w)]
e.g. {that Mary ate taro in w, that Mary ate some papaya in w}

In the interpretation in (27), the question operator Q combines with a proposition
and turns it into a set of propositions. The existential quantifier introduced by the
wh-word subsequently binds the trace left by its movement, yielding the set of
possible answers to the question in (24) of the shape that Mary ate some thing.
4

The question particle pē is realized as pō when followed by an ‘o.

77The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Alternative Semantics for Questions. A second, more recent approach (e.g.
Kratzer and Shimoyama (2002) as well Beck (2006)) capitalizes on the similarity between interrogative semantics and focus semantics, and analyzes wh-words
on par with focus-marked constituents as elements which introduce distinguishedvariables, as shown in (28), and which thus generate alternatives. The question
operator Q, in (29), is another alternative-evaluating operator, just like the squiggle operator, in (13).
(28)

a.
b.

J what ii,hei Kg UNDEFINED
J what ii,hei Kh = h(ii, hei)(29)

If ↵ = [Qi,h⌧ i ], then for any g, h:J↵Kg = {p : p = 9x 2 Dh⌧ i : J Kh[x/i] }.

Under this account, movement is not required at Logical Form. Rather, the whpronoun remains in situ and its distinguished variable is bound by the Q-operator,
as illustrated in (30). Like the squiggle operator ⇠, Q generates a set of propositions. It does so by taking the alternative semantic value of the embedded proposition and replacing the distinguished variable introduced by the wh-pronoun withall of its possible instantiations. Thus, only the alternative semantic value of theembedded proposition, in (31), is used in the generation of the question meaning.
Its ordinary semantic value is undefined.
(30)

hhs,ti,ti

Q ii,heihs,ti. . . whii,hei . . .
in situ

(31)

a.
b.

ordinary semantic value:
J -embedded proposition- Kg UNDEFINED
focus-semantic value:
J -embedded proposition- Kh = . . . (h(ii, hei))

The obligatory in-situ interpretation of wh-pronouns, while somewhat unintuitivein wh-fronting languages, is desirable in wh-in-situ languages like Japanese, inwhich wh-phrases do not undergo covert movement (cf. Shimoyama 2006). However, an alternative-semantics analysis of questions has also been argued for insome wh-fronting languages, in particular Tinglit, a Na-Dené language spoken in
Southeast Alaska and Western Canada (Cable 2010).
78

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
4.3.

Applying the Analysis to Sāmoan

The perspective from Sāmoan suggests a unified treatment of interrogatives andfocus, and thus is another language that provides support for an alternative-based
analysis of interrogatives. We suggest that wh-words in Sāmoan questions suchas (21) are interpreted in situ, yielding the Logical Form in (32). The denotation,in (33), is the set of propositions that are possible answers to the question. This is
the same set of propositions which a quantificational analysis would generate, butthey have been calculated using the focus-alternatives of the proposition embedded under the focus-sensitive operator Q.
(21)

(32)

[‘O

ai] nasau ma letalo?
ALT. who TAM (past) come with DET. taro
‘Who came with the taro?’
hs,hs,tii

Qi,heihs,ti3, hsihti

aii,hei
whoi,heihe,tisau w3,hsi ma le talocome w3,hsi with DET. taro
(33)

{p : 9x 2 Dhei : p = J [ 3, hsi [[ai i,hei ] [sau w3,hsi ma le talo]]] Kh[x/i] } ,{p : 9x 2 Dhei : p = w. x came with the taro in w}
e.g. {that Malia came with the taro in w, that Eseta came with the taro in w,
that Alofa came with the taro in w,. . . }This analysis for Sāmoan makes some predictions about sensitivity to syntactic
islands and the presence of intervention effects in constructions with ‘o, which
will be explored in the next section.
Interim Summary. The analysis proposed thus far for ‘o-marking in Sāmoan
can be summed up as follows: Constituents containing distinguished variables, including constituents containing focus and wh-pronouns, are marked with the particle ‘o. Two covert operators, the squiggle operator ⇠ for focus and Q for questions
bind these distinguished variables to generate sets of alternatives, which yieldquestion meanings, or are used by focus-sensitive particles like na‘o (‘only’).
79The Proceedings of AFLA 21
We hypothesize that the inventory of alternative-sensitive operators in Sāmoan(in Table 1) additionally includes the free-choice item so‘o (‘any’) and a covert
ASSERT -operator for topics.

Table 1: Alternatives in Interpretation: The View from Sāmoan

5.

Predictions: Island (In)sensitivity and Intervention Effects

Aside from arguments based on the distribution of the particle ‘o, diagnostics
used in the semantic literature to test for an alternative semantics, such as island
insensitivity (Rooth 1985; Shimoyama 2006) and the presence of intervention
effects (Beck 2006; Erlewine and Kotek, to appear) provide additional evidence
for the analysis proposed in the previous sections.

5.1.

Island Insensitivity of Focus Association

A primary motivation for introducing alternatives into the interpretation component of the grammar comes from the fact that association with focus is not subject
to the same locality constraints as movement or Quantifier Raising are. Whereas
Quantifier Raising is blocked in English by a relative clause boundary, no such
locality restrictions affect association with focus, as illustrated by the contrast in(34) below. Crucially, the exclusive particle only can associate with a focused
constituent across a syntactic island.
(34)

a.

b.

I know the person [RelCl that [every girl] loves].
= ‘The person that I know is such that every girl loves them.’
6= ‘For every girl, I know the person that is such that she loves them.’
I only know the person [RelCl that MARY loves].
= ‘Only for Mary do I know the person that she loves.’

Similarly in Sāmoan, although relative clauses are otherwise islands for movement, as illustrated by (35), we find that na‘o (‘only’) can associate with a focused
constituent across a relative clause: In (37) in the context of (36), association iswith the focused noun phrase Malia across the relative clause boundary.
80

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
(35)

*[‘O

ai] ‘o lo‘o
Malia ile[tama
ALT. who TAM (prog.) Mary PREP. DET. boy[RelCl e
alofa iai
_ ]]?
TAM love PREP. PRN .
(Lit.) ‘Who is Mary talking to the boy that _ loves?’(36)

Context: Sina is very well informed. She is always the first to know who
has asked whom on a date, and who is in love with whom. That’s why
shortly after three girls move to town, some of the boys in the village ask
Sina whether she has any information about the new girls. She answers:(37)[Na ‘o [le tagata lava [RelCl ealofa iai
only ALT. DET. person EMPH
TAM love PREP. PRN .
Malia]]]
ou te iloa.
Mary]
I TAM know
‘I only know the very person who MARY loves.’

The example suggests that an adequate analysis of the particle na‘o should not
involve movement out of the relative clause but rather employs association withfocus alternatives.
5.2.

Intervention Effects

A second prediction made by our analysis of ‘o-marking in Sāmoan is that weshould find certain interactions between alternative-evaluating operators. Beck(2006) proposes that the presence of the squiggle operator ⇠, an unselective
binder of distinguished variables, at Logical Form, separating a distinguished variable from the alternative-evaluating operator that is intended to bind it is the causeof so-called intervention effects. One such configuration that gives rise to an intervention effect is sketched in (38). Intervention effects have been observed ina variety of languages when a certain class of operators including exclusive particles, certain quantifiers and negation intervene between a wh-pronoun and its
evaluating Q-operator, as in the Korean example in (39).
(38)
(39)

*[ Qii . . . [ ⇠ . . . [ wh-phraseii . . . ↵i ]]]*Minsu-man nuku-lûl po-ass-ni?
Mina-only who-ACC . invite-past-Q(intended) ‘Who did only Mina invite?’(Beck 1996: p. 28, ex. (55-a))

The ungrammaticality of (39) indeed follows from the semantics of the ⇠-operator:
It unselectively binds all distinguished variables in its scope, preventing the Qoperator from binding the distinguished variable of the wh-pronoun. (The reader
81

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
is referred to Beck (2006) for details of the proposal.) Under this analysis, thepresence of intervention effects can be used as a diagnostic for constructions
which employ semantic alternatives.5 (See also Beck, to appear, as well as Erlewine and Kotek, to appear.) If the insertion of an intervener results in ungrammaticality, we have further evidence for an alternative-semantics analysis. Thus,
our proposal for the semantics of Sāmoan constituent questions, taken together
with Beck (2006)’s account, makes the prediction that intervention effects shouldarise in questions.
Unfortunately, it is well know that movement obviates intervention effects (Beck 1996; Pesetsky 2000), so in order to test this prediction for questions,
we require in-situ wh-phrases. In Sāmoan, however, wh-phrases cannot remain
in situ. Moreover, multiple questions, where intervention effects have been observed in languages like English and German, are ungrammatical, as is true moregenerally across Polynesian languages. However, in addition to wh-questions, intervention effects have been observed in another type of question, in alternative
questions. The term alternative question here refers to a particular reading of anapparent yes/no-question containing a disjunction under which possible answers
to the question are the two disjuncts rather than yes and no. For example, English(40a) has both, an alternative question and a yes/no-question reading, as we cansee from the possible answers in (40b) and the paraphrases in (41). In the presence of an intervener such as negation, in (42), however, the alternative-question
reading is unavailable. (For discussion see e.g. Beck and Kim (2007).)
(40)

a.
b.

(41)

a.
b.

(42)

a.
b.

5

Question:
Did Sally teach Syntax or Semantics?
Possible Answers:
Yes./ No.
Syntax./ Semantics.
Alternative Question Reading:‘Which of Syntax and Semantics did Sally teach?’
Yes/No-Question Reading:‘Did Sally teach Syntax or Semantics, or not?’Question:
Didn’t Sally teach Syntax or Semantics?
Possible Answers:
Yes./ No.
# Syntax./ Semantics.

Other analyses (Beck 1996; Tomioka 1997; Haida 2007; Mayr 2014) attribute intervention effects to other grammatical properties of interveners and make no predictions regarding the interaction of multiple alternative-evaluating operators.

82

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
As this type of question is also available in Sāmoan, it can be used as a diagnostic
for alternative semantics. An example of a Sāmoan alternative question is givenin (43). Possible answers to (43) are, for instance, ‘O le māketi. (‘To the market.’)as well as Leai. (‘No.’).
(43)

E

ō
le fanau a Tavita ilemāketi
TAM go(pl.) the children of David PREP. DET. market
po ‘o le falesā?
or ALT. the church‘Are David’s kids going to the market or the church?’

Just like in English, negation causes an intervention effect in this type of questions. In the Sāmoan example in (44), ‘O le māketi. (‘The market.’) is not a
possible answer to the question, whereas Leai. (‘No.’) is. Note that the disjunction po‘o (‘or’) also contains ‘o, as our analysis predicts if disjunctions employ
alternatives.
(44)

E

le‘i

ō
le
fanau a Tavita ilemāketiTAM NEG . go(pl.) DET. children of David PREP. DET. market
po ‘o lefalesā?
or ALT. DET. church‘Aren’t David’s kids going to the market or the church?’Thus, the presence of intervention effects in Sāmoan alternative questions provides further evidence for our alternative-semantics analysis of ‘o.
6.

Summary and Outlook

The paper offered a perspective from semantic theory on the function of the particle ‘o in Sāmoan. The particle marks those noun phrases for which alternatives
need to be calculated during interpretation. Evidence for this analysis comes fromthe distribution of ‘o as well as from intervention effects and the absence of locality constraints in association with focus: The particle marks topic, focus, andwh-phrases, and obligatorily co-occurs with the exclusive particle na‘o (‘only’),the free-choice item so‘o (‘any’), and the disjunction po‘o (‘or’). Although constituent questions in Sāmoan involve movement, the data provide evidence in favor of an alternative-based approach to the semantics of interrogatives and against
a quantificational analysis. At this point, we can identify two pathways for extensions of this analysis, first, within the language, and second, across Polynesianlanguages:
In Sāmoan, the particle ‘o also occurs in identity statements, as in (45),and in appositives such as (46). An alternative-semantics approach to these con83

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
structions might provide a new perspective on their syntax and semantics.
(45)

[O

puaa fanua][opuaa popoto ia].
PART. pig cultivated PART. pig clever EMPH .
‘The domestic pigs are very clever pigs.’(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: p. 503, no. (11.17))(46). . . ma lana tama, [‘oSina].
and her child PART. Sina‘. . . and her child, Sina.’(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: p. 500, no. (11.4))

Another pathway for further investigation is the extension of the analysis to ko inother Polynesian languages, which seems to share the distribution of its Sāmoan
counterpart. An example is the interrogative from Niuean in (47) below.
(47)

[Ko

hai] nelalaga e

kato

ē?

PART. who TAM (non-fut.) wove ABS . basket DEM .(sg.)‘Who wove this basket?’(Massam, Lee, and Rolle 2006: p. 15, no. (25))

This shared distribution, however, needs to be investigated against the syntactic
micro-variation in the relevant constructions already observable in the literature(cf. e.g. Bauer 1991; Cook 1999; Pearce 1999; Massam, Lee, and Rolle 2006). A
diachronic perspective on this micro-variation might in the end help us better understand the division of labor at the interface of syntax, semantics, and phonology
when it comes to constructions that invoke alternatives.
References
Aloni, Maria. 2007. Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language
Semantics 15:65–94.
Bauer, Winifred. 1991. Māori ko again. Te Reo 34:3–14.
Beaver, David I., and Brady Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus
determines meaning. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Wh-constructions and transparent Logical Form. Doctoral
dissertation, Eberhar Karls Universität Tübingen.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural
Language Semantics 14:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid. To appear. Focus-sensitive operators. Handbook of information
structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 2007. Intervention effects in alternative questions. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9:165–208.
84

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and piedpiping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calhoun, Sasha. 2013. The interaction of prosody and syntax in Samoan focus
marking. Ms., Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, Nz.
Chapin, Paul G. 1970. Samoan pronominalization. Language 46:366–78.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, Ross. 1969. Some verbless sentences in Samoan. Oceanic Linguistics
8:105–19.
Collins, James N. To appear. Diagnosing predicate fronting in Samoan. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 32.
Cook, Kenneth W. 1999. Hawaiian he, ‘o, and i: Copular verbs, prepositions, ordeterminers? Oceanic Linguistics 38:43–65.
Downs, E. A. 2 1949. Everyday Samoan: Samoan grammar. Papakura: Southern
Reprints.
Erlewine, Michael, and Hadas Kotek. To appear. Covert pied-piping in English
multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics ofquestions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, Universiteit van
Amsterdam.
Haida, Andreas. 2007. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. Doctoral
dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10:41–53.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics andPhilosophy 1:1–44.
Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: Theview from Japanese. Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (TCP) 3, 1–25.
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, ed. Joachim Jacobs, 17-53.
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25:209–57.
Krifka, Manfred. 2011. Questions. Semantics: An International Handbook of
Natural Language Meaning, eds. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger
and Paul Portner, 1742-85, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Massam, Diane, Josephine Lee, and Nicholas Rolle. 2006. Still a preposition:
The category of ko. Te Reo 49:3–37.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70:369–451.
85

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Matthewson, Lisa. 2011. Methods in crosslinguistic formal semantics. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, eds. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 268-84, Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Mayr, Clemens. 2014. Intervention effects and additivity. Journal of Semantics
31:513-554.
Mosel, Ulrike, and Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo:
Scandinavian University Press.
Mosel, Ulrike, and Ainslie So‘o. 1997. Say it in Samoan. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.
Pawley, Andrew. 1966. Samoan phrase structure: The morphology-syntax of aWestern Polynesian language. Anthropological Linguistics 8:1–63.
Pearce, Elizabeth. 1999. Topic and focus in a head-initial language: Māori. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics
Association (AFLA) 6, 249–63.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: The MIT
Press.
Pizzini, Quentin A. 1971. An analysis of predicate complement constructions in
Samoan. Oceanic Linguistics 10:38–62.
Potsdam, Eric. 2009. Austronesian verb-initial languages and wh-question strategies. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:737–71.
Potsdam, Eric, and Maria Polinsky. 2011. Questions and word order in Polynesian. Topics in Oceanic Morphosyntax, eds. Claire Moyse-Faurie, andJoachim Sabel, 83–109, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2006. Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14:139–73.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 1997. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese andKorean wh-interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39:1570–90.

86The Proceedings of AFLA 21

PERSON-BASED ORDERING OF PRONOMINAL CLITICS
IN RIKAVUNG PUYUMA: AN INVERSE ANALYSIS*
Haowen Jiang
Rice University
haowen@rice.edu

Loren Billings
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
sgnillib@gmail.com

This study argues that in Rikavung Puyuma pronominal clitics’ variations inform are best accounted for by means of their linear position with respect toeither other clausal elements or each other. Not only do these pronouns exhibit
no case distinctions, and thus constitute just a single paradigm, they also
demonstrate ordering relative to each other based only on grammatical person.
Given that a first-person clitic pronoun always precedes a second-person one,and that the clitic /ta(w)/ is added specifically in front of both clitic pronouns
to indicate second person acting upon first person, we also argue that /ta(w)/ is
an inverse marker and that there are thus no overt third-person clitic pronouns.

Many Austronesian languages of Taiwan and the Philippines attest two sets ofpronominal clausal clitics. If these co-occur (i.e., in a transitive clause), thenthey can cluster in several patterns.1 The most common is for the Actor (usually
bearing ERG case) to be first (Lee and Billings 2008:195–197; Yen and Billings2014). Far less frequent is the opposite ordering, at least in those languages
where the transitive Actor is never the subject (Quakenbush and Ruch 2008). In
accusatively aligned Mantauran Rukai (southern Taiwan) both active andpassive clauses require the subject to be initial within the clitic-pronoun cluster(Yen and Billings 2011). Seediq (northwestern Taiwan) also orders its clitic
pronouns with the subject first (as Holmer and Billings 2014 argue). As anothertype, most Central Philippine languages (Bloomfield 1917; Kaufmann 1916;
Lee and Billings 2008) also order a monosyllabic pronoun first in the clitic
cluster. These languages thus utilize prosodic weight as their primary pronounordering criterion. As yet another type, the current study discusses clusterinternal ordering based only on grammatical person: previously found in mostDanao and Manobo languages, both subgroups spoken primarily in the southern* The first author thanks the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly
Exchange for a research fellowship. The second author acknowledges Taiwan’s Ministry of
Science and Technology (formerly the National Science Council) for a travel grant to present
our talk. We are both grateful to Sihwei Chen, Celeste Lee, Malcolm Ross, Chris Sundita, Stacy
Teng, and Hiroto Uchihara for various assistance along the way with this ongoing undertaking.
1
It is also possible for the pronominal clitics not to form a cluster. That other type is foundelsewhere in Puyuma as well as in neighboring Paiwan, where the Actor immediately precedes
the lexical verb and the Undergoer (if overt) follows right after it (Huang et al. 1999:186, 188).

87

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Philippines, and one dialect of Atayal, spoken in north-central Taiwan (Chang2012; Holmer and Billings 2014:122–123; Hung and Billings 2009/2010;
Kaufman 2010; Peng and Billings 2008). In each of the aforementioned
languages with person-based ordering, through various means, the two pronouns
in the morphosyntactic-clitic cluster are unambiguously differentiated as to theirforms so that the ordering does not obscure the two pronouns’ respective(semantic) roles or (syntactic) relations. In all the known languages of the areathat order two speech-act participants (hereafter abbreviated as SAPs) using
grammatical person as the primary ordering criterion, the first-person pronoun
precedes the second-person form. In addition, in all such languages an SAP
pronoun precedes any third-person form. Languages can also use a mixture ofordering criteria. For instance, all known Atayalic languages order an SAP
before a third-person pronoun but two dialects (of Atayal proper) order clustersof SAP clitic pronouns based only on prosodic weight (Billings and Kaufman
2004:17; Li 1995:40/2004:403, citing “Mei (p.c.)”; Liao 2004:285–296, 2005).
Rikavung, a subdialect of Puyuma (spoken in southeastern Taiwan), alsoutilizes grammatical person in ordering its first- and second-person clitic
pronouns relative to each other. (In our analysis, there are no overt third-person
clitic pronouns.) Despite extensive variation in Rikavung’s various cliticpronominal forms, we argue that none of these forms encodes a case distinction.
Rather, we demonstrate in this paper that the variation is positionally definedallomorphy, along the lines of the analysis of Mantauran Rukai in Zeitoun(2007) and developed further in Yen & Billings (2011). Each of the variant
forms in (1)—whether between parentheses, indicating optionality, as in(1a–b, e), or not, as in (1d), where each 2SG form is required in at least certain
environments—can be used for both semantic roles/syntactic relations.2(1)

2

Clitic-pronoun inventory
a. ku (~ ka)
1SGb. mi (~ niam)
EXCL1PLc. ta
INCL1PLd. u ~ nu
2SG
e. mu (~ nmu)
2PL

Compare (1) with the pronominal inventory in Tamalakaw Puyuma (Tsuchida 1980:196,
1992:744, 1995:795). That neighboring subdialect is discussed further in section 2 below. To
our knowledge, the only publication to date reporting sentential Rikavung data is by Suenari(1969), who spells the name as Rikavong. All sentential data in this study from Rikavung, shownin the International Phonetic Association’s transcription, come from our own field notes.

88The Proceedings of AFLA 21
More specifically, the clitic pronouns’ forms display neither ergative nor
accusative alignment. Elsewhere in the grammar of Rikavung (but not in theclitic-pronominal system), there is clear ergative alignment.3 We demonstratethat syntactic relations do not play a role in any of the variations in (1a–b, d–e).
This study consists of just two body sections. The first of these lays out
the argument alignment in Rikavung based on the pronouns’ positioning andforms, demonstrating that there is just a single, case-neutral paradigm of clitic
pronouns. The latter section then presents and justifies our inverse analysis of
Rikavung, where we show that it is grammatical person that determines theorder of two pronouns relative to each other within the clitic cluster.
1.

Argument Alignment and Variation in Pronominal Clitics

This section argues that there is only one paradigm of clitic pronouns in
Rikavung. As such, none of the variation found in four out of the fivepronominal forms listed in (1a–e) above is used to encode morphological case.
Each instance of variation is positionally determined allomorphy. As such, thepronominal forms do not contribute to argument alignment. However, theirpositioning does reveal a relatively marked kind of alignment.
1.1.

Pronominal Positioning within the Rest of the Clause

Here we address the ordering of bound pronouns relative to free elements. This
then establishes that these morphemes are clitics rather than affixes. The clitic
pronouns’ positioning exhibits neither accusative nor ergative but rather
horizontal alignment, where both of a transitive verb’s arguments behave
differently from an intransitive verb’s only argument (Comrie 2013:29).
The sole pronoun of an intransitive clause can be analyzed as having
Wackernagel positioning, after some clause-initial element (and thus it is clearlya clitic). For example, compare the positioning of the INCL1PL pronoun after theverb, in (2a), with its positioning between Neg and the verb, as (2b) shows.

3

Only SG-personal nouns show clear ergative alignment, as to their case-markers’ forms:(i) ta=sukun-anaj i(iii) ta(w)= ta=sukun-anaj ni misak
INV=
INCL1PL= push-TR
ERG (name)‘Let’s push Misak.’‘Misak pushed us.’(ii) s<əm>ukunimisak(iv) s<əm>ukun =takani misak<INTR>push =INCL1PL OBL (name)<INTR>push ABS (name)‘Misak pushed {someone/something}.’‘We pushed Misak.’
INCL1PL= push-TR

ABS

misak
(name)In (i) the INCL1PL Actor adds a cohortative reading. With both PL-personal and definite-common
nouns, the ABS and ERG cases are neutralized (distinct from OBL case), whereas with indefinitecommon nouns, the ERG and OBL cases are neutralized (distinct from ABS case). See Jiang(2013) re these markers in Rikavung and Teng (2009:827) for those in three other varieties.

89

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(2) a. s<əm>ənaj =ta<INTR>sing =INCL1PL‘Did we sing?’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta
s<əm>ənaj
NEG=INCL1PL <INTR>sing‘Didn’t we sing?’
Because in both of (2a–b) the clitic is adjacent to the verb, albeit notphonologically affiliated with it in (2b), we cannot eliminate the possibility thatthe pronoun is of the head-adjacent type rather than merely after the firstelement of the clause. The important point here, however, is that the pronoun isa clitic (rather than an affix), not exactly which specific type of clitic it is.
By contrast, both of a transitive verb’s pronouns immediately precede
the lexical verb regardless of whether Neg is present. The pair in (3a–b) showstransitive clauses with only the Actor realized as a pronoun (and the Undergoer
unexpressed); the data in (4a–b) show both arguments as pronominal clitics.4(3) a. ta=

sukun-anaj
push-TR‘Did we push {her/him/them}?’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta
sukun-an
NEG=INCL1PL push-TR.DEP‘Didn’t we push {her/him/them}?’
INCL1PL=(4) a. {ku/ka}= {*u/nu}= sukun-anaj
1SG=
2SG=
push-TR‘I pushed you.’b. ħa(ʐi) ={ku/ka} ={*u/nu} sukun-an
NEG
=1SG
=2SG
push-TR.DEP‘I didn’t push you.’
4

Transitive data in which only the Undergoer clitic pronoun is overt are listed in (14) through(18), in §2 below. Transitive imperative (including prohibitive) clauses, though paradigmaticallyattesting transitive verbal morphology, nonetheless position a lone overt first-person Undergoer
clitic pronoun after the lexical verb (with the second-person Actor unexpressed): for example,/sukun-anaj={ku/*ka}/ (push-TR=1SG) ‘Push me.’ In this syntagmatic sense, imperative clauses
behave intransitively. For the current purposes, the variation in only the 1SG pronoun here and in(4), discussed further below in §1, can be ignored. In addition, all of our data’s transitive verbs
are from one of the three transitive subtypes (not labeled as such in the glosses). Our glossingof the two transitive affixes as ‘-TR’ and ‘-TR.DEP(endent)’ is in the spirit of a recent analysis of
Nanwang Puyuma (Ross 2009:299); cf. also connegative verbs in Seediq (Holmer and Billings
2014:111 fn. 1, and the sources cited there). In our transitive examples, Actors are underlined;
Undergoers, in bold type. For pragmatic reasons (that are for the most part irrelevant to thisstudy), where it is odd to tell one’s addressee(s) what {she/he/they} did, data involving [+you]
pronouns—if transitive, with a [+you] Actor—were often elicited as yes/no interrogatives.

90

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
The pronouns in a transitive clause do not alternate as to their positioning andthus are less obviously recognizable as clitics. We therefore utilize two othertests to show that these pronouns too are clitics. To begin, short /ħa/ ‘NEG’ isallowed only if at least one clitic follows right after it, as in (2b), (3b), and (4b)above. Otherwise, long /ħaʐi/ ‘NEG’ is required.5 We have not detected any
semantic difference between these two Neg forms. For the current purposes, weshow only that /ħa/ is phonologically deficient, requiring at least one moresyllable in its prosodic word. Additional evidence comes from an accentual test,
where the lexical pitch of Neg is shifted to the last of any following clitics.
Thus, the only pitch in the first prosodic word in (2a–b) and (3b) is on the only
clitic pronoun, and in (4b) it appears on the latter of two clitic pronouns. In eachof (20b) and (21b) below there are three clitics; the high pitch is realized on thethird clitic in each.6 Thus, preverbal pronouns are also clitics. We preliminarily
analyze this paradigm of pronominal forms as arguments: merged and moved in
the syntax. For instance, these clitic pronouns can be cross-referenced to free
SAP pronouns that are in apparent A-bar positions (not exemplified here).
This subsection has demonstrated that the pronominal forms in Rikavung
Puyuma are clitics. In an intransitive clause, the lone pronominal clitic follows
the initial affirmative verb, whereas in a negated clause it follows Neg andprecedes the verb. In both of these environments, the pronoun is phonologicallyenclitic. In a transitive clause, up to two clitic pronouns precede the lexical verb.
5

For instance, (ii) is the negated counterpart of (i), itself repeated from a preceding footnote:(i) s<əm>ukunimisak(ii) {ħaʐi/*ħa} s<əm>ukun
i
misak
NEG
<INTR>push
ABS (name)<INTR>push ABS (name)‘Misak pushed {someone/something}.’‘Misak didn’t push {anyone/anything}.’

6

The situation with negation in Rikavung is strikingly similar to the properties of ne ‘NEG’ in the
Slavic language Bulgarian, as described in Rudin et al. (1999:553–566). Namely, ne is accented
but doesn’t itself bear stress. If no clitic immediately follows ne, then it is unstressed, as in (i).
(i) ne=vaLI(iii)
rain;PRS.3SG‘It isn’t raining.’(ii) ne =ME
boLI
(iv)
NEG =1SG.DO hurt;PRS.3SG‘It doesn’t hurt me.’
NEG=

ne

=MI

STRUva[…]seem;PRS.3SG‘It doesn’t seem to me […]’
ne =SÂM
ti=
go=
DAla
NEG =be;PRS.1SG 2SG.IO= M/N.3SG.DO= given;F.SG‘I haven’t given it to you.’
NEG =1SG.IO

se=

REFL=

If at least one clitic follows immediately, as in (ii) through (iv), then only the first clitic after ne
is stressed. These data are all from Rudin et al. (1999:562), where transliterated Bulgarianspelling is used—with any clitics italicized, stressed syllables in majuscule, and the glosses
modified slightly. We have inserted the equals signs showing the directions of phonologicalaffiliation, though Rudin et al. (1999:566) actually remain noncommittal as to the proclitic statusof the reflexive clitic in (iii) and of the two object-agreement clitics in (iv). One difference
between the languages is that whereas Rikavung attests a disyllabic Neg option (i.e., /ħaʐi/),
Bulgarian has available only monosyllabic ne. Thus, if no clitic follows Neg, as in (i), then theaccent of Neg is not realized as stress on any syllable. Our own alternative view of (i) is that if
no clitics follow it, ne cannot form a prosodic word of its own and must procliticize to the verb.

91

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Returning to the variation in form found in most of the clitic pronouns,(4) above already shows an environment that permits variation in one of the
pronouns (i.e., 1SG) but not in the other pronoun (2SG). Two quite distinct kindsof variation in form are found, as signified by the parentheses above only in(1a–b, e) but not in (1d). In the former type, dubbed facultative variation, one ofthe variant forms is allowed in all environments but the other variant is allowed
only in a subset thereof. In the latter type, called obligatory variation, certain
environments require one form to the exclusion of the other. We start with thelatter type, in (1d), where each variant is required at least in some environments.
1.2.

Obligatory Variation: 2SG

As (4) above already shows, in a 1SG>2SG transitive clause only the /nu/ 2SG
variant is allowed.7 The 2SG pronoun in (4) would be defined as ABS and ACC
under ergative and accusative alignments, respectively. Next, we show an
intransitive clause, where negation affects the 2SG variation in two distinct
ways. In an affirmative intransitive clause, /u/ is required, as (5a) shows.
(5) a. s<əm>ənaj ={u/*nu}<INTR>sing =2SG
‘Did you sing?’b. ħa ={*u/nu}s<əm>ənaj
NEG =2SG<INTR>sing‘Didn’t you sing?’c. ħaʐi ={u/*nu}s<əm>ənaj
NEG=2SG<INTR>sing‘Didn’t you sing?’
The negated counterparts of (5a) are shown in (5b–c). As mentioned above,
there are two Neg variants. Short Neg, in (5b), requires /nu/; long Neg, in (5c),allows only /u/. Under ergative alignment, in all three examples the 2SG pronoun
would by definition be ABS case; under accusative alignment, all of these 2SG
pronouns would be labeled as NOM. Nonetheless, in (5a, c) the form must be /u/,whereas in (5b) it can only be /nu/. The distribution of 2SG pronouns in an
intransitive clause therefore correlates with neither purported alignment type.
Even at this point, it is already clear that the distinction between /u/ and/nu/ is not one of morphological cases. Corroborating evidence comes from
2SG>3 clauses. In an affirmative context only /nu/ is allowed, as shown in (6a).
The negated counterparts of (6a) are shown in (6b–c). As in (5b–c) above, shortand long Neg in (6b–c) require only /nu/ and /u/, respectively. Under ergativealignment, the 2SG pronouns in (6a–c) would all be predicted to be ERG; underaccusative alignment, the same pronouns would all be defined as NOM.
7

The symbol > abbreviates the preceding person/number features ‘acting upon’ the latter ones.

92

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(6) a. {*u/nu}= sukun-anaj
2SG=
push-TR‘Did you push {her/him/them}?’b. ħa ={*u/nu}
sukun-an
NEG =2SG
push-TR.DEP‘Didn’t you push {her/him/them}?’c. ħaʐi ={u/*nu}
sukun-an
NEG=2SG
push-TR.DEP‘Didn’t you push {her/him/them}?’
Table 1 summarizes how the 2SG forms correlate with the cases undereach purported alignment type. For completeness, it also covers (17), (20), and(22d, g) in section 2 below. The table’s middle row shows that /nu/ is consistent
with neither alignment, whereas in the table’s upper row /u/ is inconsistent withergative but at least consistent with accusative alignment. However, accusativealignment overall would fail to account for how, in the NOM column of table 1,/u/ is required in (5a, c) and (6c) but /nu/ is obligatory in (5b) and (6a–b). As thebottom row of table 1 also shows, there are two environments in which both 2SG
forms are allowed, also posing problems for ergative alignment. Instead of
the two 2SG variants encoding distinct case forms (as has been proposed in theliterature on the Nanwang dialect of Puyuma—quite plausibly, in our view—byRoss and Teng 2005:756, e.g.), the 2SG variation in Rikavung is allomorphic,
based only on positioning, not on semantic roles, syntactic relations, ormorphological cases. Namely, immediately following either a(n intransitive)
verb or long Neg, /u/ is obligatory; clause-initially or right after either short Neg
or another pronoun, /nu/ is required. (And as we show in section 2 below, there
is a choice between the 2SG allomorphs right after a nonpronominal clitic.)
Table 1: Summary of Variation in 2SG Pronominal Clitics’ Forms
Alignment

Ergative

Form

ERG

Accusative
ABS

NOM

ACC

/u/ required(6c)(5a, c)(5a, c), (6c)/nu/ required(6a–b), (20a–b),(22g)(4a–b),(5b)(5b), (6a–b), (4a–b)(20a–b), (22g)

Variation(17a–b),(22d)(17a–b),(22d)

93

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
1.3.

Facultative Variation: 2PL, EXCL1PL, and 1SG

The preceding discussion of the 2SG pronominal forms’ variation has shown thateach variant is required to the exclusion of the other in at least one environment.
In the remaining three person/number combinations (in which pronominal
variation is also observed), one of the pronominal variants is always possible,
whereas the other variant form is restricted to specified environments.
Moving first to the 2PL variation, listed in (1e) above, a pattern similar
to that of the 2SG is found. Starting with intransitive clauses, both of (7a–b)
show that the /mu/ pronominal variant is required. Unlike the 2SG data above,
however, here short and long Neg do not select distinct 2PL variants.
(7) a. s<əm>ənaj ={mu/*nmu}<INTR>sing =2PL
‘Did you sing?’b. ħa(ʐi) ={mu/*nmu} s<əm>ənaj
NEG=2PL<INTR>sing‘Didn’t you sing?’
Next, with 2PL>3 clauses, /mu/ is also required—once again, regardless ofpolarity (or, if negated, the choice of the short or long form of Neg):(8) a. {mu/*nmu}= sukun-anaj
2PL=
push-TR‘Did you push {her/him/them}?’b. ħa(ʐi)={mu/*nmu}
sukun-an
NEG=2PL
push-TR.DEP‘Didn’t you push {her/him/them}?’All remaining environments—including (18), (21), and (22e, h)—allow either
2PL variant.8 For example, in (9a–b), encoding 1SG>2PL, there is no restriction.
(9) a. {ku/ka}= {mu/nmu}= sukun-anaj
1SG=
2PL=
push-TR‘I pushed you.’b. ħa(ʐi) ={ku/ka} ={mu/nmu} sukun-an
NEG
=1SG
=2PL
push-TR.DEP‘I didn’t push you.’
Table 2 sums up the data where /mu/ is required (and /nmu/ isdisallowed), on the upper row, and where both are allowed, on the lower one.

8

The choice of non-1SG clitic-pronominal allomorphs is free right after nonpronominal clitics.

94

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Table 2: Summary of Variation in 2PL Pronominal Clitics’ Forms
Alignment
Form

Ergative
ERG/mu/ required (8a–b)/nmu/ optionalABS(7a–b)

Accusative
NOM

ACC

(7a–b), (8a–b)(21a–b), (9a–b), (18a–b), (21a–b), (22h)
(22h)
(22e)

(9a–b), (18a–b),(22e)

As the bottom row of this table shows, the environments where both forms areallowed are inconsistent with either purported alignment. As the upper row
demonstrates, ergative alignment is untenable for the /mu/ variant. However, thepattern is at least consistent with accusative alignment. As in the NOM column oftable 1 above, under an accusative alignment in table 2 there would still be no
way to predict, on the basis of morphological cases, the environments in which/nmu/ is optional. Therefore, we also analyze the 2PL variation as positional
allomorphy: /nmu/ is allowed only immediately after another clitic.9 As (18a–b)
and (22e) below show, the clitic right before /nmu/ need not be pronominal.
We turn next to the EXCL1PL variation, shown in (1b) above. Here thedata are considerably more limited even than those of the 2PL (primarily because
the EXCL1PL pronoun does not co-occur with any other clitic pronoun, aphenomenon we discuss separately below). First, in an intransitive clause, only/mi/ is found (regardless of polarity or whether Neg is short or long):(10) a. s<əm>ənaj ={mi/*niam}<INTR>sing =EXCL1PL‘We sang.’b. ħa(ʐi) ={mi/*niam} s<əm>ənaj
NEG=EXCL1PL<INTR>sing‘We didn’t sing.’

9

Both variations in second-person clitic pronouns in Rikavung involve one /n/-initial variant(with their counterparts consisting only of every segment after this /n/). From comparing the
Puyuma dialects, we’ve argued (separately, as Jiang and Billings 2015) that this boundary *n in
Proto Puyuma appeared at boundaries between various morphophonologically bound elements.
Billings (1996) discusses a similar phenomenon in Russian involving a boundary *n (between a
preposition and either a possessive or a personal pronoun). This prehistoric situation continues
to be relevant in Rikavung in the second-person clitic pronouns to differing degrees: 2SG /nu/
required only clause-initially or after either another clitic pronoun (invariably 1SG) or short Neg,but 2PL /nmu/ permitted only immediately after any other clitic (not clause-initially or after short
Neg). As (17), (18), and (22d–e) below also show, /nu/ and /nmu/ are in free variation (with /u/and /mu/, respectively) immediately after the nonpronominal clitics /ta(w)/ ‘INV’ and /a/ ‘IRR’.

95

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
In an affirmative EXCL1PL>3 clause, there is an option. However, in its negatedcounterpart only /mi/ is allowed (once again, regardless of the length of Neg):(11) a. {mi/niam}= sukun-anaj
EXCL1PL=
push-TR‘We pushed {her/him/them}.’b. ħa(ʐi) ={mi/*niam} sukun-an
NEG=EXCL1PL
push-TR.DEP‘We didn’t push {her/him/them}.
As with the 2PL situation above, no environment prohibits one of the EXCL1PL
variants: /mi/. Rather, those listed in (10a–b) and (11b) merely prohibit the/niam/ variant. The distribution of only /mi/, shown in the upper row of table 3,
is incompatible with ergative alignment but is consistent (probably due merely
to the dearth of data) with accusative alignment. As the same table’s lower row
of data shows, also including (15) and (22b) below, the environments where
both variants are possible cannot be explained by either purported alignment
type.10 As in the preceding two tables, there would be no way to account for the
combined distribution of NOM forms under a purported accusative alignment.
Table 3: Summary of Variation in EXCL1PL Pronominal Clitics’ Forms
Alignment

Ergative

Form

ERG

/mi/ required(11b)/niam/ optional (11a)ABS

Accusative
NOM(10a–b)(10a–b), (11b)(15a–b), (22b)

(11a)

ACC

(15a–b), (22b)

As alluded to above, neither of the EXCL1PL forms co-occurs with any otherclitic pronoun. (At this point we offer no explanation for this fact.) In order toencode either EXCL1PL>2SG or EXCL1PL>2PL, a work-around strategy is employed: initial /iniam mu/ (where /iniam/ is a case-neutral EXCL1PL nonclitic pronoun and /mu/ ‘TOP’ is homophonous with but distinct from the 2PL clitic
pronoun), followed by a pause, then by the rest of the sentence, as in (4) and (9)above, in which the 1SG clitic-pronoun form stands in for any EXCL1PL pronoun.
The final instance of variation in form among the clitic pronouns is withthe 1SG, in (1a) above. Like the preceding 2PL and EXCL1PL situations, the /ku/
variant is possible in all environments, whereas the /ka/ form is allowed only incertain pronominal combinations. We also show that the distribution of /ka/ isinconsistent with both ergative and accusative alignments. To begin, (4) and (9)above both exemplify the 1SG pronoun in 1SG>2SG and 1SG>2PL transitive10

As a preceding footnote mentions, right after a nonpronominal clitic there is a choice in forms.

96

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
clauses, respectively, in both of which 1SG variation does occur. By contrast,
there are environments that prohibit /ka/. For example, intransitive clauses do
not allow /ka/ (regardless of polarity or the form of Neg used):(12) a. s<əm>ənaj ={ku/*ka}<INTR>sing =1SG
‘I sang.’b. ħa(ʐi) ={ku/*ka}s<əm>ənaj
NEG=1SG<INTR>sing‘I didn’t sing.’
Another environment prohibiting the /ka/ variant is 1SG>3 transitive clauses:(13) a. {ku/*ka}= sukun-anaj
1SG=
push-TR‘I pushed {her/him/them}.’b. ħa(ʐi) ={ku/*ka}sukun-an
NEG=1SG
push-TR.DEP‘I didn’t push {her/him/them}.’
Table 4: Summary of Variation in 1SG Pronominal Clitics’ Forms
AlignmentForm/ku/ required/ka/ optional

Ergative

Accusative

ERG

ABS

NOM

ACC

(13a–b)(12a–b), (14a–b),(22a)(12a–b),(13a–b)(14a–b), (22a)(4a–b),(9a–b)(20a–b), (21a–b),(22g–h)(4a–b),(9a–b)(20a–b), (21a–b),(22g–h)As this final table shows (so long as additional examples from section 2 are also
considered), the environments where the /ku/ variant is required are compatible
with neither ergative nor accusative alignment. The same goes for theenvironments where /ka/ is permitted. The only tenable observation is that /ka/ is
a 1SG variant found only immediately before another clitic pronoun. (And thisfollowing clitic pronoun invariably encodes only either 2SG or 2PL.)
This concludes our discussion of pronouns’ variation as to their form.
Only one of these does not vary in this way: INCL1PL /ta/, in (1c). Still, this form
varies in its function. It encodes INCL1PL, as in footnote 3, (2), and (3) above, as
well as (16) below.11 It is also possible to use /ta/, instead of the 1SG forms
11

In the spirit of the formal person/number features proposed by McKaughan (1959), 1SG and

EXCL1PL are each [+me, –you], INCL1PL is [+me, +you], 2SG and 2PL are each [–me, +you],

97

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
mentioned so far, /ku/ or /ka/, to encode 1SG (possibly even EXCL1PL) underrestricted conditions. Before discussing that variation in function, however, it isnecessary to present the facts about this paper’s subtitle: An inverse analysis.
The variations in form above in (1a–b, d–e) have now all been accounted
for positionally. The 2SG pronoun is realized as /u/ immediately following the(intransitive) verb or long Neg but as /nu/ clause-initially or after either short
Neg or another clitic pronoun. The 2PL pronoun allows /mu/ in all environments
but /nmu/ only after another clitic. Similarly, the EXCL1PL pronoun must be
realized as /mi/ after the (intransitive) verb or Neg but is allowed to be /niam/
only elsewhere. Finally, the /ka/ 1SG variant is found only right before anotherclitic pronoun, whereas its /ku/ counterpart is allowed in all environments.
2.

The Remaining Combinations: Inverse

If none of the forms in (1a–e) above encodes case, then in Rikavung there is but
a single paradigm of clitic pronouns. How, then, do these pronouns convey theirsyntactic relations, especially if they co-occur (i.e., in a transitive clause)?
Various examples above have shown that in an SAP>3 clause only the SAP
pronoun is overt: (3), (6), (8), (11), and (13). If both pronouns are SAPs, as sofar (4) and (9) have shown, the 1SG clitic pronoun precedes the second-personform.12 Still not discussed are the eight clitic-pronominal combinations in which
the Undergoer is at least as person-prominent as the Actor—where the lower theordinal numeral of the grammatical person, the greater its person-prominence.
In 3>SAP environments, an overt SAP pronoun immediately follows theinverse (INV) clitic, as each of (14) through (18) show. (The INV clitic can bepronounced without its final labiovelar glide but see further discussion below.)(14) a. ta(w)= {ku/*ka}= sukun-anaj
INV=
1SG=
push-TR‘{She/He/They} pushed me.’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta(w) ={ku/*ka} sukun-an
NEG
=INV
=1SG
push-TR.DEP‘{She/He/They} didn’t push me.’Because the 1SG pronoun does not precede any clitic pronoun in (14), /ka/ is not
acceptable. The other 3>SAP examples, where the SAP clitic pronouns do show
and 3 is [–me, –you]. Two pronouns sharing either [+me] or [+you] cannot co-occur (or at least
not as a clitic cluster). This restriction entails that /ta/ functioning as an INCL1PL pronoun cannot
co-occur with any other SAP clitic pronoun. As such, the only transitive combinations involving
a functionally INCL1PL pronoun are INCL1PL>3, above in (3), and 3>INCL1PL, below in (16).
12
As has been mentioned above, neither the EXCL1PL nor the INCL1PL pronoun co-occurs withany overt clitic pronoun. Namely, INCL1PL>2 is semantically anomalous (footnote 11) and (ashas been mentioned in §1.3) EXCL1PL>2 is prohibited. As such, 1SG>2SG (4) and 1SG>2PL (9)are the only overt pronominal combinations encoding first person acting upon second person.

98The Proceedings of AFLA 21
a variation in form—namely, only (15), (17), and (18) but not (16)—allow either
variant of the SAP clitic pronoun immediately after the INV clitic.
(15) a. ta(w)= {mi/niam}= sukun-anaj
INV=
EXCL1PL=
push-TR‘{She/He/They} pushed us.’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta(w) ={mi/niam} sukun-an
NEG=INV=EXCL1PL
push-TR.DEP‘{She/He/They} didn’t push us.’(16) a. ta(w)= ta=sukun-anaj
INV=
INCL1PL= push-TR‘{She/He/They} pushed us.’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta(w) =ta
sukun-an
NEG=INV=INCL1PL push-TR.DEP‘{She/He/They} didn’t push us.’(17) a. ta(w)= {u/nu}= sukun-anaj
INV=
2SG=
push-TR‘{She/He/They} pushed you.’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta(w) ={u/nu} sukun-an
NEG
=INV
=2SG
push-TR.DEP‘{She/He/They} didn’t push you.’(18) a. ta(w)= {mu/nmu}= sukun-anaj
INV=
2PL=
push-TR‘{She/He/They} pushed you.’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta(w) ={mu/nmu} sukun-an
NEG
=INV
=2PL
push-TR.DEP‘{She/He/They} didn’t push you.’Moreover, in (19a–b), encoding 3>3, there is no overt clitic pronoun at all.13(19) a. taw= sukun-anaj
INV= push-TR‘{She/He/They}i pushed {her/him/them}j.’b. ħa(ʐi) =taw
sukun-an
NEG=INV
push-TR.DEP‘{She/He/They}i didn’t push {her/him/them}j.’13

Somewhat surprisingly to us, optionally pronouncing (16a–b) without the labiovelar glide of
the INV clitic results in an acceptable sequence of homophonous [ta] syllables (of the INV and
INCL1PL clitics). However, in (19a–b) the same glide is obligatory. Without it, the onlyinterpretation deemed acceptable by our consultant speakers is INCL1PL>3, as in (3a–b) above.

99

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
From the data so far, in (14) through (19), /ta(w)/ would appear to encode athird-person Actor. Indeed, this is Tsuchida’s analysis of /taw/ in Tamalakaw(1980:196), and Teng’s analysis of it in Tamalakaw, Ulivelivek, and Katripul(2009:824, 826, 834, 2015:410, 419), three closely related Puyuma varieties.
The crucial data in (20a–b) and (21a–b) don’t involve any third-person
entity. The invariant semantics contributed by /ta(w)/ in all of (14) through (21)is that the Undergoer is at least as person-prominent as the Actor and that thefirst clitic pronoun immediately after /ta(w)/ encodes the Undergoer.14(20) a. ta(w)= {ku/ka}= {*u/nu}= sukun-anaj
INV=
1SG=
2SG=
push-TR‘Did you push me?’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta(w) ={ku/ka} ={*u/nu}
sukun-an
NEG
=INV
=1SG
=2SG
push-TR.DEP‘Didn’t you push me?’(21) a. ta(w)= {ku/ka}= {mu/nmu}= sukun-anaj
INV=
1SG=
2PL=
push-TR‘Did you push me?’b. ħa(ʐi) =ta(w) ={ku/ka} ={mu/nmu} sukun-an
NEG
=INV
=1SG
=2PL
push-TR.DEP‘Didn’t you push me?’
In fact, Tsuchida reports a sentential 2SG>1SG example (1980:199) from
Tamalakaw identical in the relevant respects to our Rikavung example in (20a),as well as diagrammatic data (1980:200) of only the clitic sequences similar toour (20) and (21). In order to maintain his analysis of /taw/ in Tamalakaw as amarker of only a third-person Actor, Tsuchida resorts to calling these sequences
the result of morphological “fusion” (1980:199). Such fused forms are also
known in the literature as portmanteau forms. Still in the spirit of Tsuchida(1980), Teng (2015:422–423) proposes a reduction to the list of portmanteaux tojust the SAP>SAP pairs, /kunu/ ~ /kanu/ ‘1SG>2SG’, /kanmu/ ‘1SG>2PL’,/takunu/ ~ /takanu/ ‘2SG>1SG’, and /takanmu/ ‘2PL>1SG’—i.e., Tamalakaw’s
counterparts to the clitic sequences in our Rikavung (4), (9), (20), and (21),respectively.15 We argue that there are no portmanteau pronouns in Rikavung.
14

Here we address issues about Rikavung in Teng (2008), the existence of which we learned
about since our AFLA-21 talk. These portmanteaux are reported: /takunu/ ‘2SG>1SG’ and/taku(n)mu/ ‘2PL>1SG’, consistent with our (20) and (21), respectively. The addition of /ta-/
encodes “a reverse of roles between the two speech act participants.” Hence, for example, /kunu/
is used for 1SG>2SG, as in our (4), whereas /takunu/ is used, as in (20), “when the actor changes
from first person to second person”: the essence of what is known in the linguistic literature as amorphosyntactic inverse. Teng (2008) uses /taw/ for 3.ERG but /ta-/ as part of the portmanteaux.
15
Whereas Tsuchida (1980:199–200) lists only /takanu/ as the 2SG>1SG portmanteau, Teng(2015:422) also lists a variant, /takunu/. In addition, whereas Tsuchida (1980:200) lists

100The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Paradoxically, our primary evidence against Tsuchida’s and Teng’s
portmanteau approaches is inspired by data elsewhere in their studies. Namely,
Tsuchida (1980:200) reports that in Tamalakaw between /taw/ and an SAP
pronoun—namely: 1SG /ku/, EXCL1PL /mi/, INCL1PL /ta/, 2SG /u/, or 2PL /mu/; cf.
our Rikavung examples (14) through (18) above, respectively—it is possible toinsert /a/, which is glossed there as a FUT marker. In addition, Tsuchida(1980:199) lists a sentential example in Tamalakaw with the sequence /taw aku/; cf. our Rikavung example, identical in the relevant respects, in (22a) below.
Similarly, Teng (2015:424) very effectively harnesses the insertion of PFV /=la/to demonstrate that sequences of clitics in Katripul (another Puyuma dialect) are
not portmanteaux. Using those two linguists’ ideas, we then verified that in
Rikavung the clitic /a/, which we gloss as IRR, can immediately follow /ta(w)/‘INV’, as (22f) below shows. If there is at least one clitic pronoun after the INV
clitic, then IRR /a/ can appear between the INV clitic and the pronoun, as (22a–e,g–h) also show. The fact that the IRR clitic can go between /ta(w)/ and the SAP
clitic pronoun specifically as in (22a–e) demonstrates that the clitic sequences in(14) through (18) above must not be analyzed as portmanteaux. Rather, each ofthese sequences consists of two independent morphemes: INV and a pronoun.
Of even more relevance to the current discussion, the fact that the IRR clitic canfollow /taw/ but precede both clitic pronouns in (22g–h) demonstrates that theacceptable clitic sequences in (20) and (21) must also not be portmanteaux.16(22) a. taw= a={ku/*ka}= sukun-anaj
INV= IRR= 1SG=
push-TR‘{She/He/They} would like to push me.’b. taw= a={mi/niam}= sukun-anaj
INV= IRR= EXCL1PL=
push-TR‘{She/He/They} would like to push us.’c. taw= a=ta=sukun-anaj
INV= IRR= INCL1PL= push-TR‘{She/He/They} would like to push us.’d. taw= a={u/nu}= sukun-anaj
INV= IRR= 2SG=
push-TR‘{She/He/They} would like to push you.’e. taw= a={mu/nmu}= sukun-anaj
INV= IRR= 2PL=
push-TR‘{She/He/They} would like to push you.’f. taw= a=sukun-anaj
INV= IRR= push-TR‘{She/He/They}i would like to push {her/him/them}j.’[cf. (14a) above][cf. (15a) above][cf. (16a) above][cf. (17a) above][cf. (18a) above][cf. (19a) above]/takanmu/ for the 2PL>1SG portmanteau, Teng (2015:422) shows the optional epenthetic vowel
between the nasals (and reports that this form also allows a PL-Undergoer interpretation).
16
For phonological reasons, the INV clitic’s final glide in each of (22a–h) is all but obligatory.

101The Proceedings of AFLA 21
g. taw= a={ku/ka}=
INV= IRR= 1SG=
‘Would you push me.’h. taw= a={ku/ka}=
INV= IRR= 1SG=
‘Would you push me.’{*u/nu}= sukun-anaj
2SG=
push-TR[cf. (20a) above]{mu/nmu}=
2PL=[cf. (21a) above]sukun-anaj
push-TR

Another reason to favor our INV analysis of /ta(w)/ in Rikavung comesfrom the same two aforementioned studies. Tsuchida (1980:199) observes thatin Tamalakaw whereas /a/ (which he glosses as FUT) can appear between /taw/(considered to be a third-person pronoun there) and 1SG /ku/, as in our Rikavung
example (22a) above, /a/ cannot interrupt a sequence of 1SG /ka/ and 2SG /nu/.
The order in Tamalakaw, Tsuchida reports, must be /ka nu a/ followed by theverb. The same example also refutes Teng’s claim that in Tamalakaw /kanu/ is
inseparable from the verb (2015:422). We have verified that in Rikavung (4a)and (9a) above, IRR /a/ also can be inserted between the 2SG or 2PL clitic
pronoun and the verb. Teng (2015:422–424) also draws a distinction (in all of
the Nanwang, Katripul, and Tamalakaw dialects) between various combinations
consisting of only SAP pronouns (which she considers to be portmanteaux) and
3>SAP clitic clusters, where only in the latter can the two clitics be separated.
Now, under both authors’ accounts of Tamalakaw, where what we consider tobe the INV clitic is analyzed instead as a third-person pronoun, the inseparabilityof two pronouns only if they both encode SAPs would be a coincidence. Under
our INV analysis of Rikavung, /ta(w)/ is not a pronoun. Therefore, the relevant
restriction is that IRR /a/ cannot interrupt any cluster of pronominal clitics.
Even more support for our analysis comes from the fact that in all of (15)through (18), (20), and (21), under these two authors’ assumptions, the orderwould be third person before SAP. In every known clitic-ordering system based
primarily on person in the Philippine-Formosan area, any SAP invariably
precedes a third-person pronoun (Holmer and Billings 2014:122–124).
To be sure, there is quite a bit of additional allomorphy in Rikavung. For
instance, there exists, in addition to /ta(w)/, another INV variant: /tu/. (It is unclear to us whether this form is a borrowing from other Puyuma dialects such as
Nanwang.) Additionally, a 1SG Undergoer within a pronominal cluster can also
be encoded using the INCL1PL clitic pronoun, /ta/, after the INV clitic and before
a second-person pronoun. Namely, /ta/ can replace /ku/ or /ka/ in (20) and (21)without affecting the free translations there. This variation in the function of /ta/resembles a mechanism also widely observed in Philippine languages. However,
we find it peculiar that this use of /ta/ is apparently limited in Rikavung to 2>1
INV clauses. We have also verified that this special use of pronominal /ta/ is notpart of a portmanteau (again, using the IRR-insertion test, not exemplified here).
To summarize section 2, we have shown that /ta(w)/ is not a pronoun.
Rather, this clitic is added to indicate that the clitic pronoun right after it en102

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
codes the Undergoer. If two such pronouns follow /ta(w)/, then the latter one
encodes the Actor. We have also shown that no pronominal combinations areportmanteaux. Finally, Rikavung attests no overt third-person clitic pronouns.
3.

Conclusion

This paper has demonstrated that in Rikavung Puyuma there is a single
paradigm of clitic pronouns. Despite plenty of variation, no case distinction canbe made. Furthermore, if two clitic pronouns co-occur, their relative order isdetermined only by grammatical person. Finally, an INV clitic is employed toindicate that the Undergoer is at least as person-prominent as the Actor.
References
Billings, Loren A. 1996. Sandhi phenomena and language change. Interfaces
in phonology, ed. Ursula Kleinhenz, 60–82 (Studia grammatica 41).
Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Billings, Loren, and Daniel Kaufman. 2004. Towards a typology ofAustronesian pronominal clisis. Proceedings of AFLA 11 [the 11th
annual meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association], ed.
Paul Law, 15–29 (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 34). Berlin: Zentrum fürAllgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog texts and grammatical analysis. University
of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 3(2–4):1–408 [157–564].
Chang, Yiying Ann. 2012. Pronominal ordering in Plngawan Atayal.
Proceedings of ConSOLE XIX, eds. Enrico Boone, Kathrin Linke, andMaartje Schulpen, 177–190. Leiden: Student Organization of Linguistics
in Europe.
Comrie, Bernard. 2013. Ergativity: Some recurrent themes. The acquisition of
ergativity, eds. Edith L. Bavin and Sabine Stoll, 15–34 (Trends in
Language Acquisition Research 9). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Holmer, Arthur, and Loren Billings. 2014. Clitic pronouns in Seediq. Papers
from 12-ICAL [the 12th International Conference on Austronesian
Linguistics], vol. 2: Argument realisations and related constructions inAustronesian languages, eds. I Wayan Arka and N. L. K. Mas Indrawati,
111–139 (Asia-Pacific Linguistics 013; Studies on Austronesian
Languages 002). Canberra: College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian
National University.
Huang, Lillian M., Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J.
Wu. 1999. A typological overview of pronominal systems of some
Formosan languages. Selected papers from the fifth International
Conference on Chinese Linguistics, eds. Hsu Wang, Feng-fu Tsao, andChin-fa Lien, 165–198. Taipei: Crane.
103

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Hung, Silvia Yu-ju, and Loren Billings. 2009/2010. Topicality and pronominal
ordering in two Manobo languages. Presented at the panel on
Pronoun-ordering typology, 11th International Conference onAustronesian Linguistics (Aussois, France; June 2009). Uploaded to the
Rutgers Optimality Archive <roa.rutgers.edu> (June 2010).
Jiang, Haowen. 2013. The possession-modification scale and a reappraisal of“genitive” in Paiwan, Rukai, and Puyuma. Presented at the second
National Taiwan University Workshop on Discourse and Grammar in
Formosan Languages, Taipei <www.academia.edu/3693931>.
Jiang, Haowen, and Loren Billings. 2015. Evidence from Puyuma for only asingle clitic-pronoun paradigm in Proto Austronesian. Panel on Topics inthe morphosyntax of higher-order Austronesian subgrouping:
Considering the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis, 13th International
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (Academia Sinica, Taiwan).
Kaufman, Daniel. 2010. The grammar of clitics in Maranao. Piakandatu ami Dr.
Howard P. McKaughan, eds. Loren Billings and Nelleke Goudswaard,
179–204. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines and
SIL Philippines.
Kaufmann, John. 1916 (©1939). Principles of Visayan grammar. Oroquieta,
Manila: Catholic Trade School.
Lee, Celeste, and Loren Billings. 2008. Clitic-pronoun clusters in Central
Philippine. SEALS XIV volume 1: Papers from the 14th annual meetingof the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2004, eds. Wilaiwan
Khanittanan and Paul Sidwell, 193–203 (Pacific Linguistics E-5).
Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian
National University.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1995. The case-marking system in Mayrinax, Atayal. Bulletinof the Institute of History and Philology [Academia Sinica] 66(1):23–52(re-issued in Li 2004:387–414).
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2004. Selected papers on Formosan languages, vol. 1(Language and Linguistics Monograph Series C3). Taipei: Institute of
Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2004. Transitivity and ergativity in Formosan and Philippine
languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2005. Another look at the order of clitic pronouns in Wulai
Atayal. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 31(1) [Special issue:
Austronesian linguistics]:47–63.
McKaughan, Howard P. 1959. Semantic components of pronoun systems:
Maranao. Word 15(1):101–102.
Peng, Adam, and Loren Billings. 2008. Binukid pronominal clisis. Studies in
Philippine Languages and Cultures 17 [Special issue: 10-ICAL pronoun
papers, ed. Sue McQuay]:179–212.
104

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Quakenbush, J. Stephen, and Edward Ruch. 2008. Pronoun ordering andmarking in Kalamianic. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures
17 [Special issue: 10-ICAL pronoun papers, ed. Sue McQuay]:213–234.
Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal.
Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift forRobert Blust, eds. Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, 295–326(Pacific Linguistics 601). Canberra: Research School of Pacific andAsian Studies, Australian National University.
Ross, Malcolm, and Stacy Fang-ching Teng. 2005. Formosan languages andlinguistic typology. Language and Linguistics [Academia Sinica]
6(4):739–781.
Rudin, Catherine, Christina Kramer, Loren Billings and Matthew Baerman.
1999. Macedonian and Bulgarian li questions: Beyond syntax. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 17(3):541–586.
Suenari, Michio. 1969. A preliminary report on Puyuma language (Rikavong
dialect). Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology [Academia Sinica]
27:141–164.
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. The internal relationships among Puyuma
dialects: Evidence from morphosyntax. Unpublished slides from talkpresented at the second Workshop on Internal Relationships ofFormosan languages, Academia Sinica, Taipei (cited with permission).
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2009. Case syncretism in Puyuma. Language andLinguistics [Academia Sinica] 10(4):819-844.
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching [Stacy F. Teng]. 2015. A comparative study of thepersonal pronominal systems in three Puyuma dialects. New advances in
Formosan linguistics, eds. Elizabeth Zeitoun, Stacy F. Teng, and Joy J.
Wu, 407–429 (Asia-Pacific Linguistics 017; Studies on Austronesian
Languages 003). Canberra: College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian
National University.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1980. Puyuma-go (Tamarakao hōgen) goi: Gohō gaisetsu
oyobi tekisuto tsuki [Puyuma (Tamalakaw dialect) vocabulary: With
grammatical notes and texts]. Kuroshio no minzoku, bunka, gengo[Ethnology, cultures, and languages along the Black Current], eds.
Kuroshio Bunka no Kai [Black Current Cultures Committee], 183–307.
Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1992. Puyuma-go [The Puyuma language]. Gengogaku
daijiten [The Sanseido encyclopedia of linguistics], eds. Takashi Kamei,
Rokurō Kōno, and Eiichi Chino, vol. 3, 742–753. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1995. Alienable and inalienable distinction in Puyuma.
Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, eds. Paul Jen-kuei Li,
Cheng-we Tsang, Dah-an Ho, Ying-kuei Huang, and Chiu-yu Tseng,
793–804 (Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology 3).
Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.
105

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Yen, Doris Ching-jung, and Loren Billings. 2011. Sequences of pronominal
clitics in Mantauran Rukai: V-deletion and suppletion. Proceedings ofthe eighteenth meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics
Association (AFLA), Harvard University, Cambridge (MA), March 4–6,
2011, eds. Lauren Eby Clemens, Gregory Scontras, and Maria Polinsky,
168–182. London, Ontario, Canada: Linguistics Program, University ofWestern Ontario <westernlinguistics.ca/afla/proceedings/afla18/>.
Yen, Doris Ching-jung, and Loren Billings. 2014. The cluster-internal orderingof clitics in Kavalan (East Formosan, Austronesian). Proceedings of thethirty-eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Generalsession and thematic session on language contact, eds. Kayla Carpenter,
Oana David, Florian Lionnet, Christine Sheil, Tammy Stark, and Vivian
Wauters, 523–537. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2007. A grammar of Mantauran (Rukai) (Language andLinguistics Monograph Series A4-2). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics,
Academia Sinica.

106

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

CORRELATIONAL COMPARATIVES (CCS) IN MALAGASY*
Edward L. Keenan
University of California at Los Angeles
edward.keenan1@gmail.com

Baholisoa Ralalaoherivony
Université d’Antananarivo
rabaholy@gmail.com

We study CCs (The more you work the more you earn) in Malagasy, which
present a novel use of no-Focus structures. We provide some new data
patterns and advocate a Binary Operator analysis, briefly comparing Malagasy
CCs with ones from other languages. They differ from but share properties
with purely paratactic constructions and correlatives. We consider theirrelation to pseudoclefts as in Paul 2001, 2008, Potsdam 2006 and Kalin 2009.

1.

Introduction

CCs 1 assert a proportional dependency between two scalars. A scalar is afunction whose values are linearly ordered; for F,G scalars G is proportional to
F iff F(x) < F(y) implies G(x) < G(y), all x,y. F is the independent scalar, G thedependent one. (1) is a Malagasy CC, scalars bracketed.
(1) Arakaraka[ind ny ∅-iasana ] no [dep ∅-ahazoana
vola]
proportionate.to
DET PRES-work.CT FOC
PRES-receive.CT money[indThe more one works][dep the more one earns (receives money)]
So CCs are true/false claims, cognitively similar to conditionals (McCawley
1988, Beck 1997, Hsiao 2003, Brasoveanu 2008, Smith 2010) since
proportionality is defined in conditional terms. But CCs are not syntacticallyconditionals, which are of the form Raha φ dia ψ (If φ then ψ). Proportional
dependency may express cause-effect (Working more causes earning more) but
may just indicate correlation (Beck, Brasoveanu, Smith): The taller you are thetaller your siblings.
2.

Distribution

CCs in Malagasy occur as verbal complements like other assertions. They also
negate, take propositional modals, form tags, host S-level questions, can be
1

Also called Comparative Correlatives (den Dikken 2005) and Comparative Conditonals(McCawley 1988, Beck 1997). CCs are contentious: Culicover and Jackendoff 1999 argue that
CCs in English are paratactic but unrepresentable in (then) current syntactic theories. Den
Dikken 2005 counterargues that they are correlatives with a minimalist representation. Smith
2010 provides a categorially oriented subordinate –main clause analysis.

107

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
topicalized into, and admit Why? questions, (2). Finally CCs cannot be extracted
from, (3), as only subjects extract (Keenan 1972) and CCs are not of
Predicate+Subject form.
(2) a. Heveriko/Mihevitra
aho
fa arakaraka ny iasana no ahazoana vola
think.TT.1S.GEN/AT.think 1S.NOM that [(1)]‘I think that the more one works the more one earns.’b. Tsy fantatrona[arakaraka ny iasana no ahazoana vola]
not know.TT.1S.GEN whether [(1)]
na tsiaor no‘I don’t know whether the more you work the more you earn or not.’c. Tsy arakaraka ny iasana no ahazoana vola
not
[
(1)
]
‘It is not so that the more you work the more you earn.’d. Toa arakaraka ny iasana no ahazoana vola
seem [(1)]‘It seems that the more you work the more you earn.’e. Arakaraka ny iasana no ahazoana vola, sa tsy izany?
[(1)], or not that
‘The more one works the more one earns, not so?’f. Moa ve arakaraka ny iasana no ahazoana vola?
PRT
Q [
(1)
]?
‘Is it the case that the more you work the more you earn?’g. Raha Rabei aloha dia arakaraka ny ihinana.nyi no ahazoa.nyi
ifRabe adverb TOP prop.to DET eat.CT.3GEN NO receive.CT.3GEN
aina.
life
‘As for Rabe, the more he eats the more he improves.’
h. Nahoana no arakaraka ny iasana no ahazoana vola?
why
NO [
(1)
]?
‘Why is it that the more one works the more one earns?’(3) *ny vola
(izay) arakaraka ny iasanao no ahazoana
the money (that) prop.to DET work.CT NO receive.CT‘the money that you receive the more you work’
3. Internal StructureFirst, we present three empirical observations. One, arakaraka ‘proportionate
to’ in (1) is a preposition, the lexical reduplication of araka ‘according
to/pertaining to’, which has a wider usage than arakaraka but occasionallysubstitutes for it in CCs. PPs may be predicate and nominal modifiers, (4a-b),
108

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
and given the absence of a copula, may head P1s (tensed one place predicate
phrases), (4c). (5) and (6) show the predicate modifier and P1 head use ofarakaraka.
(4) a. Miteny ami.ko izy.
speak with.my 3‘He speaks with me.’b. trano anaty ala
house inforest‘house in (the) forest’c. [tandrify ny paositra][ny trano.ko].
opposite the post.office the house.my‘My house is opposite the post office.’(5) [P1 Tokony hatao
arakaraka
ny fidiran’ny vola] [nyshould FUT.TT.do prop.to
the entering’the money the
fandalinana
azy]
using.up
3.ACC]‘Spending should be done proportionate to revenue.’[Raki](6) a. [P1Arakaraka ny halavan’ny olona] [ny havesara.ny].
prop.tothe height’the people the weight.their‘People’s weight is proportional to their height.’
b. [P1Arakaraka ny isan’ny
mponina ao an-tanana iray][nyprop.tothe number’the inhabitant LOC in-village one theisan’ny
trano
ao].
number’the house
LOC‘The number of houses in a village is proportionate to the number of
inhabitants there.’
Given its meaning arakaraka selects a scalar nominal: ones denoting height,
weight, length, number, amount, salary, etc. Both its argument and that of the P1
it heads must be scalar for a proportionality comparison to make sense. Further
arakaraka can impose a scalar interpretation on DPs like ‘the washed clothes’ in(7) which are scalable but not inherently scalar: [entity ⇒ scalar] is a common
semantic type shift (Schwarzchild 2006). So (7b) paraphrases (7a):(7) a. [Arakaraka ny lamba sasana] [ny rano lany]prop.tothe clothes washed the water used
‘The water used is proportionate to the clothes washed.’b. [Arakaraka ny habetsaky ny lamba sasana] [ny habetsaky ny
prop.tothe quantity the clothes washed the quantity the109The Proceedings of AFLA 21
rano lany]water used
‘The quantity of water used is proportionate to the amount of clothes
washed.’Two, the object of arakaraka in (1) is ny iasana, in which the DET ny combineswith a P1 in the circumstantial (CT) voice, the morphology of verbs whose DP
sisters (“subjects”) denote a circumstance of the action or state expressed by theverb, (8c): time, location, instrument, cause, cost, manner,.... [RR] 1971:112–17
lists 13 such plus three other CT selecting constructions.
(8) a. [P1 n.an.enjika an’i
Hery tamin’io
fiara io] Rabe
PST.AT.chase ACC’ART Hery PST.PREP’that car that Rabe
‘Rabe chased Hery with that car.’b. [P1 n.enjeh.in-dRabe
tamin’iofiara io] i
Hery
PST.chase.TT-Rabe.GEN PST.PREP’that carthat ART Hery
‘Hery was chased in that car by Rabe.’c. [P1 n.an.enjeh.an-dRabean’iHery] io
fiara io
PST.[AT.chase].CT-Rabe.GEN ACC’art Hery that car
that‘That car was used by Rabe to chase Hery.’
AT verbs are built by prefixing m.i-, m.aN-, or m.a- to roots or by prefixing
already derived AT verbs with causative or reciprocal morphemes. TT verbs areeither zero affixed roots or built by prefixing a-, voa- or tafa- (rarely, infixing-in-) to roots or suffixing -ina to roots or causatives. CT verbs are built by
suffixing -ana to AT verbs.
Worth emphasizing is that P1s (any voice) are not clauses (TPs/IPs).
They need an argument to form clauses of the True/False sort. So (up toisomorphism) they denote functions from argument denotations to truth values(or, intensionally, propositions).
(9a) illustrates the widely used ny+P1 argument, P1 in any voice(Ntelitheos 2012, Potsdam and Polinsky 2014). (9b) and (10a-b) show that roots
which lack AT and hence CT morphology use AT causative forms (Rajaona
1972:206–210; Dez 1980:118) as circumstantials.
(9) a. Faly be ahot.amin’ny n.andeh.anan.tsika t.any
Antsirabe
happy big 1.NOM PST.PREP’the PST.go.CT.1P.INCL PST.there Antsirabe‘I was very happy when we went to Antsirabe.’b. Faly be ahot.amin’ny n.aha-t.eto
ahy
t.alohahappy big 1S.NOM PST.PREP’the PST.CAUSE-PST.here1S.ACC PST.before‘I was very happy when I was here before.’

110

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(10) a. Arakaraka ny n.iterah.a.ny
maro no n.aha.tanora
prop.toDET PST.give-bear.CT.her
many NO PST.CAUSE.young
an-dRasoa
ACC-Rasoa‘The more Rasoa gives birth the younger she is (appears).’b. Arakaraka ny maha-adala no ihomehezana
prop.toDET CAUSE-crazy NO laugh.CT‘The crazier you are the more you laugh.’Three, the verb in the post-no scalar in a CC must, like the pre-no one, be in CT
voice:(11) a. *Arakaraka ny miasa (ianao) no mahazo vola (ianao)
prop.toDET AT.work (2S.NOM) NO AT.receive money (2S.NOM)
b. *Arakaraka ny atao (ny) asa no azo(ny) vola
prop.to
DET TT.do (DET) work NO receive.∅ (DET) money
c. *Arakaraka ny sasa.na (ny) lamba no taom.ina (ny) rano
prop.toDET wash.TT (DET) clothes NO bring.TT (DET) water
So far then CCs have the form [[PP arakaraka [ny P1CT]] no [P1CT]]. Both P1s aretensed, usually the same but not always, (12a). Both take PP complements,
accusative objects, (12b), and agent phrases (possessors of the verb), usually thesame, though (12c) is a found example with different agents. Absence of agent
phrases yields an “arb” ‘one’ interpretation, as in (1), not an existentiallyquantified one. Finally the scalars may be internally coordinate, (12d).
(12) a. Arakaraka ny n.anomboh.a.ny
ihany no h.iafarany
prop.to DET PST.begin.CT.3GEN
thus NO FUT.end.CT.3GEN‘As its beginning (of the story) built up so its ending fades out.’[Etsy 231]
b. Arakaraka ny if.anerasera.ko amin’i
Soa no tsy ahafantarako
prop.to
DET REC.socialize.1S.GEN prep’ART Soa NO not know.1S.GEN
azy
3ACC‘The more I socialize with Soa the less I understand her.’c. Arakaraka ny h.androsoan’ilay rangahy no h.ihemoan’ny
prop.to
DET FUT.go.CT’that
gentleman NO FUT.retreat.CT’the
miaramilasoldier‘The more the old man would advance the more the soldiers would backup.’
[Etsy 161]
111

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
d. Arakaraka ny
iasanano [ahazoana vola sy itomboana
prop.toDET work.CT NO receive.CT money and expand.CT
fahasalamana]
health‘The more you work the more you earn money and expand your health.’
4. Semantic Interpretation
Write [w]s for the interpretation of an expression w in a situation s. For φ = [[PParakaraka p] no [q]] a CC, interpret φ as True in s iff [p]s is proportional to [q]s.
This analysis assumes A1–A3 below, and raises the issue of uniform
compositional interpretation of expressions of the form [X no Y].
A1: Both pre-no [arakaraka p] and post-no q denote scalar functions
though they differ (slightly) in category. This arises as follows. ARAKARAKA
selects or imposes scalarity on its argument, as in (7a). NO serves to pass thisscalar interpretation on to the next argument, q, facilitated by the fact that q is a
P1 and so is already interpreted as a function, perhaps even one with orderedvalues, like ‘the number of houses’ in (6b). This view is independently
supported by our analysis of the conjunction sady...no... below. So no behaves
like an internal conjunction (Zhang 2009) as in e.g. French coordinations [x A xB], where x = et ‘and’, ou ‘or’, or ni ‘nor’, as in et Jean et Marie ‘both John andMary’, etc. The second conjunction places no independent selection
requirements on its argument(s), it just maintains those imposed on the first.
A2: [arakaraka,no] is assigned a semantic interpretation. This may be
done
compositionallyusingastructure
for
CCs
like
<[arakaraka,no],[DPCT][P1CT]>. A “minor” rule would move the designated word
no between its arguments. (See Larson’s 1985 treatment of [Either/Whether,or]). This rule is explanatory. Moving no serves to identify the second argumentof the proportionality function. Maintaining the voice of the first argument issimilarly motivated.
A3: The pre-no [ny+P1CT] determines a scalar, like the post-no P1CT,
which says that nominalizing the P1 preserves semantic properties.
Randriamasimanana (2007) and Potsdam and Polinsky (2014) provide extensive
independent support for this. Their examples use active P1s, as in (13a). But(13b) shows that circumstantial P1s behave comparably. In both (13a-b) thecomplement of ‘buy’ has its future tense selected by the governing verb ‘intend’regardless of whether the Det ny is present or not. Equally in both cases theagent of ‘buy’ is the same as that of ‘intend’. So nominalization preserves
agenthood and temporal dependence, properties of P1s.
(13) a. n.i.kasa(ny) h.i.vidy
akanjo ho an’i
PST.AT.intend (DET) FUT.AT.buy clothes for’ART‘I intend to buy clothes for Soa.’
112

Soa
Soa

aho
1NOM

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. no.kasa.i.ko(ny) h.ividi.anana akanjo i
Soa
PST.intend.PASS.1GEN (DET) FUT.buy.CT clothes ART Soa‘Soa was intended to be bought clothes for by me.’‘(= I intended to buy clothes for Soa).’
In addition, while ny is often translated as definite, that interpretation isplausibly a default. Ny cooccurs naturally with weak (indefinite) as well as
strong quantifiers (Keenan 2006, 2008):(14) a. Nitsangana [ny mpianatra rehetra] / [ny ankabeazan’ny mpianatra]stood.up DET student all / DET majority.of’the student‘All the students stood up.
/ Most of the students stood up.’b. Nitsangana ny mpianatra maro / maromaro /sasany / vitsivitsy
stood.up DET student many / somewhat many / some / few/ roa / iray
/ two / one‘Many / several / some / few / two / one student(s) stood up.’
Nor is it formally problematic to access the P1 interpretation from that of[ny+P1]. It suffices that ny denote a one to one function from P1 denotations to
DP denotations. Quite generally nominalizing functions are one to one: if P1sp,q have different meanings so do nom(p) and nom(q). E.g. walk and talk havedifferent meanings and so do walking and talking, walkers and talkers, a/thewalk and a/the talk. So given a nominalization meaning we uniquely retrieve theP1 meaning (not an expression which denotes it) it is a function of. We turn now
to some merits of our binary operator analysis and then one issue it raises.
5. Motivating Binary Operators
Binary operators are functions taking two arguments. Functions select theirarguments: to define them we must state what their domain is, that is, what
objects (pairs of objects, etc.) they apply to. The defining conditions are theselectional restrictions of function denoting expressions. Those functions wecall operators are grammatical invariants (Keenan & Stabler 2003). Binary
operators are often expressed by pairs of expressions one of which is largely
predictable from the other, often identical to it. The two parts identify the twoarguments of the function, which motivates its discontinuous expression. We
will see a variety of plausible candidates for binary operators in Malagasy.
Some candidates in English are: neither...nor..., more...than..., else...else...,different...different..., for...to..., poss...ing...2, as in:2

Thanks to Ed Stabler for drawing my attention to the For-To and Poss-Ing cases.

113

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(15) Neither John nor Mary left / Ni Jean ni Marie ne sont partis
More students than teachers signed the petition(Keenan 1987)
Ben recognized Sue but no one else recognized anyone else (Keenan 1987)
Different people like different things(Keenan 1992)
For Warren to object at that point was unexpected
Zelda’s leaving early annoyed me
5.1.

Binary Operators in Malagasy

5.1.1. Sady...no... ‘as well as’
Sady...no... ‘as well as’ coordinates predicate phrases of any arity (P0 = TP, P1= tensed VP, P2 = Tensed Transitive Verb Phrase). Sady also occurs between
Pn’s without no (16).
(16) ... [nanda sadynikifikifika] izy ...
... refused SADY shook.head she ...
‘... she refused and shook her head ...’
(17) a. [[Sady nikapoka no nandaka]
bibilava roa] Rabe(P2)
SADY PST.AT.beat NO PST.AT.kick snake two Rabe
‘Rabe was beating and kicking two snakes’(≠ was beating two... and kicking two...)b. ... ny vehivavy [[sady nibaby
no nitrotro]
ny zana.ny]... the women SADY PST.back.carry NO chest.carry the child.3GEN‘... the women who carried their children on their back and on their chest’[IKM.52](18) a. [Sady matanjaka no kinga saina] Rabe[P1]
SADY strong
NO agile mind Rabe
‘Rabe is strong as well as quick-witted.’b. [Sady mahazo masoandro tsara no mahazo rivotra madio]
SADY getsungood NO get
air
clean
ny toerana manerinerina
DET placehigh‘A high location gets good sun as well as clean air.’[T- 4]
c. olona [sady tsara fanahy no kinga saina] no n.anampy ahy
person[SADY nice spirit NO agile mind FOC PST.help me
h.anolony kodiarana
FUT.change the tire
‘People who were nice and smart helped me change the tire.’

114

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(19) ... satria sady maty ny zavany no very ny volany ... namidiny... because SADY gone the thing.his NO lost the money.his ... he paid.for
azy
(P0)
them
‘... because his things were gone and the money he paid for them lost’ [Ang]Importantly, sady...no... requires its two arguments to be semanticallycomparable. Speakers balk at conjoining stage level and individual level
predicates, (20), though both can be stage level, (17a), and both individual level,(18a-b). So sady alone cannot select one over the other. Rather, sady…no…
selects a pair of semantically comparable expressions.
(20) *?[Sady tsara tarehy no mikapoka
bibilava roa] Rasoa.
SADY good face NO PRES.AT.beat snake
two Rasoa‘*? Rasoa is pretty as well as is beating two snakes.’
Further, sady...no... selects predicates, but not DPs, (21), which do coordinate
freely with sy ‘and’. Category restrictions on coordinators are fairly widespread:
Zhang (2009:45). Also, not too unsurprisingly, the no in sady...no... occasionally
iterates, (22).
(21) *Efa
nivoakasady Rabe no Ranaivo.
already gone.out SADY Rabe NO Ranaivo‘Rabe as well as Ranaivo have gone out.’(22) [Sady mitsara no mikapoka, no manambitamby ary masiaka] no fomba
SADY judges NO beats
NO cajoles
and severe NO mannerfitondra zatovo
raise
young
‘Judging, beating, cajoling, and being severe are manners of raising theyoung.’
5.1.2.

Other Candidates for Binary Operators(23) a.leo.komaty miaraka amin-dRazay tokoa, toy izay hamela azy
TT.prefer.my die
together with-Razay emph, than
FUT.leave her
eo am-pelatànan'ny ratsy
LOC at-palm’thebad‘I prefer to die with Razamalala than to leave her in the hands of the badguys.’[IKM 24]

115

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(24) a. Tsy avy any na ny rainao
na ny reninao
not come there NA the father.your NA the mother.your‘Whether it’s your father or your mother, that person didn’t come fromthere.’[Bleu 60]
b. Nijininika ra
ny ratrany
hatrany am-piasanaka
flowedblood the wound.his from LOC-NOM.work CONJ
hatrany amin’ny trano
toprep’the house‘His wound bled from his (place of) work to his house.’c. Hatramin’ny oviana ka hatramin’ny oviana no h.ijanon.a.nao
from’thewhen CONJ up.to’DET
when NO FUT.stay.CT.2S.GEN
any?
there
‘From when to when will you stay there?’
We also find discontinuous unary operators whose two parts identify edges of
constituents. Demonstratives are a prominent case. They may self-embed, (25).
(25) a. Hatramin’izao daty anoratanay
since’thisdate write.CT.1PL.EXCL.GEN
ity izao, dia ...
this this, and so...
‘Since the day of writing this article...’

ity
this

lahasoratra
article[Newspaper 1994]

b. ...an’ireo biby
nomeny anjara eto amin’ity anganon’izao andro izao
ACC’those animals given role here in’this tale’this
day thisity?
this‘...those animals given a role in this tale of our time’[IS]c. Ny nahatongavany teo
amin’io toeran’io teo hono
dia
the PST.arrive.CT.his PST.there at’that place’that there they.say TOP
nobaben’ny reniny
carried’the mother.his‘His arrival there at that place was by his mother carrying him on her
back.’
Lastly, cross linguistically the expression of CCs often involves discontinuous
expressions with the second the same as, (26a-e), or constrained by, the first,
(27).

116

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(26) a. Yuè tián de píngguŏ yuè haŏchī
Mandarinmore sweet REL apple more delicious
Hsiao 2003
‘The sweeter an apple the more delicious it is.’b. Ni yuht gong, keoi yuht
ganzoeng
Cantonese
you surpass talk, 3S surpass nervous
Leung 2005
‘The more you talk the more nervous s/he is.’c. Khun yingphuut, khaw ying dandengThai
you increasingly talk,3S
increasingly nervous Leung 2005
‘The more you talk the more nervous he gets.’d. Ali makin
besar
makin
sombongIndonesian
Ali increasingly old
increasingly arrogant
Leung 2005
‘The older Ali gets the more arrogant he becomes.’e. The bigger they are the harder they fall
English(27) a. Kolkoto četeš, tolkova
maučavaš
Bulgarian
how.much read.2S, that.much learn.2S
Bhatt 2008
‘As much as you read, that much you learn.’b. [IP[Jiitnaa
suuraj chamk-aa][utnii
ThanD baRh-ii]]
Hindi
How-much.MSG sun.M shine-PF that-much.F cold.F increase-PF‘The more the sun shone, the colder it got.’
Den Dikken 2005
5.3.

Malagasy CCs: Paratactic? Correlative?

CCs are, “semantically paratactic” by definition: to be CCs they must present
two scalar expressions. In (26) and (27) the two scalars look structurally
identical but this is less so in Malagasy: one scalar is a DP, the other a P1,
neither a full clause. Still they are both circumstantial and CT P1s may include
all the subcategorized arguments of the active verb. On plausible structures forCCs, the two scalar constituents are on the same level: in<[arakaraka,no],[DPCT][P1CT]> each c-commands the other, in <[[arakaraka[DPCT]][no [P1CT]]> neither DPCT nor P1CT c-commands the other.
Pronominalization patterns are consistent with c-command neutrality. Bothantecedent-pronoun orders in (28a-b) are acceptable:(28) a. Arakaraka ny ifaneraserako ami.n’i Soaj no tsy ahafantarako
prop.to DET socialize.CT.my PREP.’ART Soa NO not understand.CT.my
azyj
3ACC
‘The more I socialize with Soa the less I understand her.’117

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. Arakaraka ny ifaneraserako ami.nyj
no tsy ahafantarako
prop.toDET socialize.CT.my PREP.3GEN NO not understand.CT.my
an’i
Soaj
ACC’ART Soa‘The more I socialize with her the less I understand Soa.’
In a context in which -ny ‘his/her/their’ does not have a plausible antecedent in
the preceding discourse the binding in (28b) is acceptable, more so than inEnglish.
Equally Malagasy CCs resemble correlatives in that the second halfcontains an item, no, syntactically and semantically dependent on one,arakaraka, in the first half. But in distinction to classical correlatives, as (27),the dependent element is not referential, e.g. a pronoun or demonstrative, andlacks nominal features (number, gender, case). And the item it is dependent on
is not a relative or interrogative word, it is just a preposition. Still thecooccurrence restriction between the two is a grammatical relation over andabove mere branching structure.
Lastly, in some languages (English, German) CCs present themorpho-syntax of basic comparatives (x is bigger than y). But not so in
Malagasy (nor, it appears, in Mandarin or Cantonese). Malagasy has two typesof basic comparatives:(29) a. Lehibe (kokoa) noho ianaobig
COMP
prep 2S.NOM‘He is bigger than you.’b. Lehibe m.i.hoatra
anao
bigPRES.AT.surpass 2S.ACC‘He is bigger than you.’

izy
3.NOM
izy
3.NOM

But their distinctive comparative elements, noho and mihoatra, are not part ofCC structure, and contra German according to Beck 1997, comparatives can
independently occur in CCs:
(30) Arakaraka ny ahazoanao
vola noho Rabe no maha.tezitra azy
prop.to DET receive.CT.2S.GEN money PREP Rabe NO cause.angry him‘The more your salary increases compared to Rabe’s the more that angers
him.’
6. Problem: a unified syntax for [X no Y]?
The core use of no is in Clefts, (32b), in which the post-no string is a P1, any
voice, and the pre-no one, the focused constituent, is its subject:

118

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(31) a. N.i.homehy Rabe
PST.AT.laugh Rabe
‘Rabe laughed.’b. Rabe no n.i.homehy
Rabe NO PST.AT.laugh‘It was Rabe who laughed.’

Paul 2001, 2008, Potsdam 2006, Law 2007 and Kalin 2009 treat the focused
constituent–Rabe in (31b), as a predicate and (except for Law) the no phrase as
its definite DP subject, roughly, (the one) who laughed. Law, Pearson 2009, andGärtner 2009 note some serious problems with the no+P1 = DP part of thisanalysis, but this pseudocleft approach is supported by two syntactic facts andone, more complex, semantic one, which an adequate analysis of no mustaccount for.
Syntactically, in general negative polarity items (npi’s) and the polar
question particle occur at the right edge of P1s, (32a-b), and this placement
treats focused constituents as P1s, (32c-d):(32) a. Tsy nihomehy
akory Rabenot PST.AT.laughat all Rabe
‘Rabe didn’t laught at all.’c. Tsy Rabe akory no n.i.homehy
not Rabe at.all NO PST.AT.laugh‘It wasn’t Rabe at all who laughed’

b. Nihomehy
ve Rabe?
PST.AT.laughQ Rabe?
‘Did Rabe laugh?’d. Rabe ve no n.i.homehy?
Rabe Q NO PST.AT.laugh‘Was it R who laughed?’

Semantically we infer from (32c-d) that someone laughed – we just deny it was
Rabe in (32c) and query whether it was him in (32d). The Cleft analysis predicts
these facts, which provide substantive support that CCs and Clefts sharestructure. Both have the gross form X no Y and npi’s and Q distribute identicallyin the two cases:(33) a. Arakaraka ny iasana ve no ahazoana vola?
prop.to DET work.CT Q NO receive.CT money‘Is it so that the more you work the more you earn?’b. Tsy arakaraka ny iasana akory no ahazoana vola
not prop.to
DET work.CT at.all NO receive.CT money‘It is not at all so that the more you work the more you earn.’c. Tsy arakaraka ny ifaneraserako
amin’iSoa no tsy
not prop.to
DET REC.frequent.CT.my with’ART Soa NO not
ahafantarako
azy
understand.CT.my 3ACC
‘It is not so that the more I socialize with Soa the less I understand her.’

119

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
But semantically CCs differ from core clefts in not presupposing existential
quantification over the post-no predicate. (33b) just denies that, and (33a) justqueries whether, the proportionality relation holds between receiving money andworking hard. Neither implies that receiving money correlates with any otheractivity. This semantic judgment is supported by the natural reading of (33c),
the negation of (28b), which does not even suggest that there is an activity aside
from my frequenting Soa which my understanding of her decreases with.
This absence of presupposition supports that CCs are structurally
different from core clefts (identical structures assumed to be interpreted
identically). But data in Gärtner 2009 give us pause. From
Raharirinina-Rabaovololona 1991, he notes (34a), which is not obligatorily
presuppositional but can be used as a general statement about the function ofknives, in contrast to (34b). Gärtner draws a parallel, (35), with the French
c’est...qui/que construction which translates core clefts. In (36a-d) we note somefurther cases of not clearly presuppositional uses (all present tense, note):(34) a. (Ny) antsy no ∅-andidi.ana mofo
The knife NO PRES-cut.CT bread‘Knives serve to cut bread.’b. Ity antsy ity no ∅-andidi.ana mofo
this knife this NO PRES-cut.CT bread‘It is this knife which is for cutting bread.’(35) a. Que-ce qui se passe?
‘What’s going on?’b. C’est maman qui me bat‘Mum’s just beating me (that’s all).’(36) a. Amin’izao fotoana izao mantsy dia ny fiaraha-monina mihitsy no
PREP’now time
now to.be.sure TOP the society
itselfNOmararysick‘At the current time society itself is sick.’[JR 88]b. Ny fifehezana ny vidin-javatra no lalana iray hahazoa-mitsimbina ny
the controlling the price-thing NO way one FUT.able.CT-look.after the
fahefa-mividy
power-to.buy‘Controlling prices is one way of being able to protect purchasing
power...’[JR 126]c. – Iza no te-hiala?
– Tsy misy
who NO wants-FUT.leave
not exist– ‘Who wants to leave?’– ‘No one.’(Eric Potsdam, pc)

120

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

6.1.

Why are clefts presuppositional?

The pseudocleft approach offers a syntactic answer: the no phrase in clefts is adefinite DP (or free relative) independently presupposed referential. But wenoted that several objections to this analysis have been raised. A further one isthat no has additional uses not really compatible with a definite DP or freerelative analysis. The coordinator sady...no... is one such. A second, little noted,
is no with strong speech act markers: imperatives (Koopman 2005), hortatives,and prohibitives:(37) a. Vonjeo
aho!
save.TT.IMP 1S.NOM‘Save me!’b. Io zaza ioi no vonjeo
fa nianjera ei !
that child that NO save.TT.IMP for fellhe
‘Save that child (for he has fallen)!’(38) a.b. Ny bokiko ihany no aoka ho entinareo
fa ny azy no
the book.my only NO HORT FUT carry.TT.2PL.GEN but the 3ACC NO
aza entina!
PROH carry.TT‘Let us take my books only! but his, don’t take!’
Third, Gärtner 2009 and Pearson 2009 discuss no used to conjoin two fullclauses (no gaps) with a temporal overlap or a causative/enabling interpretation.
For reasons of space we just add one example in which the enabling clause is aquestion, a natural structure type in Malagasy. Note that what we question in(39c) is the reason the following clause (a cleft!) holds.
(39) a. Moa lany ve ny rano no tsy misasa
ianao?
PRT used.up Q the water NO not AT.wash.INTRANS 2S.NOM‘Is it because the water is used up that you don’t wash?’b. Nifandidy antsy tamin’iza
hianao no feno ra
toy io ny
PST.REC.cut knife PST.with’who? 2S.NOM NO full blood like that the
lobakao?
shirt.2S.GEN‘With whom did you mutually knife cut whence your shirt is full of
blood like that?’[Tak 314]
c. Nahoana no tsy izaho
no nalain’i
Damo ho vady?
why
NO not 1S.strong NO PST.take.TT’ART Damo FUT spouse‘Why was it that it wasn’t I who was taken by Damo as (his) spouse?’
121

The Proceedings of AFLA 21[Bleu 24]
Our response to the question in 6.1 is more semantic. The focused (pre-no)
constituent in a cleft, core or non-core, identifies an inferable concomitant(property, circumstance) of the event or state determined by the predicate. Beinga participant – Agent, Theme, Goal, ... are such concomitants, but so are Time,
Place, Means, Manner, Cause, Purpose, ... as appropriate. (We infer an
Instrument if you open a can but not if you greet a visitor; we infer Place andTime in both.) So negating or questioning a focused constituent just challenges
the identification of the concomitant, not whether there is one, which is
independently assumed.
In crucial contrast are CCs. The pre-no clause does not identify an inferable
concomitant of the verb denotation. It compares it to something extraneous –hence the two independent predicates. Negating and questioning just naturally
challenge whether the comparison holds.
These remarks highlight the semantic difference between clefts and CCs,
but why should npi’s and Q distribute similarly in the two cases? We suggestthat CCs are built from a common type of non-core cleft but differ ininterpretation in virtue of the lexical meaning of arakaraka ‘proportionate to’,
which is inherently relational. Moreover this difference in interpretation inducesa correlative type restructuring. The relevant non-core clefts are in (40c) and(41c).
(40) a. Manapaka bozaka amin’ny antsinay
izy
PRES.AT.cut grasswith’the knife.1PL.EXCL.GEN 3.NOM‘He cuts grass with our knife.’b. Anapahanybozaka(*amin’)ny
antsinay
cut.CT.3GEN
grasswith’theknife.our‘The knife is used by him to cut grass.’c. (Amin’)ny antsinay no anapahany bozaka
with’theknife.our NO cut.CT.3GEN grass‘It is with our knife that he cuts grass.’
The verb in (40a) is active; in (40b) circumstantial with the subject Instrumental.
PPs do not occur in (clause final) subject position. But when focused the
preposition (here) remains. For some other obliques, even with the same
preposition, (40b) is not acceptable and the preposition in (40c) is obligatory(See [RR]:112). And in this pattern npi’s and Q behave as in (41a-b), like thosein CCs, (33a-b), repeated as (43a-b) here:(41) a. Miarahaba anao
amin-kafaliana
PRES.AT.greet 2s.ACC with-joy‘We greet you with great joy.’122

be izahay
great we.EXCL.NOM

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b.*Iarahabanay anao ny hafaliana be
c. Amin-kafaliana be no iarahabanay
with-joygreat NO greet.CT.1PL.EXCL‘It is with great joy that we greet you.’anao
2S.ACC(42) a. Tsy amin-kafaliana be akory no iarahabanay
anao
not with-joy
great at.all NO greet.CT.1PL.EXCL 2S.ACC‘It isn’t at all with great joy that we greet you.’b. Amin-kafaliana be ve no niarahaban-dRabe
anao?
with-joygreat Q NO PST.greet.CT-Rabe.GEN 2S.ACC‘Was it with great joy that Rabe greeted you?’(43) a. Tsy arakaraka ny iasana akory no ahazoana vola
not prop.to
DET work.CT at.all NO receive.CT money‘It is not at all so that the more you work the more you earn.’b. Arakaraka ny iasana ve no ahazoana vola?
prop.toDET work.CT Q NO receive.CT money‘Is it so that the more you work the more you earn?’
CCs however do not behave exactly like focused PPs from circumstantial
clauses, as they do not accept the Bodyguard construction. Compare (44a) with(44b).
(44) a. Amin-kafaliana be izahay
no miarahaba anao (+Bodyguard)
with-joygreat 1PL.EXCL.NOM NO PRES.AT.greet 2S.ACC‘It is with great joy that we greet you.’b.*Arakaraka ny iasanao
Rabe no mahazo
vola (+Bodyguard)
prop.toDET work.CT.2S.GEN Rabe NO AT.receive money‘The more you work the more Rabe receives money.’
We should note that the Bodyguard construction might seem unnatural – it looks
as though the active subject and an oblique are simultaneously fronted. But it isin fact quite widely used. The following (partial) paradigm is boringly natural:(45) a. Mipetraka aiza izy?
PRES.AT.live where 3NOM
‘Where does he live?’c. Aiza izy no mipetraka?
where 3NOM NO PRES.AT.live‘Where does he live?’

b. Aiza no mipetraka izy?
where NO AT.live 3NOM
‘Where does he live?’
d. Aiza no ipetrahany?
where NO PRES.live.CT.3GEN‘Where does he live?’

123

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
So if the initial scalar [arakaraka [ny P1CT]] in a CC is a mere PP (44b) should
be grammatical, parallel to (44a). But it isn’t. We conclude then that CCs are notsimply clefts with a focused PP. Rather arakaraka and no form a syntactic andsemantic unit, which retains properties of the preposition and focus particle it isformed from.
Sources[Ang] Contes des Aieux Malgaches (Anganon’ny Ntaolo “Tales of theAncestors”) 1992 (1904). Collected and edited by Lars Dahle; then John
Sims. Bilingual edition translated by D. Dorian and L. Molet. Institut desLangues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris.
[JR] Jedele, Thomas and Lucien E. Randrianarivelo. 1998. Malagasy
Newspaper Reader. Dunwoody Press. Kensington, Maryland. October
1992-November 1995.
[Bleu] Ravololomanga, Bodo. 1996. Le Lac Bleu et autres contes deMadagascar. L’Harmattan.
[Etsy] Razanadrakoto, Lucien. 1988. Etsy Ho Ahy Ny Tananao A.C.E.
Tananarivo.
[IKM] Rajohanesa, P. 1963. Ilay Kintana Mamirapiratra. Imprimerie
Luthérienne. Tananarive.
[IS]
Isambilo T-4. 1990. Rajemisa-Raolison, Régis and Lala
Rakotoson-Raolisoa. Ambozontany,[Raki]
Rakibolana. 1985. Rajemisa-Raolison, Régis. Ambozontany,
Fianarantsoa[RR]
Rajemisa Raolison, Régis. 1971. Grammaire MalgacheAmbozontany, Fianarantsoa.
[Tak]
Siméon Rajaona (ed). 1972. Takelaka Notsongaina II: Lahatsoratra
Tsotra (Selected Pages II: Basic Writings). Ambozontany,
Fianarantsoa.
[T-4]
1989.
Fanazarana
Hitenysy
Fanabeazam-boho
T-4.
Ranaivomanana, Raymond. FOFIPA Antananarivo.
References
Beck, Sigrid. 1997. On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics
and Philosophy 20:229- 271.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2008. Comments on ‘Comparative Correlatives in Greek: The
syntax of oso’. The Proceedings of the 2007 MIT Greek
Syntax-Semantics Workshop.
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Uniqueness effects in correlatives. A. Grønn (ed.),Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12:47–65. ILOS, Oslo.

124

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Culicover, Peter and Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The
English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30.4:543–571.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2005. Comparative correlatives comparatively. Linguistic
Inquiry 36.4:497–532.
Dez, Jacques. 1980. Structures de la Langue Malgache. POF 2 rue de Lille,
75007 Paris.
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2009. On the prospects of a clause combining approach
to “focusing” no-constructions in Malagasy. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 27:789–816.
Hsiao, Su-Ying. 2003. On proportional correlative constructions in Chinese andMongolian. Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature 1.1:243–
272.
Kalin, Laura. 2009. News about the no-phrase: Specificational pseudoclefts in
Malagasy. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the AustronesianFormal Linguistics Association (AFLA 16), eds. Sandra Chung, Daniel
Finer, Ileana Paul and Eric Potsdam, 61-75.
Keenan, Edward L. 1972. Relative clause formation in Malagasy (and somerelated and some not so related languages). The Chicago Witch Hunt.
169–189.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. Subject and Topic,
ed. Charles N. Li, 247-301. New York: Academic Press.
Keenan, Edward L. 1987. “Multiply-Headed NPs Linguistic Inquiry
18.3:481-90.
Keenan, Edward L. 1992. Beyond the Frege Boundary. Linguistics andPhilosophy 15:199-221.
Keenan, Edward L. 2006. Quantification in Malagasy. Quantification: A
Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. Lisa Matthewson, 319-352. Bingley,
UK: Emerald.
Keenan, Edward L. 2008. The definiteness of subjects and objects in Malagasy.
Case and Grammatical Relations, eds. Greville G. Corbett and Michael
Noonan, 241-261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Keenan, Edward L. and Edward P. Stabler. 2003. Bare grammar: Lectures on
linguistic invariants. CSLI, Stanford Ca.
Koopman, Hilda. 2005. Malagasy imperatives. Proceedings of the 12th Annual
Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA XII)(UCLA WPL): 141–160.
Larson, Richard. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 3:217–264.
Law, Paul. 2007. The syntactic structure of the cleft construction in Malagasy.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:765–823.
Leung, Tommi Tsz-Cheung. 2005. Typology and universals of comparative
correlatives. Paper presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology
6th Biennial Meeting (ALT VI). Pedang, Indonesia.
125

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
McCawley, James. 1988. The comparative conditional construction in English,
German and Chinese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14, 176-189.
Berkeley Lingusitics Society, Berkeley, Ca.
Ntelitheos, Dimitrios. 2012. Deriving nominals: A syntactic account ofMalagasy nominalizations. Leiden: Brill.
Paul, Ileana. 2001. Concealed pseudo-clefts. Lingua 111:707-727.
Paul, Ileana. 2008. On the topic of pseudo-clefts. Syntax 11.1:91-124.
Pearson, Matthew. 2009. Another look at no: Pseudo-clefts and temporal clauses
in Malagasy. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the AustronesianFormal Linguistics Association (AFLA 16), eds. Sandra Chung, Daniel
Finer, Ileana Paul and Eric Potsdam, 165-179.
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the Clausal
Typing Hypothesis. Lingua 116:2154-2182.
Potsdam, Eric & Maria Polinsky. 2014. Control into nominalized clauses in
Malagasy. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of theAustronesian Formal Lingusitics Association (AFLA 21). Honolulu, HI.
Raharinirina-Rabaovolona, Lucie. 1991. Lexique-Grammaire des Composés duMalgache: Les Adverbes de Temps. Thèse de doctorat. Université Paris
7.
Rajaona, Siméon. 1972. Structure du Malgache (Etude des formes prédicatives)
Ambozontany, Fianarantsoa. 206-210.
Randriamasimanana, Charles. 2007. Malagasy control structures. Concentric:
Studies in Linguistics 33.2:91-120.
Schwarzchild, Roger. 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of nounphrases. Syntax 9:67–110.
Smith, E. Allyn. 2010. Correlational comparison in English. Doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Zhang, Niina. 2009. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

126

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF AMIS EXPERIENCER
VERBS: ANOTHER LOOK AT THE MA- MORPHOLOGY*
Jonathan Kuo
University  of  Hawai‘i  at  Mānoa  /  Academia  Sinica
kuocc@hawaii.edu
This paper investigates the argument structure of Amis Experiencer verbs andidentifies an additional function of ma-, which has not been discussed in theliterature. Adopting the predicate decomposition approach, I categorize Amis
Experiencer verbs into two types: a) internally caused psych verbs, which
employ ma- as vBe and mi- as vDo, and b) externally caused psych verbs,
which involve mi- as vCause and ma- as   “anticausative”.   By proposing thedistinctness of VoiceP and vP functional projections, I further show that theabsolutive case assignment of these experiencer verbs is not at all arbitrary.
The discovery of the anticausative function of ma- in Amis may serve as a
crucial link between the stative function and the eventive function. In allthese different type of verbs, ma- invariably licenses the vP-internalarguments. This suggests the possibility of the development of ma- fromstative to eventive, with the transition of anticausative.

1.

Introduction

The Philippine-type voice morphology has recently been treated as markers of
intransitivity/transitivity (ITR/TR): Actor Voice (AV) indicates (syntactic)
intransitivity whereas Undergoer Voice (UV) marks transitivity (Aldridge 2004,
Ross & Teng 2005, Chang 2011, inter alia). This is shown in the Amis example(1), where AV/ITR mi- licenses  the  Actor  ‘person’  and  UV/TR -en licenses theUndergoer  ‘pig’ as the absolutive argument.1(1) a. mi-adup
k-u-ra
ITR-hunt
ABS-CN-that‘That person hunts  pigs.’

tamdaw t-u
fafuy
person OBL-CN pig*

I would like to thank the native speaker consultants, Ofad, Lisin, and Talud. Special thanks to
Yuko Otsuka, Shinichiro Fukuda, Elizabeth Zeitoun, and Stacy Teng for their valuablecomments.
1
List of abbreviations: 1/2/3SG: 1/2/3 person singular, 1/2/3PE/I: 1/2/3 person plural
exclusive/inclusive, ABS: Absolutive, ACAUS: anticausative, CAUS: causative, CN: common
noun marker, ERG: ergative, GEN: genitive, IRR: irrealis, ITR: intransitive, OBL: oblique, TR:transitive, PPN: Personal proper noun.

127

The Proceedings of AFLA 21b.

adup-en n-u-ra
tamdaw k-u
hunt-TR ERG-CN-that person ABS-CN‘That person hunted the pig.’

fafuy
pig

Unlike mi- or -en, which has a particular voice function, ma- in Amis has beenfound to have different voice  “possibilities”,  depending  on  the  root  it  attaches
to:(2) a. ma-fanaqcisawmah t-u-ra
ITR-know
PPN
sawmah OBL-CN-that‘Sawmah  knows  that  child.’
b. ma-palu
ni sawmah k-u-ra
TR-beat
ERG sawmah ABS-CN-that‘Sawmah beat that  child.’

wawa2
child

wawa
child

Instead of identifying two homophonous ma-’s, Wu (2007a) takes a polysemy
view and analyzes ma- as AV and UV, respectively. This paper identifies anadditional grammatical function of ma-, namely anticausative, found in aparticular   type   of   Amis   Experiencer   verbs   (e.g.   ‘annoy’).   For the sake of
convenience, the rationale of the analysis is provided here, to be justified
carefully in later sections.
(3)

The causative alternation (modified based on Schäfer 2008:9)
a. agent/causerSUB Vtr undergoer/theme e.g. John broke the window.
b. undergoerSUB
Vintr
e.g. The window broke.

(4)

Amis mi-/ma- argument alternations
a. mi-’esam
k-u-ralalangaw (t-utamdaw)
CAUS-annoy ABS-CN-that
fly
OBL-CN person‘The  fly  is  annoying  (people).’b. ma-’esam
k-u-ratamdaw (t-u-ra
ACAUS-annoy
ABS-CN-that
person OBL-CN-that‘That  person  is  annoyed  (with  that  fly).’lalangaw)fly(3) demonstrates how verbs expressing a change of state can participate in theso-called causative alternation, used either as a transitive/causative verb or an
intransitive/anticausative verb. In the transitive variant, the initiator of the event
2

Unlike common nouns, personal proper nouns in Amis do not carry overt absolutive marker
such as k-. The PPN alone implies the absolutive marking (e.g. ci sawmah), while the additionof the suffix -an indicates the oblique marking (e.g. ci sawmah-an).

128

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(i.e. agent/causer) surfaces as the subject. In the intransitive variant, thisparticipant is missing, and the undergoer surfaces as the subject. (4) provides aparallel case of Amis, in which mi- licenses the initiator of an emotion, and maaffixation licenses the undergoer of   the   emotion   by   “detransitivizing”   the  two-place pysch(ological) predicate   ‘annoy’.   The   anticausative analysis
provided in (4) is based on a careful investigation on the derivational propertiesof Amis voice markers mi- and ma-, to be revealed in Section 4.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the dichotomyof Amis Experiencer verbs established in Wu (2007b), and discusses thechallenges these verbs bring to the analysis of voice markers, especially ma-.
Section 3 reviews a decomposition approach to Experiencer verbs based on thecontrast of “internally and externally caused eventualities” (Levin & Rappaport
Hovav 1995). In Section 4, I provide a minimalist analysis of Amis Experiencer
verbs, thereby identifying the functions of mi- and ma- in terms of the flavor ofv (Harley 2009). Adopting Alexiadou et al. (2006), I argue for the case of
anticausative ma- in Amis Undergoer-Experiencer class. Section 5 provides a
discussion regarding how the presence of anticausative ma- may serve as anintermediate stage between its original “AV” and innovative UV usage. 3
Section 6 concludes.
2.

ActorExp vs. UndergoerExp verbs in Amis: An unsolved puzzle

The study of psych(ological) verbs has proven insightful to the theory ofargument structure. One of the significant findings is the distinction between
Subject Exp(eriencer) verbs and Object Exp verbs, as shown in the following
English examples.
(5)

SubjExp vs. ObjExp verbs in English
a. [Indiana Jones]Exp feared [the snakes]Target.
b. [The snakes]Causer frightened [Indiana Jones]Exp.

Various approaches have been applied to the dichotomy of Exp verbs (e.g.
Belletti & Rizzi 1988, Dowty 1991, Grimshaw 1990, Landau 2010, Pesetsky
1995). Among others, Pesetsky (1995) carefully examines the truth conditionsof sentence pairs with their SubjExp/ObjExp verbs denoting the same emotion(e.g. fear in 5). He concludes that these two types of verbs have distinct
argument structures and involves different thematic roles (see also Levin &Grafmiller 2013).
Wu (2007b) proposes a similar dichotomy of Experiencer verbs in Amis
based on their argument structures, semantic interpretations, and derivation
3

Later  in  this  study,  I  will  show  that  “AV”  is  not  an  adequate term to characterize theproperties of ma-.

129

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
constraints, as briefly summarized below.

ActorExp
class

Table 1. Psych verbs in Amisma-√  examples
The reading of
pa-ka-√ √-enmi-√  counterparts
ma-ulah ‘like’,  ma-talaw purposive/motional Yes
Yes‘fear’,  ma-inal ‘envy’,  ma-ngudu ‘respect’…

UndergoerExp ma-esam ‘annoyed’,
class
ma-lanang ‘annoyed (bysound)’

Causative

No

No

Based on the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), Wu (2007b) uses the terms
Actor-Experiencer and Undergoer-Experiencer verbs for the dichotomy inAmis. She discovers that while all emotion-denoting roots (e.g. talaw‘fear’,  ’esam ‘annoy’)  allow mi- and ma- voice morphology, the interpretationof mi- marked verbs differs.4(6)

Amis ActorExp vs UndergoerExp verbs: semantic motivation
a. mi-ulah ci sawmah t-u-ra
wawa
ITR-like PPN sawmah OBL-CN-that child‘Sawmah (will) like that child  purposefully.’(“purposive/motional”  reading)b. mi-’esam
k-u-ralalangaw (t-utamdaw)
ITR-annoy
ABS-CN-that
fly
OBL-CN person‘That  fly  is  annoying  (people).’(“causative”  reading)Supporting evidence for this dichotomy also comes from the observation that
only one type of roots allows certain affixations (e.g. pa-ka- causative and -enTR). Here I only address the semantic motivation. As shown in (6), Wu
observes that with the same mi- voice marking, only certain Exp verbs (e.g.
mi-ulah) describe emotions carried out by the experiencer purposefully. For
other mi- marked Exp verbs (e.g. mi-’esam), the experiencer is notintentional—there is an overt causer responsible for the emotion.
4

In her RRG analysis, Wu chooses AV/UV for voice markers and NOM/GEN/DAT for thecase of arguments (and adjuncts). For the sake of consistency, the glossing of the Amis
examples cited from other works (e.g. Wu 2006, 2007a, 2007b and Tsukida 2008) will be
adjusted accordingly.

130

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Wu’s   observation   on   Amis   ActorExp/UndegoerExp verbs is compatible
with the findings about SubjExp/ObjExp verbs in the literature. This is especiallyclear when Pesetsky’s  (1995)  thematic  labels are adopted, as shown below.
(7)

Amis ActorExp vs UndergoerExp verbs: argument structurea. mi-marked ActorExp verbs:<Exp, Target>(e.g. 6a)b. mi-marked UndergoerExp verbs: <Causer, Exp>(e.g. 6b)(7) justifies   Wu’s terminology for the dichotomy: a) ActorExp verbs, which
select Exp as the external argument, and b) UndergoerExp verbs, which selectExp as the internal argument. Wu further argues that ActorExp class denotes
internally motivated psych states and UndergoerExp class denotes externallytriggered psych states.
While   Wu’s   arguments   for   the   ActorExp/UnergoerforExp division are
valid, information about the argument structure of ma- marked Exp verbs is
incomplete in her study. Here, I continue this line of research by presenting thefollowing sentences and demonstrating a puzzle regarding the function of mavoice morphology.
(8)

The function of ma- in Amis ActorExp/UndergoerExp verbs
a. ma-ulah ci sawmah t-u-ra
wawa
ITR-like PPN sawmah OBL-CN-that child‘Sawmah  likes  that  child.’
b. ma-’esam k-u-ra
tamdaw (t-u-ra
ITR-annoy
ABS-CN-that
person OBL-CN-that‘That  person  is  annoyed  (with  that  fly).’lalangaw)
fly

The argument structure of ma- marked Exp verbs is interesting. At first glance,
it provides a false impression that there is no distinction between the previously
established ActorExp/UnergoerforExp dichotomy, as both verbs in (8a-b) choose
the experiencer as the absolutive argument. With respect to syntactic transitivity,
ma- in both sentences should be glossed as ITR, as suggested by the casemarking pattern (i.e. no ergative). However, ma- in (8b) is questionable withrespect to its thematic (or macrorole) features. As discussed previously,
UndergoerExp class denotes externally triggered psych states and selects theexperiencer as the internal argument. In (8b), ma- cannot be analyzed as AV,
because it licenses the undergoer experiencer as the absolutive argument; itcannot be treated as a typical UV (or TR) either, because there is no ergativeargument (cf. 1b). The argument structure of Amis Exp verbs such as (8b) thus
suggests a third function of ma- other than AV and UV. In the following
sections, I make the case for this particular ma- as the anticausative marker.

131

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
3. Internally-caused vs. externally-caused eventualities
This section introduces a predicate decomposition approach to the
SubjExp/ObjExp dichotomy. The semantic motivation for the dichotomy ismainly based on the distinction of internally caused and externally caused
psych states. For the sake of presentation, let me begin with the semantics of
causative/inchoative alternation of dynamic verbs. Consider the following
examples.
(9)

The causative/inchoative alternation in English: broke, open, melt…
a. transitive/causative:e.g. John broke the window.
b. intransitive/inchoative: e.g. The window broke.

(10)

Verbs without causative/inchoative alternation in English: laugh, play,speak…
a. transitive:e.g. *The teacher laughed the child(intended  for  ‘The  teacher  made  the  child  laugh.’)b. intransitive:e.g. The child laughed.

The examples above demonstrate two verb classes in terms of their
participation in the causative/inchoative alternation. Levin & Rappaport Hovav(1995) argue that non-alternating intransitive verbs (e.g. laugh) describe“internally-caused”  eventualities,  as  “some  property  inherent  to  the  argument  of  the  verb  is  “responsible”  for  bringing  about  the  eventuality”  (p.  91).  Externallycaused verbs (e.g. break),   on   the   other   hand,   “imply   the   existence   of   an  “external   cause”   with   immediate   control   over   bringing   about   the   eventuality  described   by   the   verb”   (p.   92).   The difference between non-alternating andalternating verbs can be captured by means of predicate decomposition, as
shown below.
(11)

Lexical semantic representation of non-alternating verb laugh (e.g. 10)
laugh: [x ACT <laugh>](intransitive)(12)

Lexical semantic representation of alternating verb break (e.g. 9)
a. break: [x CAUSE [BECOME [ y <broken>]]](transitive/causative)b. break: [BECOME [y <broken>]](intransitive/inchoative)

The event structure templates above are based on Rappaport Hovav & Levin’s  (1998) framework. The primitive predicates such as ACT, CAUSE, or
BECOME, correspond to the generally acknowledged event types. The
constant (e.g. <laugh>, <broken>) hosts the idiosyncratic meaning of a verb.
The x and y variables represent arguments linked to the primitives. Consider
the difference between the primitives associated with the initiator (i.e. x) ofinternally/externally-caused eventualities, i.e. ACT and CAUSE. The label ACT
132

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
indicates that x itself is responsible for bringing about the eventuality. In (12a),
CAUSE is used to show that x and y participate in different subevents: theresultant state of y (i.e. BECOME) is triggered/caused by an external
component x.
The predicate decomposition approach is useful in many facets. The
theoretical constructs such as primitives, constants, and variables help establish
verb classes in a systematic fashion. In addition, the semantic templates asshown in (12) represent distinct argument structures, and thus disambiguate theverbs especially in languages using the same form for both variants (e.g. break(tr.) and break (intr.)). In the next section, I show how this predicate
decomposition approach can be applied to morphologically complex Amisverbs.
This section ends with extending the predicate decomposition approachto psych verbs. It has been argued that FEAR verbs and FRIGHTEN verbs
contrast in a similar way as (11) and (12) do (DiDesidero 1999). They aresummarized below.5(13)

Lexical semantic representation of SubjExp verbs: fear, hate, dread…
fear: [x <fear> y]6(14)

Lexical semantic representation of ObjExp verbs: frighten, amaze,
confuse…
a. frighten: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y <frightened>]]] (transitive/causative)b. frightened: [BECOME [y <frightened>]](intransitive/inchoative)

The lexical representations of SubjExp/ObjExp verbs as shown in (13) and (14)are well-motivated: the former denote self-initiated psych states (e.g. fear) andthe latter denote externally-triggered psych states (e.g. frighten). The difference
between SubjExp and ObjExp verbs in terms of their event structures is also
reflected by their participation in middle construction. The following examples
are taken from Hale & Keyser (2002:37‒38).

5

DiDesidero (1999) in fact proposes subcategories within Sub Exp and ObjExp. For the purposeof this study, I introduce only one of the semantic representations for each class of Exp verbs.
6Here, I address some differences between (11) and (13) which do not influence the analogy,
including the presence of ACT in (11), and the involvement of a second participant in (13). In(11),  ACT  is  required  to  indicate  the  dynamicity  of  the  event.  For  stative  verbs  such  as  ‘fear’,  it  is thus not required.  In  (13),  the  presence  of  y  suggests  the  bivalent  nature  of  ‘fear’.  Note  that  this is not always the case for psych predicates (e.g. angry, happy). Furthermore, it is observedthat all SubExp verbs, regardless of their valency, do not allow inchoative/causative alternation.
Thus the semantic templates for non-alternating/alternating dynamic verbs can still be extended
to Experiencer verbs.

133

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(15)

The middle voice of SubjExp verbs: ungrammaticala. *John’s  talent envies easily. (cf. Everyone envies John’s  talent.)
b. *French films love easily. (cf. My kids love French films.)(16)

The middle voice of ObjExp verbs: grammaticala. Politicians anger easily. (cf. The truth angers politicians.)b. I worry easily.
(cf. Economic downturns worry me.)As shown in (16), middle voice “detransitivizes” the verb, making the internalargument the subject of the sentence, and the agent (or causer) implicit. The
ability for ObjExp verb class to undergo such a syntactic process is crucial to thisstudy. In the next section, I demonstrate how Amis UndergoerExp verbs get
detransitivized by means of the anticausative ma- marker.
4.

The argument structure of Amis Exp verbs: a minimalist analysis

This section explores the argument structure of Amis Experiencer verbs. I adopt
the minimalist framework, as it assumes a delicate division of labor between
the components of verbal predicates, and proposes structural correlations
between thematic roles and their hierarchical positions in relation to thesyntactic heads (Harley 2010, 2012). Section 4.1 begins with some theoreticalassumptions adopted for the basic morphosyntax of Amis. The function of miand ma- in verbs that are not emotion-denoting will be identified first in termsof the flavors of v (Harley 2009). The investigation of ActorExp/UndergoerExp
verbs is conducted in Section 4.2. It will be shown that the so-called voice
markers (e.g. mi-/ma-) provide different verbalizing functions based on thesemantic characteristics of the root (i.e. internally caused/externally caused).
Inspired by Alexiadou et al. (2006), I argue that ma- in UndergoerExp verbs isbest  analyzed  as  anticausative,  or  more  precisely,  “anticausative-II”  in  terms  of  Schäfer’s  (2008)  typology.  
4.1

Theoretical Assumptions

The idea that VP consists of at least two projections have been commonly
accepted by Chomskyan linguists. Building on the work on Marantz (1984,1997)   and   Kratzer   (1996),   the   traditional   “VP”   came   to   be   understood   as   a  cover term for a functional projection, vP (or VoiceP), where externalarguments   are   introduced,   and   a   lexical   VP   or   √P,   which   introduces   selected  internal arguments (Harley 2013a). Inspired by Pylkkänen (2002:122–25),
some scholars propose a further division of this functional projection, assummarized below.

134

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(17) The distinctness of Voice and v (based on Harley 2013b)
Functions of Voice:→ External argument introduction→ Check a structural case on
an internal argument

VoiceP

Agent

Voice’

Voice

Functions of v:v→ Verbalize  √→ Causing/initiating subevent
introduction

vP

√/VP

(Arg1)√’√(Arg2)

Pylkkänen (2002, 2008)   proposes   a   “bundling   parameter”   to   account   for   the  fact that some languages unify all the functions above in a single projection,and others project VoiceP and vP independently. This study embraces thedistinctness of Voice and v in Amis for theoretical and empirical reasons.
Theoretically, the separation of Voice and v is motivated from Schäfer’s  (2008)  typology of anticausatives. Empirically speaking, Voice and v represent the
inflectional and derivational properties of Philippine-type voice markers,
respectively.
For the transitive and intransitive clauses in Amis, I follow Aldridge’s(2004, 2012) ergative approach, with slight modification according to thepreviously mentioned tripartite structure: VoiceP-vP-√.   The   following  demonstrates the structure of an intransitive sentence such as (1a).
(18)

The structure of Amis intransitives
a. mi-adupk-utamdaw t-u
fafuy
ITR-hunt
ABS-CN person
OBL-CN pig‘The  person  hunts  pigs.’((1a))

135

The Proceedings of AFLA 21b.

TP
VoiceP

V+v+Voice+T[Abs]‘DP[Abs]t√+v+Voice

Voice’
vP

‘

√P

t√+v
t√

DP[Obl]For the interest of this study, I focus on how absolutive case feature is checked
in intransitive clauses (including antipassives). Aldridge (2012) argues that in
v-Type ergative languages such as Tagalog, TFin optionally carries an absolutive
case feature. The feature will only be checked when there is a DP with anunvalued case feature in its c-command domain (p. 6). In (18), the intransitive
Voice does not have a case feature, and T must value absolutive case. Since theexternal   argument   is   the   first   DP   in   T’s c-command domain, this is the DP
which will receive absolutive case.
In previous examples, I gloss Amis voice markers as TR/ITR tohighlight the puzzle regarding the inflectional properties of ma-. Here, with theassumed three-layered predicate structure, I focus on the derivational(verbalizing) properties of voice marking. Harley (2009) characterizes different
types of v in terms of feature clusters like [±dynamic], [±change of state], and[±cause], as shown below.
(19)

The flavors of v: (Harley 2009)
a. vCause: [+dynamic], [+change of state], [+cause]b. vBecome: [+dynamic], [+change of state], [-cause]c. vDo: [+dynamic], [-change of state], [-cause]d. vBe: [-dynamic], [-change of state], [-cause]

In Section 3, I refer to Rappaport Hovav & Levin’s  lexical semantic templates
for the distinction between internally and externally caused eventualities. The
idea of primitive predicates is well-preserved in   Harley’s model (i.e. vCause =CAUSE, vBecome = BECOME, vDo = ACT, and vBe = STATE). The derivational
properties   of   Amis   voice   markers   have   been   discussed   in   Wu’s   (2007a)   RRG  analysis. The following is a summary of the verbalizing functions of mi- andma-, with alternative glossing (cf. TR/ITR in prevous examples) to highlighttheir distinct functions.
136

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(20)

The functions of mi- verbalizer
a. mi-adupk-utamdaw t-u
fafuy
DO-hunt
ABS-CN person
OBL-CN pig‘The  person  hunts  pigs.’
b. mi-tuniq7 k-u
kuwaq t-uti’ti’
CAUS-soft ABS-CN papaya OBL-CN meat
‘The papaya will tenderize meat.’ (Wu 2006:171)(21)

The functions of ma- verbalizer
a. ma-adupn-utamdaw k-u
DO-hunt
ERG-CN person
ABS-CN‘The  person  hunted  the  pig.’b. ma-su’su’ k-u-ra
BE-fat
ABS-CN-that‘That  child  is  fat.’

fafuy
pig

wawa
child

c. ma-patayk-uwacu
BECOME-dead
ABS-CN dog‘His  dog  is/becomes  dead.’nira
3SG.GEN(20) and (21) suggest that the functions of mi- or ma- differ according to the7

The identification of mi- as ‘CAUSE’   may   seem   less   convincing to those possessing theknowledge about the causative marker pa- (or its equivalent) in the Austronesian language
family. While pa- is commonly observed in Amis causative constructions, I argue that thedifference between mi- and pa- is lexically and syntactically driven. The usage of mi- as
CAUSE, to my knowledge, is only restricted to state-denoting  roots  (e.g.  ‘soft’  in  (20),  ‘annoy’  in Section 4.2.2). The general causative marker pa-, on the other hand, applies to both the rootlevel and the verb level. The following examples show the ability of pa- to add another externalargument (i.e. causer) to the event denoted by the root (pi- and ka- can be considered as aphonological output of the features of v combined with [-infinitive]).
(i) The productivity of Amis causative marker paa. pa-nanum
cingraci
aki-ant-u-rasayta (cf. nanum ‘water’)CAUS-water
3SG.ABSPPN Aki-OBL
OBL-CN-that soda
‘He  gave  Aki  that  soda  (to  drink).’ (Wu 2006:301)
b. pa-pi-nanum
ci
ina
ci
mama-an (cf. mi-nanum ‘drink  (water).’)CAUS-PI-water
PPN mother
PPN father-OBL‘Mother  asked  Father  to  drink  water.’ (Wu 2006:264)
c. pa-ka-rorayci
aki kitanan(cf. ma-roray ‘get  tired’)
CAUS-KA-tired
PPN Aki 1PI.OBL‘Aki  made  us  tired.’ (Wu 2006:268)

137

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
root it attaches to. This motivates a careful identification of the root types. For
example, mi- is used for a self-initiating  ‘hunting’  event  (e.g.  DO  in  20a),  or  it  can also derive a change-of-state verb when attached to a state root (e.g.
CAUSE in 20b). The usage of ma- is wider: it can occur in a self-initiating
event (e.g. DO in 21a), in stative verb (e.g. BE in 21b), or in a change-of-stateverb (e.g. BECOME in 21c).
The discussion of mi- and ma- here excludes the case of psych verbs
deliberately. In the following subsection, I show how these verbalizers
contribute to the formation of Amis Exp verbs. Furthermore, I explain why main externally caused psych verbs is best analyzed as anticausative, based on thecase pattern and argument structure.
4.2

The argument structure of Amis Exp verbs

This section presents the syntactic structures of two types of Amis Exp verbs.
Hereafter the terminology “ActorExp/UndergoerExp”  verbs  will  be  replaced  withinternally caused/externally caused psych verbs. This is based on the concernthat the so-called experiencer of the former class may have two possible
structural positions under the tripartite analysis (see Section 4.2.1); thus the“Actor”  label is not ideal, as it does not fully address the structural correlations
between thematic roles and their hierarchical positions in internally caused
psych verbs.
4.2.1

Internally caused psych verbs

In Section 4.1, I have addressed the importance of identifying root categories,
as they correlate with the functions of the verbalizers (i.e. voice markers).
Along this line, I argue that the semantic distinction between internally caused
and externally caused eventualities in Amis exists at the root level. Forinternally   caused   psych   states   such   as   ‘like’,   the   emotion   is   motivated   by theexperiencer.   Consider   below   for   a   typical   usage   of   ‘like’   and   its   syntactic  representation.
(22)

138

ma- marked internally caused psych verbs  (e.g.  ‘like’)
a. ma-ulahci sawmah t-u-rawawa((8a))
BE-like
PPN Sawmah OBL-CN-that child‘Sawmah  likes  that  child.’

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b.
TP

T

vP

ma-ulahv’DP[Abs]ci sawmah
vBe

√P

(ma-)
√

(ulah)DP[Obl]]tura wawa

As mentioned earlier, the experiencer of self-motivated emotions such  as  ‘like’  serves   as   the   “external argument”.   I argue that this experiencer is located in[Spec, vBe] as the state-holder (Ramchand 2008, Rothmayr 2009). The Voiceprojection is absent in (22), as there is no involvement of the agent or causer.
The experiencer is assigned absolutive case as  it  is   the  highest   DP  within  T’s  c-command domain.
As far as frequency and interpretation are concerned, ma- affixedinternally   caused   psych   verbs   are   “unmarked”,   as   opposed   to   their   micounterparts―native speakers only acknowledge the usage of these mi- verbs
in special contexts. Following Didesidero (1999:168–69), I argue that somestate-denoting roots also allow for the activity event structure (e.g. [x <LOVE>y]) vs. [x ACT<LOVE> y]). (23b) shows the syntactic representation of mi-ulah,
with its “motional/purposive”  interpretation implied by vDo.
(23)

mi- marked  internally  psych  verbs  (e.g.  ‘like  (purposefully)’)a. mi-ulahci sawmah t-u-rawawa((6a))
DO-like
PPN Sawmah OBL-CN-that child‘Sawmah  (will)  like  that  child  purposefully.’  139The Proceedings of AFLA 21b.

TP

VoicePT

mi-ulah

Voice’DP[Abs]ci sawmah
vP

Voice

Ø
vDo

√P

(mi-)
√

(ulah)DP[Obl]tura wawa

In (23b), the attachment of vDo turns a state of emotion into an event. According
to the distinctness of v and Voice (e.g. 17), v is responsible for the semantics ofthe event, but not for the introduction of its external argument. The Voiceprojection is thus required to license the Actor/Agent of  ‘liking’  in its specifier
position.8 This external argument as the highest DP gets the absolutive case.
4.2.2

Externally caused psych verbs

As mentioned in Section 3, externally caused eventualities presuppose theexistence of an external causer and a theme undergoing a change of state. I
therefore propose the structure of mi-’esam ‘annoy’   as   follows. In (24b), thechange-of-state root ’esam merges with vCause mi-, denoting the externallycaused  psych  state  ‘annoy’.  The  experiencer  undergoing  the  change  of  state  is  introduced as the complement of √P.  T’s  absolutive  case  feature  is  checked  with  the causer in [Spec, Voice].
(24)

8

mi- marked externally caused psych verbs (e.g.  ‘annoy’)a. mi-’esam
k-u-ralalangaw (t-utamdaw)
CAUS-annoy
ABS-CN-that
fly
OBL-CN person‘That  fly  is  annoying  (people).’Some may question our treatment of mi- and ma- as pure verbalizers and the Voice head as
zero. Alternatively, voice markers can represent the phonological realizations of the
combined features of v and Voice (i.e. lexical insertion). For the sake of exposition, I enforce
the separation of v and Voice in this study to pinpoint the function and hierarchical positionof ma- in externally caused psych verbs.

140

The Proceedings of AFLA 21b.

TP

VoicePT

mi-’esam

Voice’DP[Abs]kura lalangaw
vP

Voice

Ø
VCause

√P

(mi-)

√

(’esam)DP[Obl]tu tamdaw

Finally I deal with ma- marked externally caused psych verbs, where
absolutive case is found on the experiencer internal argument. Inspired byAlexiadou et al. (2006), I propose the anticausative analysis, as shown in (25b).
(25)ma- marked externally caused  psych  verbs  (e.g.  ‘annoyed’)
a. ma-’esam
k-u-ratamdaw (t-u-ralalangaw)
ACAUS-annoy
ABS-CN-that
person OBL-CN-that fly‘That  person  is  annoyed  (with  that  fly).’b.
TP

VoicePT
ma-’esam

vP

Voice

(ma-)
vP

VCause

PP

√P

(mi-)

P

Ø

√

DP[Abs](’esam)kura tamdaw

DP[Obl]]tura lalangaw

Embracing the semantics of externally caused eventualities, I argue that vCause
141

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
always play a role in the formation of verbs of this type. Therefore, ma-’esam isformed by attachment of mi- to the root in the first place. In addition, I proposea Voice head ma- with neither D-feature nor thematic feature; consequently, thecauser cannot be projected in its specifier position (Schäfer 2008:176).
Alternatively, the causer PP, being thematically licensed by vCause, can be madeexplicit by means of adjunction. The null P is responsible for assigning obliquecase to its complement.9 As a result, the experiencer internal argument is theremaining DP to receive absolutive case.
One challenge for this proposal is the surface form of the predicate,
which clearly shows no trace of vCause mi- (compare 25a and 25b). There aresome possible accounts for the lack of mi- in the real utterance. Theoretically,
when fusion occurs by means of head-to-head movement, some languages
choose to only realize one vocabulary item (Halle and Marantz 1993). This isarguably the case in Amis. Most importantly, the ma-mi-√  template, as a resultof Ca reduplication, has become a strategy applied across mi-√ verbs for theirrealis mood. This makes the same template impossible for anticausative case(e.g. 25). Consider the sentences below.
(26)

Irrealis mood by means of Ca reduplication in Amisa. ma-mi-nanum kaku,
mi-tapadang kisu
(Wu 2006:126)
IRR-DO-water
1SG.ABS DO-call
2SG.ABS‘When  I  was  about  to  drink  water,  you  called  me.  (So  I  didn’t  drink)  b. ma-mi-’esam
k-u-ratamdaw takuwanan,
IRR-CAUS-annoy ABS-CN-that
person 1SG.OBL
mi-laliw
kaku
DO-leave
1SG.ABS‘That person is about to annoy me, (so) I am leaving.’(not  ‘That  person  is  annoyed  with  me,  (so)  I  am  leaving.’)

Before ending this section, I introduce an alternative analysis involving asimpler structure and explain why it should not be accepted. In his
cross-linguistic examination, Schäfer (2008) identifies three possible structures
for anticausatives, as summarized below.
(27)

9

The structures of anticausatives across languages (Schäfer 2008:176)a. anticausative-I:[Expl. [Voice{D, Ø} [v [Root]]]]b. anticausative-II:[Voice{Ø} [v [Root]]]c. anticausative-III:[v [Root]]

The treatment of null P is based on the observation that all adjuncts in Amis, except
location-like participants, are introduced to the sentences without overt prepositions.
Location-like adjuncts are introduced by the preposition i instead.

142

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
The simplest structure possible for anticausatives is the lack of Voice projection
for the predicate (e.g. 27c). The other two structures involve Voice withdifferent features. Previously, I have propose the presence of Voice for Amis
ma- marked externally caused psych verbs. As there is no expletive in Amis,these verbs naturally belong to anticausative-II (e.g. 27b). However, it is
tempting to analyze the structure of ma-’esam as a case of anticausative-III,
given the previously identified verbalization functions of ma-, vBecome inparticular. Consider the following representations (with the experiencer
included).
(28)

Two possible analyses for ma-’esam ‘annoyed’a. anticausative-II: [Voice{Ø} (=ma-) [vCause (=mi-) [Root(=‘esam) DPexp]]]
b. anticausative-III: [vBecome (=ma-) [Root (=‘esam) DPexp]

In   light   of   Wu’s   (2007b)   findings   on   the   Exp   verb   dichotomy,   I argue that
anticausative-II is a more convincing analysis than anticausative-III. As briefly
stated in Section 2, one class of psych roots allows pa-ka- and -en affixations,whereas the other does not. This is demonstrated below.
(29) Amis internally/externally caused psych verbs: derivation constraints
a. pa-ka-inal
k-utafulod aku
t-u
tao
CAUS-KA-envious
ABS-CN bag
1SG.GEN OBL-CN others‘My  bad  made  other  people  feel  envious.’ (Wu 2006:219)
a’. *pa-ka-’esam k-u-ralalangaw t-u-ra
CAUS-KA-annoy ABS-CN fly
OBL-CN-that‘That  fly  made  that  person  feel  annoyed.’tamdaw
personb. ngudu-en aku
k-u
matu’asay
respect-DO 1SG.ERG ABS-CN old.man‘I  will  show  respect  to  the  old  people.’  (Wu  2006:223)
b’. *’esam-en aku
k-u
matu’asay
annoy-DO 1SG.ERG ABS-CN old.man‘I  will  annoy  the  old  people.’
The representation of anticausative-II provides nice structural motivations forthe derivation constraints possessed by externally caused psych roots/verbs.
Given that the causer is already thematically licensed by vCause, this predicate
does not allow other verbalizers (e.g. pa- or -en), which repeatedly andredundantly license the initiator (e.g. causer/agent) of the psych state.

143

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
5.

Discussion

This section discusses the implications of the establishment of the anticausative
ma- in Amis. In the introduction section, I have presented an interesting finding
about  this  marker’s  ability to license either the external argument or the internalargument, depending on the verb/root types: the former is typically found in
stative verbs whereas the latter is mostly associated with dynamic verbs. Thishas been exemplified in ma-fanaq ‘BE-know’ and ma-palu ‘DO-hit’ in (2).10 A
reasonable question is whether one should view this as a case of homophony or
polysemy. The identification of anticausative, I argue, supports the polysemy(or multifunction) of ma-, by which I mean that the verbalizer ma-, originallyserving as vBe, gradually developed other functions such as anticausative andUV in Amis.
The stative function of ma- can be traced back to theProto-Austronesian (PAn) level (Blust 2009). Supporting evidence comes fromthe observation that most (if not all) Formosan languages rely on the reflex ofPAn *ma- to form stative verbs. The UV function (or transitive usage) of ma-,on the other hand, is rarely attested in other Formosan languages (except
Kavalan; see Huang & Sung 2008), but identified in some other
Western-Malayo-Polynesian languages outside Taiwan (e.g. Tagalog). Thissuggests that the UV function of ma- is innovative.
To defend the polysemy view, one needs to show that the developmentfrom stative ma- to an undergoer-licensing ma- is motivated rather thanarbitrary. Prior to the discovery of anticausative, such an argument is difficult tomaintain. After all, the ability for the same morpheme to license an externalargument with some roots and an internal argument with others creates theburden of acquisition (De Guzman 1992). However, upon scrutiny, certain
similarity exists in these ma- verbs in terms of the hierarchical position of theabsolutive argument. Based on the tripartite structure of verb phrases, it isobserved that it is always the vP-internal arguments that are assigned absolutive
case. (30a-c) are repeated from (21), and (30d) is repeated from (25a).
(30)

10

The  “P-marking”  characteristic of Amis ma- verbs
a. ABS = complement of √P
ma-adupn-u
tamdaw k-u
fafuy
DO-hunt
ERG-CN person
ABS-CN pig‘The  person  hunted  the  pig.’

Here I focus on the derivational properties of ma- (e.g. vBe and vDo), instead of its
inflectional properties (ITR/TR).

144

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. ABS = specifier of v
ma-su’su’ k-u-ra
BE-fat
ABS-CN-that‘That  child  is  fat.’

wawa
child

c. ABS = specifier of v
ma-patayk-u
wacu
BECOME-dead
ABS-CN dog‘His  dog  is/becomes  dead.’nira
3SG.GEN

d. ABS =  complement  of  √P
ma-’esamk-u-ratamdaw (t-u-ra
ACAUS-annoy
ABS-CN-that
person OBL-CN-that‘That  person  is  annoyed  (with  that  fly).’lalangaw)fly

In light of the typology of semantic alignment (Donohue & Wichmann2008), Tsukida (2008) demonstrates that Amis ma- verbs show features similarto   that   of   ‘P-marked’   verbs.   (p.292) (see also Jiang 2011 for a related
discussion). Along this line, ma- stative verbs can be related with innovative
ma- dynamic verbs: both license vP-internal arguments as absolutive. The idea
about “stative to eventive/UV” becomes more appealing, if one acknowledges
the innovative “anticausative”  ma- as the intermediate stage of the development.
This is likely when we recall the syntactic/semantic representation of
anticausative ma- verbs.  It  contains  a  “change  of  state”  and  a  “causing  event”,  and thus shares properties from two extremes of ma- verbs (i.e. stative andeventive). Furthermore, anticausative verbs preserve the original P-marking
characteristic for selecting the internal argument as the absolutive argument.
So far, the development of ma- from stative to anticausative toeventive/UV is merely my speculation, motivated by the shared grammaticalproperties of these ma- verbs. More research should be done to deal with thequestions regarding how this two-step development may have been triggered.
Before ending this section, I introduce my hypothesis for the development of
ma- from anticausative to eventive/UV—which may be skeptical at first glance,
considering the fact that the former is (syntactically) intransitive and the lattertransitive. I argue that in the case of anticausatives, it is likely for the speakers
to introduce an ergative argument to emphasize the volitionality of the causer inchange-of-state contexts. For example, consider the following two case frames
for the verb ma-patay.
(31)

Two possible case frames for ma- verbs
a. ma-patay k-u
oner
t-u
sapaiyo n-u‘edu  
MA-dead
ABS-CN snake
OBL-CN medicine GEN-CN mouse‘Snakes  may  die  from  the  poison  for  killing  mice.’  (Wu  2006:347)
145

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. ma-patay (nira)kinatamdaw(Fata’an  Amis)
MA-dead
3SG.ERG this.ABS person‘This  person  was  killed  (by  him/her).’              ‘This  person  is  dead  (because  of  him/her).’  (Tsukida 2008:284)
ma-patay has the intransitive case frame in (30a). It is thus an anticausative
verb with the absolutive theme and the oblique causer. In (30b), the “transitive”
case frame is found for the   “same   verb”,   and   the   reading   is   ambiguous: theinitiator of the causing event can be an agent (i.e. volitional) or a causer. I
hypothesize that sentences like (30b) are the origin of ma-’s   eventive/UV
function. The anticausative ma- first applied to change-of-state roots, and wasreanalyzed as UV for this innovated case frame. The innovative function waslater extended to event-denoting   roots   such   as   ‘hunt’.   This hypothesis, alongwith other concerns for the development of ma-, awaits further study.
6.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have identified the anticausative function of Amis verbal
morphology ma-, based on a careful examination of the argument structure ofExperiencer verbs. A predicate decomposition approach is adopted to
distinguish internally caused psych verbs and externally caused pysch verbs.
Particularly, the former involves mi- as vDo and ma- as vBe, whereas the latter
involves mi- as vCause and ma- as anticausative. By proposing the distinctness of
Voice and v in verbs phrases, I have also analyzed ma- marked verbs as having
the structure of anticausative-II in terms   of   Schafer’s   (2008)   typology.   The  discovery of the anticausative function serves as a crucial link between thestative function and the eventive/UV function; this suggests a possible
development path of ma-, which separates Amis from other Formosan
languages.
References
Aldridge, Edith, 2004. Ergativity and verb-initial word order in Austronesianlanguages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Aldridge, Edith. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua
122:192–203.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2006. The
properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. Phases of Interpretation,
ed. Mara Frascarelli, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton.
Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych verbs and θ-theory. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 6:291–352.
Blust, Robert. 2009. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
146

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Chang, Henry Yung-li. 2011. Transitivity, ergativity, and status of O in Tsou.
Language and Cognition: Festschrift in Honor of James H-Y. Tai on His
70th Birthday, ed. Jung-hsing Chang & Jenney Y.-C. Kuo, 277–308.
Taipei: Crane.
de Guzman, Videa. 1992. Acquisition of voice affixes in psychological verbs in
Tagalog. Paper presented at the 3rd International Symposium on
Language and Linguistics, Pan-Asiatic Linguistics, Bankok.
DiDesidero, Linda Barbara. 1999. Psych verbs: Acquisition, lexical Semantics,
and event Structure. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
Donohue, Mark, and Sren Wichmann. 2008. The typology of semantic alignment.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto roles and argument selection. Language
67:547–619.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hale, Ken, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory ofargument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces
of inflection. The view from building 20: Essays in Linguistics in honorof Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–76.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP.
Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, eds. Monika Rathertand Anastasia Giannadikou, 129–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2010. A minimalist approach to argument structure. The Oxford
handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 426–47. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2013a. External arguments and the mirror principle: On the
distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125:34–57.
Harley, Heidi. 2013b. The  ‘bundling’  hypothesis  and  the  disparate  functions  of  little v. Paper presented at Little v Workshop, Leiden University.
Huang, Shuping, and Li-May Sung. 2008. The undergoer focus ma- in Kavalan.
Oceanic Linguistics 47:159–84.
Jiang, Hao-wen. 2011. Middle voice in Formosan languages. Ms., Rice
University.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase
structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–37.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At thesyntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Levin, Beth, and Jason Grafmiller. 2013. Do you always fear what frightens you?
From quirky case to representing space: Papers in honor of Annie
Zaenen, eds. Tracy Holloway King and Valeria de Paiva, 21–32.
147

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Stanford: CSLI On-line Publications.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT
Press
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t  try  morphological  analysis  in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working
Papers in Linguistics 4: 201–25.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. The
projection of arguments, eds. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ross, Malcolm, and Stacy Fang-ching Teng. 2005. Formosan languages andlinguistic typology. Language and Linguistics 5:433–90.
Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives: External arguments inchange-of-state contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tsukida, Naomi. 2008. Verb classification in Amis. The typology of semanticalignment, ed. Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann, 277–296. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Wu, Joy Jin-lan. 2006. Verb classification, case marking, and grammatical
relations in Amis. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Wu, Joy Jin-lan. 2007a. “Voice”  markers  in  Amis:  A  role  and  reference  grammar analysis. Language and Linguistics 8:95‒142.
Wu, Joy Jin-lan. 2007b. Experiencer types and psych predicates in Amis. Paper
presented at The 14th Annual Meeting of Austronesian Formal
Linguistics Association. Montreal: McGill University.

148The Proceedings of AFLA 21

NASAL ASSIMILATION IN JAKARTA INDONESIAN*
Ferdinan Okki Kurniawan
Cornell University
fok3@cornell.edu
This paper examines nasal assimilation in Jakarta Indonesian (JI), a colloquialvariety of Indonesian spoken in Jakarta, Indonesia. The paper makes a twofold
contribution. First, rather than relying on impressionistic observation, data inthis study are drawn from a naturalistic spoken corpus (Gil and Tadmor 2014)
and a production task. Secondly, using these two sources of data, thisinvestigation finds that the speakers of JI produce variation in the nasal
assimilation at prefix-root boundary. Zuraw (2010) proposed that the variationin Tagalog nasal substitution is an evidence of lexical variation. In lexical
variation, each word is considered to have just one form and it applies acrosslexicon.This study demonstrates that the nasal assimilation in JI exhibits
different types of variation from Tagalog. The patterns of variation in nasal
assimilation in JI does not show any evidence of lexical variation. Rather, thevariation in JI is conditioned by inter- and intra-speaker differences.

1.

Introduction

Indonesian, a western Austronesian language of Indonesia which in its standard
form serves as the national language of Indonesia, has a widely used verbal
prefix /məәN-/ which alternates in its shape at prefix-root boundary. The nasal incoda position of the prefix assimilates to a root-initial obstruent. This
phonological process is commonly known as nasal assimilation. The current
literature (Pater 1999, 2001) investigates the formal driving force of nasal
assimilation in Indonesian within the Optimality Theory framework (OT; Princeand Smolensky 1993, 2004). This pattern was first described systematically by
Lapoliwa (1981) within a generative framework. All previous studies weredevoted to the standard variety of Indonesian spoken in formal contexts(standard Indonesian (SI)). Less attention, however, has been given to thepattern of nasal assimilation in a more colloquial variety of Indonesian as acasual everyday language spoken in Jakarta (Jakarta Indonesian (JI)) with the
cognate prefix /N-/.
Interestingly, nasal assimilation in JI exhibits variation beyond thephonological conditioning environment. The variation found in JI occurs when*

I am indebted to Abby Cohn for series of discussions and valuable input. I also thankthe AFLA 21 audience for their questions and comments. Responsibility for any
mistakes in this paper is completely mine.

149

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
the nasal prefix (henceforth N-prefix) patterns with root-initial voiced obstruents[b-, d-, g-, and d͡ʑ-]. The variation is exemplified in (1):(1)/N+bəәli/ŋəәbəәli ̴ mbəәli‘to  buy’  (JI)

This study supports the impressionistic observation that the speakers of JI
produce these two different representations in (1).
In order to describe the patterns of variation of nasal assimilation in JI,
this study examines the variation which occurs in a naturalistic spoken corpus of
JI (Gil and Tadmor 2014). A production task was also conducted with JI native
speakers to observe whether or not the results from this task mirror the resultsfrom the spoken corpus. The corpus shows variability in the utterances producedby the speakers. This study investigates the sources of this variability, whether
the variability is due to lexical variation, following Zuraw’s (2010) analysis on
Tagalog, a related Austronesian language–or as a consequence of inter- or intraspeaker differences.
In the rest of this introduction, I provide a brief overview of therelatonship between SI, JI and Betawi Malay before presenting the pattern of Nprefixation in JI. I then provide a brief comparison with Tagalog before
summarizing the goals of this paper.
1.1.

An overview of Standard Indonesian, Jakarta Indonesian and Betawi
Malay

As mentioned above, SI has served as the formal and national language ofIndonesia. One increasing and influencing colloquial variety in and around
Jakarta is JI. This also serves as the basis of the colloquial variety in urban areas
across Indonesia. Most of the previous studies of nasal assimilation inIndonesian focus on the standard variety of Indonesian. SI is not spoken on
daily basis and only spoken in formal situations. SI is taught at formal school
and children have limited or no exposure to this standard variety until they start
to go to school (Sneddon 2006). As vernacular spoken at home, JI is acquired bychildren in Jakarta as their first language.
As a vernacular, JI emerged since World War II (Wallace 1976),
followed by huge influx of migrants into the capital city. The second generationof these migrant families have been forming a new linguistic variety called
Jakarta Indonesian. Before the emergence of JI, there was an indigineous varietyof Malay, namely Betawi Malay (henceforth BM) which emerged in around the17th-18th centuries in Jakarta. The lack of understanding of JI and BM oftencauses scholars to consider them under the same variety. BM should not be
confused with JI. 1 Nowadays, BM is spoken by a small minority group in
1

Wallace (1976) termed these JI speakers as Modern Jakarta Malay speakers, while the BM
speakers in this study were categorized under his term as Traditional Jakarta Malay speakers.

150

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Jakarta while JI is spoken widely by more educated speakers associated withhigher socio-economic status in Jakarta (Sneddon 2006). Sneddon reports that JI
is the variety spoken by educated people in Jakarta in informal situation, while
BM   is   the   vernacular   spoken   by   inhabitants   of   ‘old   kampungs’   in   Jakarta,  limited to Betawi communities.
Both BM and JI form a dialect continuum with SI. BM, JI and SI are
different in some important respects in terms of their phonology but mutually
intellegible. Differences in the patterns of nasal assimilation show this evidence.
This paper, however, does not aim to address the socio-phonological differences
between JI and BM. Rather, this investigation uses these two socio-ethnic
groups to map the variations of the nasal assimilation. Let us now turn todescription of N-prefix which is conditioned by root-initial consonants in JI.
1.2.

The N-prefix in Jakarta Indonesian

The N-prefix in JI is cognate with N-prefix məәN- in SI.2 The description below
is based on my observations and coincides closely with the patterns describedby Ikranagara (1980), Muhadjir (1981) and Sneddon (2006). I use the placelessnasal symbolized with N- as the underlying representation of the N-prefix. The
pattern of the N-prefix in JI is presented in this section. Firstly, the roots thatbegin with liquids, glides and vowels in JI are presented in (2).
(2)

Root-initial sonorant consonants and glides:
a. /N+lamar/ŋəәlamarb. /N+rusak/ŋəәrusakc. /N+jakin+in/ ŋəәjakinin3
d. /N+wabah/ŋəәwabahe. /N+harus+in/ ŋəәharusin
f. /N+aŋkat/ŋaŋkatg. /N+obat+in/ ŋobatinh. /N+ekor/ŋekɔri. /N+isi/ŋisi‘to  propose’‘to  destroy’‘to  believe’‘to  be  epidemic’‘to  require’‘to  lift’‘to  medicate’‘to  follow’‘to  fill’

Schwa epenthesis occurs with root-initial liquids, glides and glottal fricative asin (2a-e) while a velar nasal is realized with root-initial vowels as in (2f-i). The
next set of data in (3) illustrates the N-prefix which is conditioned by root-initialvoiceless consonants.
(3)
2
3

Root-initial voiceless consonants:

For further description of SI, see Lapoliwa (1981).
[j] is orthographically written as <y>.

151The Proceedings of AFLA 21
a. /N+pilih/b. /N+tulis/c. /N+kasih/d. /N+sapu/
e. /N+t͡ɕari/

milih
nulis
ŋasih
ɲapu
ɲari

‘to  choose,  to  vote’‘to  write’‘to  give’‘to  sweep’‘to  seek’

The pattern in (3) where by an initial voiceless stop is replaced by a homorganic
nasal is often referred to as nasal substitution.4(4)Root-initial nasals:a. /N+makan/b. /N+nilai/
c. /N+ɲaɲi/d. /N+ŋaŋgur/

makan
nilai
ɲaɲi
ŋaŋgur‘to  eat’‘to  grade’‘to  sing’‘to  do  nothing’

The root-initial nasals in (4a-d) show similar process as (3). This could be
intrepreted as nasal substitutions or deletion.
For root-initial voiced obstruents there is a pattern of variation that isdisplayed in (5a-d) below.
(5)

Root-initial voiced obstruents:
a. /N+bəәli/:

i. mbəәliii. ŋəәbəәli
b. /N+dapəәt/:i. ndapəәtii. ŋəәdapəәtc. /N+d͡ʑawab/: i. ɲd͡ʑawap
ii. ŋəәd͡ʑawap
d. /N+guntiŋ/: i. ŋguntiŋ
ii. ŋəәguntiŋ

‘to  buy’‘to  get’‘to  answer’‘to  cut  with  scissors’

The form in (5a-d. i) are what would be expected and are used by BM
and some JI speakers. However, the form in (5a-d. ii) with schwa epenthesis–
similar to the forms seen for liquids and glides–are also observed for somespeakers. 5 One of the key questions to be addressed is what conditions thisvariation and why.
4

Following serial rule ordering approach, Ikranagara (1980) proposed that the underlying nasal
assimilates to the root-initial voiceless consonants which then forms homorganic cluster. This
process is then followed by deletion of the initial consonant. In the more recent studies, Pater(2001) and Zuraw (2010) termed these two phonological processes as nasal substitution.
5

Ikranagara (1980) did not mention such variation in BM while Muhadjir (1981) mentioned
such variation.

152

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
It should be noted that there are also bare verb forms. These and Nprefix forms may occur in the same and different syntactic position in a
sentence, see Tjung (2006) and Chung (2008) for further details. Since thisvariation is due to morphosyntactic conditioning, this study does not include thebare verb as a variant of N-prefix forms.
Before looking more closely at the patterns of variation, it is useful tolook at a similar pattern observed in Tagalog, a western Austronesian language,
as discussed by Zuraw (2010).
1.3.

Nasal Substitution in Tagalog

In her study, Zuraw proposed a model of lexical variation to account for
observed patterns in Tagalog nasal substitution. She takes lexical variation to bedifferent from free variation. In free variation, the same speaker can produce
two different forms of pronunciation. Free variation is a results from stylistic
variation affected by social factors such as degree of formality, dialect, etc. In
lexical variation each word is considered to have just one form and it applies
across the lexicon, crucially the choice of form does not follow from frequency
so must be part of each lexical entry. For example, /paŋ + poʔók/ in Tagalog isrealized as pam-poʔók   ‘local’ and /paŋ-RED6 + pighatiʔ/ is realized as pa-mimighatiʔ ‘being  in  grief’.7 p in poʔók is resistant to nasal substitution. Instead, it
forms homorganic clusters as in pam-poʔók, while in another lexical item suchas in pighatíʔ, the coda nasal is substituted becoming pa-mi-mighatíʔ.
Based on dictionary and corpus data of written language and an
experiment, Zuraw argued that the pattern of nasal substitution in Tagalog
above is accounted for as lexical variation which its case is variable on a wordby-word basis.
The corpus and dictionary investigation conducted by Zuraw showinteresting evidence on the lexical variation in nasal substitution in Tagalog.
The data show that there is a general lexical trend in the behaviour of the nasal
coda in the N-prefix.
As reported in (5), JI also shows variation in the shape of the N-prefixwith root-initial voiced obstruents. This current study focuses the investigationin these patterns of variation. This study closely examines whether or not thevariation observed in JI show similar pattern as the variation in Tagalog.
1.4.

Goals of the present study

Currently, JI is becoming the most prestigious informal variety, not only inJakarta but also throughout Indonesia. However, compared to SI, JI is in fact
6

RED: reduplication.
The pattern is generated to t, k, s, ʔ, d, and g- root initials.

7

153

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
barely studied at all. Therefore, this paper aims to shed a light about aphonological aspect of JI, namely the variation pattern of nasal assimilation.
Rather than relying on impressionistic observation, data in this study are drawn
from naturalistic spoken corpus in informal settings (Gil and Tadmor 2014). It is
important to see how this variation is actually produced spontaneously by thenative speakers in naturalisitic data. To the best of my knowledge, none of theprior studies about nasal assimilation in Indonesian used a large data set fromnaturalistic conversation. The use of corpus could help us to verify
impressionistic observation and understand more about the variation pattern ofnasal assimilation. The investigation in JI corpus aims to seek evidence whether
the two different forms occur in (5) are due to inter-speaker variation, i.e. dialector due to intra-speaker variation. This investigation is also intended to see
whether or not the variation pattern in JI exhibits a similar pattern as Tagalog
lexical variation studied by Zuraw (2010). The results from JI corpus ispresented in the next section.
2.

Results from JI corpus

In this section, the results from the corpus are presented in two main parts: theresults that show inter-speaker variation and the results that shows intra-speakervariation. Let us now begin with a brief description about the corpus.
2.1.

About the corpus

The corpus used in this study is Betawi-Jakarta corpus (Gil and Tadmor 2014)
with data collected from 2004-2012. There are a total of 47,802 utterances
which were produced by adult native speakers that have been coded incomputerized database. The analysis includes only the speakers who produced
relatively high tokens of N-prefix forms and could clearly be identified as BM
or JI speakers in the corpus metadata.
Although the corpus is large in size, the results that show N-prefix
forms are quite limited. This is most probably because the use of bare verb andpassive form indicated with di- prefix are more productive than the use ofactive voice indicated with N-prefix. However, although the N-prefix forms arequite limited, they still show us interesting distributional pattern of variation.
2.2.

Inter-speaker (dialect) differences

As mentioned in 2.1., there are two main groups of speakers in this study. The
first one is the speakers of Betawi ethnicity. The second one is those who haveethnic background other than Betawi but were born and grew up in Jakarta andtheir parents are not of Betawi ethnicity. These speakers are considered as JI
native speakers.

154

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
The investigation will be limited to the distribution of variation that are
only spoken by these two groups of speakers. This section is intended to see
whether or not the variation is due to sociolinguistic background of the speakers(inter-speaker differences) especially as determined by dialect background. I
conducted a corpus search based on the tokens of both forms. This is done toobserve whether one group of speakers prefers to have the homorganic clusters[mb-, nd-, ŋg-, ɲd͡ʑ-] or prefer to have schwa epenthesis forms [ŋəәb-, ŋəәg-, ŋəәd-,ŋəәd͡ʑ-].
BM speakers that were included in (6) are  marked  as  ‘Betawi’  ethnicity
in the Betawi-Jakarta corpus metadata. There are a total of 43 speakers in the
corpus that are marked with Betawi ethnicity. The search was done on these 43
speakers. The results of the retrieval, however, do not come from all of these 43
speakers. The results retrieved are only from the speakers who produced therelevant tokens. The results in (6) below present the total tokens produced by
BM speakers by place of articulation.
(6) Total tokens by BM speakers
Total tokens by BM speakers

73.33%

72.22%

55.26%

44.74% 51.22% 48.78%

BM'mb' BM'ŋəb''nd' BM  'ŋəd'mbŋəәb- BMndŋəәd- BM  'ɲdʑ'ɲd͡ʑ-BM͡ ʑ- BM  'ŋg'ŋəәdŋg- BM  'ŋəg'ŋəәg'ŋədʑ'
17
21
20

27.78% 26.67%

total tokens

39

15

4

11

21

number of
speakers

15

6

4

5

14

8

11

12

The total number of tokens in (6) for each segments are counted from thetokens produced by BM speakers. The variation of N-prefix and the root-initialconsonants are indicated in the first row of the table. The percentage in the bars
tells what percentage of total tokens produced in the corpus for each variation.
The black bar indicates percentage of the homorganic clusters and the grey bar
indicates the percentage of the epenthetic schwa form (totalling 100%). The
total number of tokens are indicated in the second row. The third row tableindicates total number of speakers who produce the total number of tokens. For
example, the segment [ŋəәb-] is produced 15 times in the corpus by 6 speakers
while the segment [mb-] is produced 39 times by 15 speakers. One speaker may
produce the form more than one time. From this data, we can see that the155The Proceedings of AFLA 21
homorganic consonant clusters have higher tokens than the epenthesis schwa
forms for [mb-, ŋg- and ɲd͡ʑ-], but for alveolars [nd-] is lower than [ŋəәd-].
Let us know consider the results from JI speakers shown in (7). There
are 6 speakers found in the corpus that can definitely be identified as JI
speakers. As mentioned before, JI speakers are those who have ethnic
background other than Betawi but were born and grew up in Jakarta and theirparents are not of Betawi ethnicity. The results of the retrieval, however, do notcome from all of these 6 speakers. The results retrieved are only from the
speakers who produced relevant tokens.
The next results in (7) show the total tokens produced by JI speakers.
(7) Total tokens by JI speakers
Total tokens by JI speakers

86.36%

71.43%
28.57%

13.64%

50%

66.67%

50%

33.33%JI  'ɲdʑ'ɲd͡ʑ- JI  'ŋədʑ'ŋəәd͡ʑ-JImb'mb'

JI  'ŋəb'ŋəәb-

JInd'nd'

JI  'ŋəd'ŋəәd-total tokens

3

19

2

5

2

number of
speakers

3

4

2

2

1

JI  'ŋg'ŋg-

JI  ŋəg'
ŋəәg-

2

2

4

2

2

2

JI data in (7) show that the epenthetic schwa in [ŋəәb-, ŋəәd-], and [ŋəәg-]result in higher tokens than homorganic clusters [mb-, nd-, ŋg-], while [ŋəәdʑ-]and [ɲd͡ʑ-] show the same number of tokens. The table below in (8) shows thepercentage of the tokens of homorganic clusters. The table is organized based onplace of articulation. The percentage that are highlighted in grey are from thetokens which have less than 10 tokens.
(8) Percentage of nasal assimilation (homorganic clusters) across place ofarticulation
LabialBM
JI
72,22%
13,64%

AlveolarBM
JI
26,67%
28,57%

PalatalBM
JI
55,26%
50%

Velar
BM
JI
51,22%
33,33%

From the description in the table above, we can see a big difference ofpercentage in the labials and velars. There is no significant difference in
156

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
alveolars and palatals. Thus, we can see that BM and JI pattern differently in thelabial and velar sounds. The dialectal background of the speakers indeed plays
an important role for the occurrence of variation especially for labial and velar
sounds. JI speakers show preference to utter form with schwa epenthesis overthe homorganic clusters, while BM speakers produce the homorganic clusters
more than the schwa epenthesis, especially for [b]-initial root.
Unlike BM, data for JI are limited in the corpus. Except for epenthetic
schwa form in ŋəәb-, the data for both homorganic clusters and epenthetic schwa
forms show less than 5 tokens. This might be caused by low number of JI
speakers that were involved in the project compared to BM speakers. The next
subsection will demonstrate the results from intra-speaker differences.
2.3.

Intra-speaker differences

The corpus exhibits distribution of N-prefix variation within the same lexical
items. One lexical item might be produced in two forms by the same individual
speaker. The results in (9) below show the intra-speaker variation does occur inthe corpus.
(9) Distribution of N-prefix within the same lexical items
BM
Speakers
DADBTW
AFRBTJSALBTW
MLYBTJSIRBTJJI Speakers
EXPOKK

Underlying
representation/N+gajəәm/  ‘to  eat’
/N+daptar/  ‘to  register’/N+gəәletak/  ‘to  lie  down’/N+batɕa/  ‘to  read’/N+ d͡ʑual/  ‘to  sell’
Underlying
representation/N+dəәŋəәr+IN/  ‘to  listen’

Homorganic
clustersŋgajəәm (1)ndaptar (1)ŋgəәletak (1)mbatɕa (2)ɲd͡ʑual (2)Homorganic
clustersndəәŋəәrin (1)Epentheticschwaŋəәgajəәm (1)ŋəәdaptar (1)ŋəәgəәletak (1)ŋəәbatɕa (2)ŋəәd͡ʑual (1)Epentheticschwaŋəәdəәŋəәrin (1)We can see from the results in (9) above that indeed the same speakersometimes produce both forms even for the same lexical item. The number inthe parenthesis indicates the numbers of tokens. This results are different fromwhat Zuraw (2010) found based on her study in the written and dictionary
corpus of Tagalog. She considered that the general lexical trend from theTagalog written corpus is that the lexical items are already lexicalized or listed
as a single lexical item in the Tagalog speakers’ mind and while the same initialsound might show variation, there is no variation between speakers or withinspeaker for particular lexical items. Here, intra-speaker variation occurs in
Betawi-Jakarta corpus where both forms can be uttered in spontaneous speechby the same speaker.
157

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
It should also be noted that the intra-speaker variation in the data above
does not seem to be caused by different situations. All the speakers uttered themwhen they interacted with other speakers in informal settings. In summary sofar, the variation of nasal assimilation is not only observed between dialects, butalso occurs as intra-speaker variation.
To look more systematically at both intra- and inter-speaker differenceswith more reliable data, I conducted production task that will be presented in
section 3.
3.

Evidence from production task in JI: preliminary results

This production task was conducted to test whether the results from theproduction task mirror the results from the naturalistic corpus. The proposed
hypothesis is JI speakers produced epenthetic schwa forms more frequent thanthe homorganic cluster forms. We can formulate this into H1: nepenthetic schwa> nhomorganic clusters. The null hypothesis for this study would be H1 :nepenthetic schwa = nhomorganic clusters. This section will present the test
items, participants and location, and the production task results.
The production task was conducted with only JI speakers and did not
examine the inter-speaker (dialectal) variation since the data collection was
limited to a more homogenous group of Indonesian speakers in Ithaca, New
York, USA. At the present time, there is no BM speakers reside in Ithaca. As afurther goal, this production task could be extended to examine the inter-speaker(dialectal) variation more closely.
3.1.

Test Sentences and Participants

I will briefly explain the methodology used in this production task. This
includes test sentences, participants and location.
3.1.1. Test Items
The test items in the production task are designed as follows. 48 words which
begin with [b-, d-, d͡ʑ-], and [g-] are chosen for the test items. If these words are
prefixed with N-prefix, they are predicted to surface as either homorganic
cluster forms [mb-, nd-, ɲd͡ʑ-] and [ŋg-], or epenthetic schwa forms [ŋəәb-,  ŋəәd-,ŋəәd͡ʑ-] and [ŋəәg-].
Each word is embedded in two different sentences. Thus, there are atotal of 96 test sentences recorded by male speakers. The participants listen to
the test sentences in passive voice construction and afterward they produce
active sentences item by item. In Indonesian, passive voice is indicated by diverbal prefix as we can see in (10). They are asked to produce the active voice
which is indicated by the N-prefix. The example below is one of the test
sentences in the production task:
158

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(10)

Subject hear:uang ituudah
dibalikinmoney that
already
Pass-return-Ben/Caus8‘that  money  was  returned  by  Toni’

Toni
Toni

Expected response:
Toni udah mbalikin/ngebalikin uang itu.
‘Toni  has  returned  the  money.’
The sentences and their topics are composed in a colloquial style andeveryday situations to avoid participants producing SI form. Since theparticipants are not expected to respond in SI, then the JI benefactive/causative
marker –in is used. SI has causative/benefactive marker –i and –kan.
The order of the test sentences is randomized. Distracters which consistof words that begin with [p- , t-] and [k-] are placed in every 6 test items to
avoid subjects produce bias response with only to one variant..
3.1.2. Participants
There are a total of 8 subjects, 3 male and 5 female participants. They arerefrerred to in the results as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7 and S8. They are Cornell
University graduate students, their spouses or faculty. The data collection was
done at their home or office in Ithaca, New York. Their voices are recorded
using Edirol by Roland type R-09HR, 24 bit 96KHZ Wave/MP3 recorder. The
age range of participants is between 25-45 years old. All of them are educatedspeakers of Indonesian.
3.2.

Results

Similar to the results from corpus, the results from this production task arereported in two parts: inter-speaker differences and intra-speaker differences.
3.2.1. Inter-speaker differences
The followings are the production results across 8 speakers:

8

Pass: passive, Ben: benefactive, Caus: causative.

159

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(11)

Production Task in JI
Production Task Result across 8 JI speakers

67.55%
63.19%
51.46%
51.06%
20.74%
37.43%
9.89%
7.60%
8.51%
26.06%
21.81%
21.43%
3.51%
3.20%
5.49%
1.07%

Right away, we can see that the epenthetic schwa forms are produced ingreater numbers than the homorganic clusters, corresponding to the naturalistic
data presented in the previous section but not to the exclusion of the homorganic
forms. The percentage in (10) are obtained from the production of 96 test items
for each of stop-initial consonant. For example, there are 96 test items (100%)for b-initial root. 26.06 % of the total test items are produced with homorganic
clusters form [mb-], 51.06% are produced with epenthetic schwa form [ŋəәb-],21,81% are produced with bare verb form [b-], and 1.07% are produced with SI
form [məәmb-]. Since the task to produce either homorganic clusters or
epenthetic schwa forms are controlled in the instruction, pre-training, training
and test sentences, the bare verb and SI forms məәN- are unexpected. Most of theresults of the bare verb and SI forms are below 10%, unless for bare verb forms[b-] that reach 21.81%. This high percentage of bare verb production is
produced by one speaker (S1). S1 has the same sociolinguistic background as
the other speakers involved in this production task. However, it seems that hehas different pattern of distribution from other 7 speakers in bilabial roots. It is
still unclear what caused this difference. Therefore, I leave S1 out from theanalysis of the results.
Now we turn to the core results. The distribution of the homorganic
cluster, epenthetic schwa, bare verb and SI forms. Since together the total is
100%, I only present percentage of homorganic cluster forms in (12) and (13).
Thus, other percentage that are not shown in the figures are the percentage fromthe other forms: epenthetic schwa, bare verb and SI form məәN-. Let us now see
the homorganic cluster forms across place of articulation by JI speakers in (12).

160

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(12)

Results by speakers (pooled across place of articulation)
N-prefix forms

A
B

C
100%

36.17%
24.71%

S7

S3

S2

16.67%
S6

7.61%

4.21%

3.19%

S4

S8

S5

The figure (12) presents the percentage of total homorganic clusters mb-,͡nd-, ɲdʑ-,and ŋg- produced by each speaker. There are three types of speakers
that we can observe in (11). The first type (type A) consists of the speaker who
consistently produced 100% homorganic cluster forms without any othervariants. S1 falls into this category. The second type (type B) consists of the
speakers who produced more variations. S3, S2 and S6 are under this category.
They produced homorganic cluster forms between 16-37%. The third type of
speakers (type C) consists of the speakers who produced very limited
distribution of homorganic cluster forms. S4, S8 and S5 can be categorized into
this type. They produced produced homorganic clusters forms between 3-8%.
These categories are divided by the dash lines in (12) above.
Type A, that has only 1 speaker, is actually what would be predicted for
BM speakers. Type B and type C, that together have 6 speakers, produced much
more epenthetic schwa than homorganic cluster forms. This results consistent
with the proposed hypothesis for this production task. In the hypothesis, it ispredicted that the epenthetic schwa forms have greater distribution thanhomorganic cluster forms. This results also corresponds to the result from JI
corpus data in (7) where epenthetic schwa has greater distribution thanhomorganic cluster forms.
Among the three types, type B shows the highest degree of variability. It
is now important to look closely at what conditions this variability. The resultsin (13) below present the details.

161

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(13)

Distribution of place of articulation by type B speakers
S2 Female - Production Task

33.33%
mb-

25%
nd-

10.53%
ɲdʑ-28.57%
ŋg-­‐

S3 Female - Production Task

26.09%

20.83%

37.50%

mb-

nd-

ɲdʑ-

60.87%
ŋg-­‐

S6 Female - Production Task

29.17%
mb-

29.17%
4.17%
nd-

4.17%
ɲdʑ-

ŋg-­‐

The speakers who produce more varations (S3, S2, and S6) show morevariability in the figures (13). These figures exhibit interesting pattern. For
labials and velars, all 3 speakers produced more than 25%. For alveolars andpalatals, most of them produced not more than 25%, except for palatals that are
produced by S3.
Based on this evidence, it turns out that place of articulation is anothersource of variation. A general pattern that we can draw is that the alveolar andpalatal sounds produced in the homorganic cluster forms are less productive
than the bilabial and velar sounds. Let us now turn to the results that show the
intra-speaker differences.
3.2.2. Intra-speaker differences
The following table is the intra-speaker variation that are produced by 8
speakers. Almost all speakers produced intra-speaker variation. There is only
one speaker (S7) that consistently avoids epenthetic schwa.

162

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(14)

Intra-speaker variation in the production task

Speakers’  
code
S3
S2
S6
S5
S4
S8
S7

Gender
F
F
F
F
M
F
M

Variation within place ofarticulation
21
13
13
7
5
1
0

Percentage
43.75%
27.08%
27.08%
14.58%
10.42%
2.08%
0%

The number in the third column tells us about the number of test items
that are produced with variation within place of articulation. The variation
occurs across lexical items. For example, S3 produced variation twice in two
test items. She produced [ndəәket] ‘to   get   closer’ in the first test sentence and[ŋəәdəәket] ‘to   get   closer’   in   the   second   test sentence. In the next test item, she
produced [ŋəәd͡ʑəәmput] ‘to  pick  up’  in  the  first  test sentence and [ɲd͡ʑəәmput] ‘to  pick  up’  in  the  second  test sentence.
Interestingly, the types of speakers in (12) match with the order of
distribution in (14). In (14), we can see that type B (S3, S2 and S6) produced thehighest percentage of intra-speaker variation, which is between 27-44%. Type C(S5, S4 and S8) produced intra-speaker variation between 2-15%. Type A (S7)
did not produce intra-speaker variation at all.
The table in (14) shows an interesting fact that in production task thesame speakers produce the variation that mirror the results from the naturalistic
spoken corpus. There is no lexical variation found so far in JI production task.
4.

Conclusion and orientation for further research

Based on the corpus results, Betawi Malay and Jakarta Indonesian speakers
produced two different patterns of variations of the N-prefix: inter- and intraspeaker variations. For inter-speaker variation, BM speakers produced highnumbers of the homorganic cluster forms [mb-, ɲd͡ʑ-] and [ŋg-] except for [nd-].
JI speakers produce higher numbers of the schwa epenthesic forms [ŋəәb-,  ŋəәd-]and [ŋəәg-] unless for [ŋəәd͡ʑ-]. Across place of articulation, even though thenumbers of tokens are low, significant difference of the tokens of thehomorganic cluster forms between BM and JI speakers can be seen in the labial
and velar forms. That is, the forms [mb-] and [ŋg-] are produced in a greaternumbers by BM speakers. Thus, dialectal background of the speakers plays
important role for the inter-speaker variation. For intra-speaker variation, the163The Proceedings of AFLA 21
corpus shows that the same individual speaker produced homorganic clusters
and epenthetic schwa forms for the same lexical item.
The results from production task that was conducted on JI speakers
mirorr the results from the corpus. Overall, as predicted in the hypothesis, JI
speakers produced high numbers of epenthetic schwa forms than thehomorganic cluster forms. The distribution across place of articulation showsthat the bilabial and velar sounds in the homorganic clusters forms are robustly
produced by JI speakers while the alveolar and palatal forms are produced insmaller numbers. Intra-speaker variation also occured in the production task. 6
out of 7 speakers produced both homorganic clusters and epenthetic schwa
forms for the same place of articulation. Thus, intra-speaker variation in both
corpus and production task for JI demonstrate that the process of lexicalization
has not occured. The results show that there is no evidence of lexical variation
observed. This is different  from  what  Zuraw’s  (2010)  finding based on her study
in the written and dictionary corpus of Tagalog. She considered that the lexical
items are already lexicalized or listed as a single lexical item in the Tagalog
speakers’ mind. Such case does not occur in JI.
The results from this study identify multiple sources of variation in termsof inter- and intra-speaker variation. Another source of variation found in thisstudy is place of articulation. For further research, since most of recent studies
examined nasal assimilation and substitution within formal account, it istherefore important to inquire what are the formal driving forces behind nasal
assimilation process in JI. Some models of OT account have been developed toaccount for variation. It is important to find out how these models handle suchvariation observed above. It is also important to look more closely at what
motivates the low distribution of alveolar and palatal sounds in homorganic
clusters forms. More data collection on JI and BM is needed in the production
task to fully understand factors conditioning the variation.

References
Chung, Sandra. 2008. Indonesian clause structure from an Austronesian
perspective. Lingua 118:1554-82.
Gil, David and Uri Tadmor. 2014. The MPI-EVA Betawi-Jakarta database. A
joint project of the Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology and the Center for Language and Culture
Studies, Atma Jaya Catholic University.
Ikranagara, Kay. 1980. Melayu Betawi grammar. NUSA Linguistic Studies inIndonesian and Languages in Indonesia, Vol. 9, Atma Jaya University,
Jakarta.

164

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Lapoliwa, Hans. 1981. A generative approach to the phonology of Bahasa
Indonesia. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School ofPacific Studies, Australia National University.
Muhadjir. 1981. Morphology of Jakarta dialect: Affixation and reduplication.
NUSA Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages in Indonesia,
Vol. 11. Jakarta: Atma Jaya University.
Pater, Joe. 2001. Austronesian nasal substitution revisited. Segmental phonology
in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations, ed. L. Lombardi,
159-182. Cambridge University Press.
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and Other NC effects. The
prosody morphology interface, eds. Rene Kager, Harry van der Hulst,
and Wim Zonneveld, 310-343. Cambridge University Press.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraintinteraction in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell. Originallycirculated. 1993 as Technical Report TR-2. Rutgers Center for Cognitive
Science/Technical Report CU-CS-696-93. University of Colorado at
Boulder Department of Computer Science.
Sneddon, James. 2006. Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian. Canberra, ACT: Pacific
Linguistics.
Tjung, Yassir. 2006. The formation of relative clauses in Jakarta Indonesian: A
subject-object asymmetry. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware,
Newark, DE.
Wallace, Stephen. 1976. Linguistics and social dimensions of phonologicalvariation in Jakarta Malay. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY.
Zuraw, Kie. 2010. A model of lexical variation and the grammar withapplication to Tagalog nasal substitution. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 28:417-72.

165

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

THE SYNTAX OF TAGALOG RELATIVE CLAUSES*Paul Law
City University of Hong Kongpaul.law@cityu.edu.hk
This paper provides a unified analysis of relative clauses in Tagalog according
to which the head is raised from the TP complement of C leaving behind a
copy. The superficial differences among the relative clauses are suggested tobe due to the pronunciation of different copies. There are therefore just two
types of headed relative clauses, one is externally (initially) headed and theother is internally (medially or finally) headed. Headless relative clauses are
the result of deleting both copies. The account explains why they are all
subject to the same constraint on movement and why the position of theclause-internal head of the RC necessarily coincides with the absolutive
argument in the declarative. It is argued that the linker na/-ng in relative
clauses is not always in C; it may also occur in the same position as themarker ang for the absolutive argument in the declarative.

1.

Introduction

In this paper, I show that superficially four different types of relative clauses(RCs) in Tagalog (head-initial, head-medial, head-final and headless) can bederived in essentially the same way. In particular, I suggest that all four have thesame underlying D CP structure, and the head of the RC is raised from the TP
complement of C to SpecCP (Vergnaud 1974, Kayne 1994). The different
positions of the head noun are the results of different copies being deleted(Chomsky 1995) (the overt head of the RC is in bold and underlined; the strikeout represents deletion):1(1) a. [DP D [CP [TP ... V ... NP ... ]]]b. [DP D [CP NP [TP ... V ... NP ... ]]]c. [DP D [CP NP [TP ... V ... NP ... ]]](underlying structure)(head-initial RC)(head-medial RC)*

I thank Nestor de la Cruz and Valerie Yap for sharing with me their judgment of Tagalog. I am
also grateful to the participants of AFLA 21 at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa for very
helpful comments and suggestions. I assume responsibility for all errors of fact andinterpretation.
1
If copies of a moved phrase (or head) constitute the same phrase (or head), then the reason why
only one copy can be kept can be attributed  to  Kayne’s  (1994)  Linear  Correspondence  Axiom,  according to which c-command relation maps to linear precedence. As movement is to a ccommanding position, if both copies of the moved phrase are kept, then the phrase would
precede itself, a logical impossibility. This is why only one of the copies of the raised head in
the RC can be kept. I thank Ed Keenan for raising this issue.

167

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
d. [DP D [CP NP [TP ... V ... NP ... ]]](headless RC)

As the head of the RC is external to TP in (1b), and internal to TP in (1c), theformer may be called the externally headed RC and the latter the internallyheaded RC. I shall argue that for some languages the head-final RC is in fact a
special case of an internally headed one, just as the head-medial RC is.
Descriptively, then, there are just two types of overtly headed RCs, one isexternally headed and the one is internally headed.
Particular Tagalog examples instantiating the schemata in (1) are givenin (2):2(2) a. guro-ng
d<um>ating
kahapon.
teacher-LK <AP.PERF>arrive yesterday‘Teacher  who  arrived  yesterday.’b. d<um>ating
na gurokahapon.
<AP.PERF>arrive LK teacher yesterday‘Teacher  who  arrived  yesterday.’c. d<um>ating
kahapon na guro.
<AP.PERF>arrive yesterday LK teacher‘Teacher  who  arrived  yesterday.’d. d<um>ating
kahapon.
<AP.PERF>arrive yesterday‘One  who  arrived  yesterday.’(head-initial RC)(head-medial RC)(head-final RC)(headless RC)

The account explains in straightforward way why all four types of RCs
are subject to the same constraint on extraction, and why the position of the
postverbal head noun coincides with that of postverbal absolutive argument in
the declarative. This last point makes it possible to assimilate head-final RCs tohead-medial ones. The head of the RC in the end-position, just like that in amedial position, is the same as that of the absolutive argument in the declarative.
The paper is organized as follows. I first briefly review the arguments
for the head-raising analysis of RCs (Vergnaud 1974) and show that most of theevidence can be replicated for Tagalog. I then consider the constraints to which
RCs in Tagalog are subject, motivating a unified account for them. I next
demonstrate that the postverbal positions of the head of the RC coincide withthose of the absolutive argument in the declarative. This justifies head-final RCs
being   a   special   case   of   internally   headed   ones.   I   argue   that   Aldridge’s   (2003,  2004) remnant TP fronting analysis of head-final RCs is empirically andconceptually inadequate for Tagalog. Lastly, I consider the morpho-syntax ofthe linker na/-ng arguing that it cannot always be in the C position as iscommonly thought, but can also be in the same position as the marker ang for2

Abbreviations: ABS=absolutive, AP=anti-passive, APP=applicative, AY=the morpheme ay,
ERG=ergative, LK=linker, OBL=oblique, P=preposition, PERF=perfective, PL=plural, S=singular.

168

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
the absolutive argument. I conclude the paper with some brief remarks on the
cross-linguistic variation with respect to the type of RC present or absent inspecific languages.
2.

The head-raising analysis of relative clauses

A familiar argument that RCs should be analyzed in terms of movement is thatthey resemble other cases of overt movement, e.g., wh-movement in questions.
As shown in (3), a wh-phrase can be moved out of a complement clause inquestions (wh-phrases with a strike-out are the position from which the whphrases move), and the head of a RC, too, can be related to a position in acomplement clause, as shown in (4):(3) a. Who did they say that that Mary saw who?
b. ?Who did they wonder whether Mary saw who?
c. *Who did they leave before Mary saw who?
(4) a. The man that they said that Mary saw.
b. ?The man that they wondered whether Mary saw.
c. *The man that they left before Mary saw.
Thus, if wh-questions involve movement, then so should RCs. But the similarfacts in (3) and (4) do not say much about what moves in RCs.
There are essentially two views about movement in RCs. One is thatwhat moves is a phonetically null counterpart of the wh-phrase in questions,known as the empty operator (Chomsky 1986, Browning 1987), as in (5a), andthe other is that the head of the RC moves to SpecCP (Kayne 1994), as in (5b):(5) a. The man [CP Oi [ that [TP they said [CP ti [ that [TP Mary saw ti ]]]]]]
b. The [CP man [ that [TP they said [CP man [ that [TP Mary saw man ]]]]]]
Arguments favoring the head-raising analysis are based on thereconstruction effect. A reflexive in the head of the RC can be bound by anantecedent that does not c-command it, and part of an idiom expression can be
discontinuous with the rest of it:(6) a. D [CP [ that [TP John saw pictures of himself ]]]b. D [CP pictures of himselfi [ that [TP Johni saw pictures of himselfi ]](7) a. The [CP advantage [ that [TP they took advantage of John ]]]b. The [CP tabs [ that [TP the NSA kept tabs on everybody ]]]If the head of the RC actually originates in the RC, then the binding of thereflexive as well as the idiomatic interpretations of discontinuous idioms can be
169

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
accounted for straightforwardly. What is bound in (6b) is the reflexive in the
copy the raised head leaves behind in the RC. There, it is c-commanded andbound by its antecedent. Similarly, the idiomatic interpretations of the idioms in(7) are possible, as the part of the idiom that is moved leaves behind a copy inthe clause where it is interpreted. The assumption here is that idiomaticinterpretation requires that parts of an idiom be at least in the VP, if notcontiguous. The head-raising analysis thus provides a very straightforward
account for binding and idiomatic interpretations in RCs.
Largely the same facts obtain in Tagalog. As we will look at movement
in some detail in the next section, I give here an example of binding in which areflexive in the head of the RC is bound by an antecedent that does not ccommand it:(8) a. nakita ko ang larawan ng kanya-ng sarili na b<in>ili
ni John.
saw ERG ABS picture LK 3S-LK
self LK <PERF>buy ERG‘Maria  saw  pictures  of  himself  that  John  bought.’
b. D [CP larawan ng kanya-ng sarili [ [TP binili ni John larawan ng
kanya-ng sarili ]]]As in (6b), what is bound is the reflexive in the copy of the raised head left
behind in the TP.
I cannot replicate the idiom argument for Tagalog, however, for I could
not elicit many examples of idiom. To the extent I can get any, they behavemuch like English rigid idioms of the type kick the bucket. Parts of this type of
idiom cannot be displaced. Thus, expressions like the bucket that John kicked or
how many buckets did they kick? do not have idiomatic readings, in contrast
with idioms like take advantage of. Like that in (7b), the example how muchadvantage did they take of John? retains the idiomatic interpretation of takeadvantage of. Nevertheless, as we will see, there are other facts that are moreeasily accommodated in the head-raising analysis than in the null operator
account.
3.

Constraint on movement and relative clauses in Tagalog

As is well-known, movement in Tagalog and other Austronesian languages issubject to the constraint that only the absolutive (or subject) argument can beextracted, and the clause out of which movement takes place must also be theabsolutive argument of the matrix predicate (Schachter 1976, Keenan 1976,
Dell 1981, Kroeger 1993). 3 For descriptive convenience, I will call thisconstraint the absolutive-only constraint on extraction (for a theoreticalaccount, see Nakamura 1994, Richards 2000, Rackowski and Richards 2005):
3

As   my   account   would   later   be   compared   with   Aldridge’s   (2003,   2004)   remnant   TP   fronting  analysis, I assume with her that Tagalog is an ergative language, rather than a nominative
language (Kroeger 1993). This choice has no bearing on the analysis of RCs.

170

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(9) The absolutive-only constraint on extraction
a. NP ... V ... NP ...
(only if NP is absolutive/subject)b. NP ... V ... [CP ... V ... NP ... ] (only if NP and CP are absolutive/subject)
PPs and adverbs are not subject to absolutive-only constraint in (9a) and may
freely extract. Long-distance extraction of these is nevertheless restricted by
the constraint in (9b).
The effect of (9a) can be seen in the ay-inversion construction,
examples of which are given in (10)-(12) (cf. Schachter and Otanes 1972):(10) a. ang guroay b<um>iliang
ABS teacher AY <AP.PERF>buy ABS‘It’s  the  teacher  who  bought  the  book.’b. *ng libro ay b<um>iliang
OBL book
AY <AP.PERF>buy ABS‘It’s  the  book  that  the  teacher  bought.’

guro
ng libro.
teacher OBL bookguro
ng libro.
teacher OBL book(11) a. ang libro ay b<in>ili
ng guroang
ABS book AY <PERF>buy ERG teacher
ABS‘It’s  the  book  that  the  teacher  bought.’
b. *ng guroay b<in>ili
ng guroang
ERG teacher AY <PERF>buy ERG teacher ABS‘It’s  the  teacher  that  bought  the  book.’

libro.
booklibro.
book(12) a. ang bata ay b<in>igy-an
ng babae ang bata ng kendi.
ABS child AY <PERF>give-APP ERG woman ABS child OBL candy‘It’s  the  child  that  a  woman  gave  candy  to.’b. *ng kendi ay b<in>igy-an
ng babae ang bata ng kendi.
OBL candy AY <PERF>give-APP ERG woman ABS child OBL candy‘It’s  the  candy  woman  gave  to  the  child.’
c. *ngbabae ay b<in>igy-an
ng babae ang bata ng kendi.
ERG woman AY <PERF>give-APP ERG woman ABS child OBL candy‘It’s  the  candy  woman  gave  to  the  child.’
The effect of (9b) can be seen in (13), even though it is not obvious that theclausal complement is the absolutive argument of the matrix predicate:(13) a.

ang libro ay s<in>abi
ni Fred [ na b<in>ili
ni Maria
ABS book AY <PERF>say ERG
LK <PERF>buy ERG
ang libro ]ABS book‘It  is  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’

171

The Proceedings of AFLA 21b.

*ang libro ay nag-sabi
si Fred [ na b<ini>li
ni Maria
ABS book AY AP.PERF-say ABS
LK <PERF>buy ERG
ang libro ]ABS book‘It  is  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’

Contrary to absolutive DP argument, the clausal complement is never marked
with ang. However, as the matrix argument in (13a) is ergative, it is plausiblethat the clausal complement of the matrix predicate is absolutive. This is thesame in other cases with two DP arguments, e.g., (10a) and (11a). If one of thearguments is ergative, then the other is absolutive.
Another way to look at the constraint in (9b) is that the matrix clausewith an ergative argument can host the absolutive argument of the embedded
clause, but that with an absolutive argument cannot. (13a) is good but (13b) is
bad, precisely because the matrix clause in the former has an ergative argument,
whereas that in the latter has an absolutive argument.
Turning now to RCs, we can see that they are subject to the same
absolutive-only constraint on extraction. Examples in (14)-(16) clearly show theeffect of (9a):(14) a.
b.
c.
d.

(15) a.
b.
c.

172

kilala ko ang guro-ng [ b<um>ili
guro
ng libro ]know 1S ABS teacher-LK <AP.PERF>buy teacher OBL book
‘I  know  the  teacher  who  bought  the  book.’kilala ko ang guro [ b<um>ilina gurong libro ]know 1S ABS teacher <AP.PERF>buy LK teacher OBL book
‘I  know  the  teacher  who  bought  the  book.’kilala ko ang guro [ b<um>ili
ng libro na guro ]know 1S ABS teacher <AP.PERF>buy OBL book LK teacher‘I  know  the teacher  who  bought  the  book.’kilala ko ang guro [ b<um>ili
guro
ng libro ]know 1S ABS teacher <AP.PERF>buy teacher OBL book
‘I  know  the  one  who  bought  the  book.’*kilala ko ang libro-ng [ b<um>ili
ang gurolibro ]
know 1S ABS book-LK<AP.PERF>buy ABS teacher book
‘I  know  the  teacher  who  bought  the  book.’*kilala ko ang libro [ b<um>ili
ang gurona libro ]know 1S ABS book
<AP.PERF>buy ABS teacher LK book
‘I  know  the  teacher  who  bought  the  book.’*kilala ko ang libro [ b<um>ili
na libro ang guro ]know 1S ABS book
<AP.PERF>buy LK book ABS teacher‘I  know  the  teacher  who  bought  the  book.’

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
d.

*kilala ko ang libro [ b<um>ili
ang gurolibro ]
know 1S ABS book <AP.PERF>buy ABS teacher book
‘I  know  the  one  who  bought  the  book.’(16) a. gusto ko ang libro-ng [ b<in>ili
ng
gurolibro ]
like 1S ABS book-LK<PERF>buy ERG teacher book
‘I  like  the  book  that  the  teacher  bought.’
b. gusto ko ang libro [ b<in>ili
ng gurona libro ]like 1S ABS book <PERF>buy ERG teacher LK book
‘I  like  the  book  that  the  teacher  bought.’
c. ??gusto ko ang libro [ b<in>ili
na libro ng
guro ]
like
1S ABS book
<PERF>buy LK book ERG teacher‘I  like  the  book  that  the  teacher  bought.’
d. gusto ko ang libro [ b<in>ili
ng gurolibro ]
like 1S ABS book
<PERF>buy ERG teacher book
‘I  like  the  book  that  the  teacher  bought.’
The examples in (14) and (16) are good precisely because the extracted
argument is absolutive. This is regardless of the position of the head or whether
the head is overt. In (14) and (16) the upper copy is pronounced in the aexamples, and the clause-internal copy is pronounced in the c-and d-examples(on the marginal status of (16c), see the discussion of (25) and (26) below).
The ungrammaticality of the examples in (15b-c) is most striking. The
head of the RC apparently remains in the clause, but these examples arenevertheless as ungrammatical as that in (15a) where the head occurs outside theclause. They are thus evidence that some movement takes place, even though
the head is still in the clause. It is not obvious how the null operator account of
RCs would explain why (15b-c) are excluded. As the head is in the clause, it ishard to see where the null operator can be said to move from. For the headraising account in terms of head-raising and copy-and-deletion, these cases are
fairly straightforward. The head of the RC in (15b-c) is raised to SpecCP much
like that in (15a). They are therefore all subject to the same absolutive-only
constraint. Regardless of which copy of the raised head is pronounced, the result
is the same.
The effect of (9b) in RCs can be seen in the examples in (17)-(18). An
embedded absolutive argument can be extracted to the matrix clause only if thematrix clause does not already host an absolutive argument:(17) a. gusto ko ang libro-ng s<in>abi
ni Fred [ na b<in>ili
like 1S ABS book-LK <PERF>say ERG
LK <PERF>buyniMaria libro ]ERG
book‘I  like  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’
173

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. gusto ko ang libro s<in>abi ni Fred [ na b<in>ili
nilike 1S ABS book <PERF>say ERG LK<PERF>buy
ERG
Maria na libro ]LK book‘I  like  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’
c. gusto ko ang libro s<in>abi ni Fred [ na b<in>ili
nalike 1S ABS book <PERF>say ERG
LK <PERF>buy LK
libro ni Maria ]book ERG‘I  like  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’
d. gusto ko ang libro s<in>abi
ni Fred [ na b<in>ili
nilike 1S ABS book <PERF>say ERG
LK <PERF>buy ERG
Maria libro ]book‘I  like  the  one  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’(18) a. *gusto ko ang libro-ng nag-sabi
si Fred [ na b<in>ili
like 1S ABS book-LK AP.PERF-say ABS
LK <PERF>buyniMaria libro ]ERG
book‘I  like  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’
b. *gusto ko ang libro nag-sabi
si Fred [ na b<in>ili
nilike 1S ABS book AP.PERF-say ABS
LK<PERF>buy ERG
Maria na libro ]LK book‘I  like  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’
c. *gusto ko ang libro nag-sabi
si Fred [ na b<in>ili
nalike 1S ABS book AP.PERF-say ABS
LK <PERF>buy LK
libro ni Maria ]book ERG‘I  like  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’
d. *gusto ko ang libro nag-sabi
si Fred [ na b<in>ili
nilike 1S ABS book AP.PERF-say ABS
LK<PERF>buy ERG
Maria libro ]book‘I  like  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’
Again, the contrast between (17b-c) and (18b-c) is most interesting. In bothcases, the head has apparently not been moved out of the clause; yet, they show
the effect of (9b). This can be explained if the head in all these cases has in fact
moved, the appearance of the head in a clause-internal position is simply due tothe pronunciation of the lower copy.

174

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Also relevant to the analysis of RCs is the lack of preposition strandingin Tagalog. The examples in (19c) show that the complement of a preposition
may not be moved in the ay-inversion construction:(19) a. i-b<in>igay
ng babae [PP sa bata ] ang mangga.
APP-<PERF>give
ERG woman
P child ABS mango‘A  woman  gave  the  mango  to  the  child.’
b. angmangga ay i-b<in>igay
ng babae [PP sa bata ]ABSmango AY APP-<PERF>give ERG woman
P childang
mangga.
ABS
mango‘It  is  the  mango  that  a  woman  gave  to  the  child.’
c. *bata ay i-b<in>igayngbabae [PP sa bata ] ang
child AY APP-<PERF>give ERG womanP
child ABS
mangga.
mango‘A  woman  gave  the  mango  to  the  child.’
d. * (ng) babae ay i-b<in>igay
ng babae [PP sa bata ] ang
ERG woman AY APP-<PERF>give ERG woman P child ABS
mangga.
mango‘A  woman  gave  the  mango  to  the  child.’
The lack of preposition stranding in Tagalog may not seem surprising, giventhat preposition stranding is rare cross-linguistically. As we will see shortly
when we consider RCs, there is reason to believe that the ungrammaticality ofthe (19c) is related to the absolutive-only constraint on extraction, rather than to
an independent constraint barring preposition stranding. It is ruled out for thesame reason as those in (19c-d) are. The extracted phrase is not the absolutive
argument.
The examples in (20) shows that it is not possible for the complement ofa preposition to be relativized, regardless of the position of the head or whether
the head is overt:(20) a. *si

Pedro ang bata-ng i-b<in>igay
ng babae sa ang
ABS child-LK APP-<PERF>give ERG woman P ABS
mangga.
mango‘Pedro  is  the  child  who  a  woman  gave  the  mango  to.’(cf. (19c))b. [CP child [TP gave Maria to child mango ]]
ABS

175

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(21) a. *si

Pedro ang i-b<in>igay
ng babae [PP sa bata ] ang
APP-<PERF>give ERG woman
P child ABS
mangga.
mango‘Pedro  is  the  child  who  a  woman  gave  the  mango  to.’(cf. (19d))b. [CP child [TP gave Maria [PP to child ] book ]]ABS ABS(22) a. *si

Pedro ang i-b<in>igay
ng babae sa ang mangga.
ABS
ABS APP-<PERF>give ERG woman P ABS mango‘Pedro  is  the  one  who  a  woman  gave  the  mango  to.’b. [CP child [TP gave Maria [PP to child ] book ]]While (20a) and (22a) may be excluded because the preposition is stranded, theexplanation does not extend to (21a). The preposition is clearly not stranded, thehead of the RC remaining in the PP. In the head-raising and copy-and-deletion
analysis, (21a) is straightforwardly excluded. The head in (21a) is raised just as
it is in (20a) and (22a). All these cases are ruled out, since the extracted
argument is not the absolutive argument.
4.

The postverbal positioning of the head of the relative clause

There is reason to suppose that head-final RCs are a special case of internallyheaded ones. The positioning of the head in the clause-final position is just thesame as that of the absolutive argument in the declarative.
Postverbal order of arguments in the declarative is relatively free
(Schachter and Otanes 1972). Thus, the word-orders in (23) are three of thesix possible word-orders for a three-place predicate like bigyan ‘give’:(23) a. b-in-igy-an
ni Fred ang bata ng lapis kahapon.
<PERF>give-APPERG
ABS child OBL pencil yesterday‘Fred  gave  a  pencil  to  the  child  yesterday.’b. b-in-igy-an
ni Fred ng lapis ang bata kahapon.
<PERF>give-APP
ERG
OBL pencil ABS child yesterday‘Fred  gave  a  pencil  to  the  child  yesterday.’c. b-in-igy-an
ni Fred ng lapis kahapon ang bata.
<PERF>give-APP
ERG
OBL pencil yesterday ABS child‘Fred  gave  a  pencil  to  the  child  yesterday.’Now, given that the head of an internally headed RC remains in the clause, it
should come as no surprise that it may occur in the same positions as those of
the absolutive argument in the declarative. The examples in (24) show that thepositioning of the head of the RC coincides exactly with that of the absolutive
argument in the declarative in (23):176The Proceedings of AFLA 21(24) a. b-in-igy-an
ni Fredna bata ng lapis kahapon.
<PERF>give-APPERG
LK child OBL pencil yesterday‘Child  who  Fred  gave  a  pencil  to  yesterday.’b. b-in-igy-an
ni Fredng lapis na bata kahapon.
<PERF>give-APP
ERG
OBL pencil LK child yesterday‘Child  who  Fred  gave  a  pencil  to  yesterday.’c. b-in-igy-an
ni Fredng lapis kahapon na bata.
<PERF>give-APP
ERG
OBL pencil yesterday LK
child‘Child  who  Fred  gave  a  pencil  to  yesterday.’
As Aldridge (2004) pointed out, speakers prefer the ergative agent
argument to precede the absolutive theme argument. There is detectable contrast
between (25a) and (25b):(25) a. b<in>ili
ng
guro
ang
<PERF>buy ERG teacher ABS‘The  teacher  bought  the  book.’b. ??b<in>ili
ang libro ng<PERF>buy ABS book ERG‘The  teacher  bought  the  book.’

libro.
bookguro.
teacher

They detect the same contrast in the internally RCs in (26):(26) a. gusto ko ang libro [ b<in>ili
ng gurona libro ](=(16b))like 1S ABS book
<PERF>buy ERG teacher LK book
‘I  like  the  book  that  the  teacher  bought.’
b. ??gusto ko ang libro [ b<in>ili
na libro ng guro ](=(16c))like 1S ABS book
<PERF>buy LK book ERG teacher‘I  like  the  book  that  the  teacher  bought.’
The similarity between (25) and (26) is hardly surprising. As it remains in theclause, the head of the RC should be able to occur in the same positions as thoseof the absolutive argument in the declarative.
5.

Head-final relative clauses and the remnant TP fronting analysis

Aldridge (2003, 2004) suggested that head-final RCs be distinguished frominternally headed RCs in that the former are derived by fronting of theremnant TP after the head is raised to SpecCP, while the latter are derived byraising the head not to SpecCP but to the Spec of a functional projection FP;

177

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
the head is related to a base-generated null operator in SpecCP:4(27) a. b<in>ili
ni Maria-ng libro.
<PERF>buy ERG-LK book‘The  book  Maria  bought’b. [DP [TP bought ti Maria ]j [CP book tj ]](head-final RC)(28) a. i-b<in>igay
na kendi ng babae sa bata. (internally headed RC)
APP-<PERF>give LK candy ERG woman P child‘The  candy  the  woman  gave  to  the  child.’b. [DP [CP Opi [TP give [FP candyi [vP woman [VP ... tNP ... ]]]]]]The reason for the distinction, she argued, is that the head of a head-final
RC may be followed by a PP, but not a DP argument. In her terms, a PP may,
but a DP may not, be stranded after the head of a head-final RC. The
grammatical contrast in (29) is due to the different derivations in (30):(29) a. i-b<in>igay
ng babae-ng
kendi sa bata.
APP-<PERF>give ERG woman-LK candy P child‘Candy  the  woman  gave  to  the  child.’
b. *b<in>igy-an
ng babae-ng
bata ng kendi.
<PERF>give-APP ERG woman-LK child OBL candy‘Child  to  whom  the  woman  gave  candy.’(30) a. [DP [TP gave woman tNP tPP ] [CP [NP candy ] [XP [PP to child ] tTP ]]]b. *[DP [TP gave woman tNP tDP ] [CP [NP child ] [XP [DP candy ] tTP ]]]The examples in (29) are head-final RCs, even though the head is not at the end,
the head being separated from the predicate by an ergative argument (see note4). In the remnant TP fronting analysis, the head-final RC is derived by remnant
TP fronting so that the predicate would end up in front of the raised head. Thus,
the PP or DP that follows the head of the head-final RC must first be moved outof TP, and the remnant TP is subsequently fronted. The first step is possible
with PP but not with non-absolutive DP, given the absolutive-only constraint on
extraction (see the derivations in (30)). The contrast in (29) is thus explained.
If the head-final RC is a special case of an internally headed RC and theclause-internal head of the RC may be in any position in which the absolutive
argument in the declarative may appear, then the example in (29b) is
problematic. On this view, (29b) should be grammatical. As it turns out,
4

As we will see, what is taken by Aldridge to be a head-final RC with the derivation in (27b)does not always have the head at the end of the RC. One way to recognize a head-final RC, in
Aldridge’s   analysis,   is   to   observe   that   the   head   is   not   adjacent   to   the predicate (see thediscussion of (29) below).

178

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
example (29b) is indeed possible if the form of the linker is na preceded by asmall pause indicated as #, as shown in (31a):(31) a. b-in-igy-an
ng babae # na bata ng kendi. (cf. (29b))<PERF>give-APP ERG woman LK child OBL candy‘Child  who  the  woman  gave  candy  to.’b b-in-igy-an
ni Fredna bata ng kendi.
<PERF>give-APP ERG
LK child OBL candy‘Child  who  Fred  gave  candy  to.’Likewise, a similar example with the linker na (with or without a pause) is also
possible if the argument preceding the linker na ends in a consonant, as shownin (31b).
In fact, other examples comparable to (29b) with the linker -ng are also
possible. The example in (32a) differs minimally from that in (29b) in that theergative argument separating the head of the RC and the predicate is a(modified) pronoun:(32) a. b<in>igy-an
ko-ng bata ng kendi.
<PERF>give-APP 1S-LK child OBL candy‘Child  who  I  gave  candy  to.’b. b<in>igy-an
nami-ng (mga) bata ng kendi.
<PERF>give-APP 1PL-LK PL
child OBL candy‘One  who  we  children  gave  candy  to.’
NOT  ‘the  child  who  we  gave  candy  to.’The examples in (31) and (32a) are clearly problematic for the remnant TP
fronting analysis. There is apparently no reason why the form of the linker orthe ergative argument being a pronoun should make a difference with respect tostranding of a DP after the head of the RC. Example (32b) might be taken to be
an internally headed RC, not a head-final one, for the head is not separated fromthe predicate by an ergative argument (see note 4). We will see shortly that it isvery similar to example (29b), and should be given the same structure of a headfinal RC.
It seems that the reason why (29b) is judged not to have the indicatedreading is due to an independent reason having to do with processing.
According to my consultants, (29b) is grammatical with babaeng bata being
understood   as   ‘female   who   is   a   child,   i.e.,   girl’,   a   reading   that   is   possible ingeneral.  In  other  words,  (29b)  is  a  headless  RC  with  the  reading  ‘someone  who  a girl gave candy   to’.   This   point   is   re-enforced by the examples in (32). The
string kong bata in  (32a)  cannot  be  understood  as  ‘I  who  is  a  child’,  for  only  a  plural pronoun can be modified (Schachter and Otanes 1972). Consequently, ko‘I’  is  interpreted  as  the  ergative  argument  and  bata ‘child’  as  the  head  of  the  RC.  
179

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(32b) is unproblematic. The plural pronoun nami ‘we’  can  be  modified,  and  the  string naming bata (-ng is  the  linker)  is  accordingly  interpreted  as  ‘we  who  are  children,   we   children’.   The   interpretation   of   naming bata as the ergativeargument is just the same as that of babaeng bata in (29b).
It is therefore clear that the examples in (29) do not support the remnant
TP fronting analysis.5 In fact, the remnant TP fronting account is empiricallyproblematic insofar as it does not explain why the positioning of the head of the
RC should co-incide with that of the absolutive argument in the declarative.
6.

The morpho-syntax of the linker na/-ng

The morpho-syntax of the linker na/-ng in RCs has not been systematicallystudied. It has a direct bearing on the structure of RC, and hence deserves aclose look.
It is commonly assumed that the linker na/-ng is in the C position of the
RC. This may be correct for the externally headed (head-initial) RC, but not
obviously so for the internally headed (head-medial and head-final) ones:(33) a. guro-ng
d<um>ating
kahapon.
teacher-LK <AP.PERF>arrive yesterday‘Teacher  who  arrived  yesterday.’b. d<um>ating
na guro kahapon.
<AP.PERF>arrive LK teacher yesterday‘Teacher  who  arrived  yesterday.’(externally headed RC)(internally headed RC)(33a) differs from (33b) in that the linker na/-ng is to the right of the head of the
RC in the former and is to the left of it in the latter. If it is always in C, then it
must be that the head of the RC lands in SpecCP in (33a) but in a lower positionin (33b). It is not clear where that lower position can be and why it should be thecase.
In addition, in order to account for the position of the predicate in (33b)
it must be assumed that remnant movement of some sort takes place to the effectthat the predicate ends up before the raised head of the RC. Apart from the factthat remnant movement analysis cannot explain why the position of the head of
the RC should be the same as that of the absolutive argument in the declarative,
certain facts indicate that the linker na/-ng cannot always be in C.
If the linker na/-ng is always in C, then it is predicted that what appears
before it is a syntactic constituent in SpecCP. The prediction is not entirely
borne out. While what appears before the linker na in (34a) may be a syntactic
constituent, but it clearly cannot be in (34b), the oblique argument and theadverb being separated from the predicate they are related to:5

By contrast, the head-final RC in Japanese can only be derived by remnant TP fronting (Kayne
1994). This is because Japanese does not allow an argument to occur after the predicate.

180

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(34) a. b-in-igy-an
ni Fred ng lapis na bata kahapon.
<PERF>give-APP ERG
OBL pencil LK child yesterday‘Child  who  Fred  gave  pencil  to  yesterday.’b. b-in-igy-an
ni Fred na bata ng lapis kahapon.
<PERF>give-APP ERG
LK
child OBL pencil yesterday‘Child  who  Fred  gave  pencil  to  yesterday.’c. gusto ko ang libro s<in>abi ni Fred [na b<in>ili
like 1S ABS book <PERF>say ERG
LK <PERF>buynalibro ni Maria ]LKbook ERG‘I  like  the  book  that  Fred  said  that  Maria  bought.’
The problem is even worse in (34c). What appears before the linker na before
the head of the RC cannot possibly a syntactic constituent, for it comprises thematrix clause and part of the embedded clause.
In light of these facts, I would like to suggest that whereas the linker
appearing to the right of the head of the head-initial RC is in C, that occurring to
the left of the head of the internally headed RC is in the same position as themarker ang for the absolutive argument in the declarative (see also Otsuka 2014
for the view that it is an allomorph of ang). Evidence for this claim comes fromthe distribution of the linker na/-ng in RCs being the same as that of theabsolutive marker ang in the declarative.
In the declarative, the absolutive marker ang may be separated from thenoun by a PP, by the plural morpheme mga and an adjective, or by a pronominal
possessor:(35) a. binasa
ni Max ang nasa mesang libro.
<PERF>read ERG
LK
on
table
book
‘Max  read  the  book  on  the  table.’b. binili
ni Fred ang mga bagong libro.
<PERF>buy ERG
ABS PLnewbook‘Fred  bought  the  new  books.’
c. gustoni Pat ang aking guro.
like
ERG
LK
my
teacher‘Pat  likes  my  teachers.’
In the internally headed RC, too, the linker na/-ng and the noun of the head of
the RC may be separated by a PP, by the plural morpheme mga and an
adjective, or by a pronominal possessor:(36) a. binasa
ni Max na nasa
<PERF>read ERG
LKon‘book  on  the  table  that  Max  read’

mesang libro.
table
book

181

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. binili
ni Fred na mga bagong libro.
<PERF>buy ERG
LK PL
new
book
‘new  books  that  Fred  bought’c. gustoni Pat na aking guro.
like
ERG
LK my
teacher‘Teachers  of  mine  that  Pat  likes’
In the declarative, the absolutive marker ang may not be separated fromthe noun by a manner or sentential adverb:(37) a. binasa
ni Max (malimit) ang (*malimit) libro.
<PERF>buy ERG
often
ABS
often
book
‘Max  (often)  read  books.’b. binili
ni Fred (kahapon) ang (*kahapon) libro.
<PERF>buy ERG
yesterday LK
yesterday book
‘Fred  bought  a  book  (yesterday).’
Nor may the linker na/-ng in the internally RC be so separated from the headnoun:(38) a. binasa
ni Max (malimit) na (*malimit)<PERF>read ERG
often
LK often‘Books  that  Max  (often)  read.
b. binili
ni Fred (kahapon) na (*kahapon)<PERF>buy ERG
yesterday LK yesterday‘Book Fred bought (yesterday)’libro.
booklibro.
book

The identical distribution of the linker na/-ng in the internally headed
RC and the absolutive marker ang in the declarative is too striking to be a pure
co-incident. It would be explained if they in fact occur in the same position.
7.

Conclusion

If the different types of RC are derived essentially in the same way by headraising, with the differences being due to the pronunciation of different copies of
the raised head, then an issue that arises is how cross-linguistic variation withrespect to the type of RCs present or absent in particular languages can be
accounted for. Specifically, why should it be that Tagalog has the option of
pronouncing the lower copy of the raised head resulting in an internally headed
RC, but English does not, English having no internally headed RCs?
The answer to this question obviously must be that English does nothave the option of pronouncing the lower copy. But why should that be? When
we look at other cases of movement, it becomes clear that in English the copy inthe final landing site quite generally must be pronounced. This is most self182

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
evident in questions, raising to subject and object (also known as exceptional
Case-marking). In these cases, the lower copy of the raised phrase is necessarily
deleted and the upper copy in the landing site is pronounced. Therefore, the lackof internally headed RCs in English is just the same lack of option of
pronouncing the lower copy. By contrast, in Tagalog any copy of the raisedphrase may be pronounced and the other copies are deleted (see Law 2014 forexamples). As well, the relatively free postverbal word-order of arguments canbe taken to be the result of pronouncing different copies arising from movement.
In this light, it is unsurprising that Tagalog has both externally and internallyheaded RCs.
It is worth pointing out that there might be independent factors requiringthat a particular copy be pronounced. For instance, in Tagalog the upper copy ofthe phrase preceding ay in the ay-inversion construction must be pronounced,
even though it need not be in other cases of movement. This is due to the
independent fact that the position before ay is necessarily stressed. The stresscannot be realized if the phrase undergoing ay-inversion is not pronounced.
To what extent the account proposed here can be extended to otherlanguages is an issue that can only be adequately addressed by detailed andsystematic investigations of RCs in particular languages.
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2003. Remnant movement in Tagalog relative clauseformation. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 631-640.
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Internally headed relative clauses in Austronesianlanguages. Language and Linguistics 34: 631-640.
Browning, M. A. 1987. Null operator constructions. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Ma. MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Ma. MIT Press.
Dell, Francois. 1981. On certain sentence complements in Tagalog. Cahiersde linguistique Asie-Orientale 10: 19-41.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Ma. MIT
Press.
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Subject andtopic, ed. Charles Li, 247-301. New York. Academic Press.
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog.
Stanford, Ca. CSLI Publications.
Law, Paul. 2014. A unified theory of relative clauses. In Proceedings of the
16th Seoul International Conference On Generative Grammar, ed. by
Jong-un Park and Il-Jae Lee, 203-221. The Korean Generative
Grammar Circle, Seoul, Korea.
183

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Nakamura, Masanori. 1994. An economy account of wh-extraction in
Tagalog. In Proceedings of the 12th West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics, 405-42. Stanford, Ca. CSLI Publications.
Otsuka, Yuko. 2014. Relative clauses in Polynesian and the role of D. Paper
presented at the 21st Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association,
University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa.
Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A
Tagalog case study, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599.
Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal Issues inAustronesian Linguistics, ed. Ileana Paul, Vivian Phillips, Lisa Travis,
105-116. Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor,
actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles Li,
491-518. New York. Academic Press.
Schachter, Paul and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley
and Los Angeles, Ca. University of California Press.
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.

184

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

APPLICATIVES AS SECONDARY PREDICATES*
Diane Massam
University of Toronto
diane.massam@utoronto.ca
This paper re-examines Niuean aki constructions, which are usuallyconsidered to be instrumental applicatives. It is argued that when we consider
the full range of aki constructions, they do not conform to the diagnostics forapplicatives. Instead, I propose that we consider aki to be one in the class of
secondary predicates found in Niuean (cf. Ball 2005, 2008).

1. Introduction
1.1.

Overview

Niuean is considered to have an instrumental applicative construction, as shownin (1b). This applicative is symmetrical, in that both Instrument & Theme act asobjects for extraction, pro-drop, raising, etc. (Chung 1978, Seiter 1980).1(1) a. Kua hele tuaieiaefalaoaPerf cut Perf
Erg.P 3.Sg Abs.C bread‘He  has  cut  the  bread  with  the  knife.’  (FN)aki ewith Abs.C

titipiknife

b. Kua hele aki tuaieiaetitipi e
falaoaPerf cut use Perf Erg.P 3.Sg Abs.C knife Abs.C bread‘He  has  cut  the  bread  with  the  knife.’  (FN)2
The following properties, in (2), are generally considered to hold of applicative
constructions (Marantz 1993, Pylkkänen 2002, 2008, Cuervo 2003, McGinnis*

Special thanks to consultants Ofania Ikiua, Malotele Kumitau Pulata, and Lynsey Talagi.
Thanks also to Julien Carrier, Maria-Cristina Cuervo, Alana Johns, Kyumin Kim, Yuko Otsuka,
Heidi Quinn, and Yves Roberge. Data sources are Seiter (1980) (S), Sperlich (1997) (Sp) and
my Field Notes (FN). This research was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada Grant (to Diane Massam). I underline internal arguments for clarity.
1
Symmetry is a hallmark of Niuean arguments: all of subjects, objects and applied arguments
are eligible for extraction etc. Because this is not a property unique to these applicative-likeconstructions, I do not address this issue in this paper (Seiter 1980, Massam 1985, Larson,
Longenbaugh & Polinsky 2015). I do not discuss prepositional cases (1a), see Ball (2005, 2008).
2
Abbreviations are: Abs absolutive; C common; Erg ergative; Gen genitive; Imp imperative;
Instr instrument; Lnk linker; Neg negative; Nfut nonfuture; P proper; Perf perfect; Pl plural, Q
question particle; Sg singular.

185

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
2008, Kim 2011). However, Niuean applicatives do not fully conform to thisview, as indicated in (2) and discussed below.
(2)

Generally, an applicative or Appl head:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Niuean:introduces an argument in its specifier position,NO
assigns this argument its theta role,
PARTLY TRUE
case-licenses it as a core internal argument,
USUALLY
is high, relating its argument to an event, or low,
NEITHERrelating two internal arguments in a possession relation.

In this paper I will argue that the Niuean applicative head aki is a relatively high(above v, below Voice) secondary predicate, with a meaning akin to ‘use/bringabout by means of’. Essentially this has been previously argued for by Ball(2005, 2008) in a lexically-driven analysis (HPSG). Here, I use new data anddifferent arguments to posit, within Minimalist Theory, that aki is best analyzed
as a secondary predicate. Like some other secondary predicates, it shares twoarguments with the primary verb: an affecting external argument (User) and araised or object-shifted internal argument (Means), which it also case-licenses(cf. Georgala, Paul, and Whitman 2008, Georgala and Whitman 2009, Georgala
2012, Carrier 2014, for related views). Because aki- assigns secondary roles toarguments, this analysis has the theoretical consequence that full thematic
structure is composed derivationally. In an alternative use, aki can also be aclitic (Roberge and Troberg 2010), resuming a relativized instrument or means
participant in an otherwise gapless relative clause (Massam 1998, cf. Massam
and Roberge 1997), but I will not discuss this use in any detail in this paper.
1.2. Background on Niuean
Niuean is a Polynesian language of the Tongic sub-group (Pawley 1966, Otsuka
2006). It has [V S O PP] word order, ergative case, and isolating morphology, as
illustrated in the following examples. As indicated in the glosses, the casemarkers inflect for the proper or common value of the following nominal.
(3) a.

b.

Ne nakai kai [hetama] [eapala]
Past not eat Erg.C child Abs.C apple‘The  child  did  not  eat  the  apple.’ (FN)
Kua fehola [etau fānau]        Perf flee
Abs.C Pl children‘The  children  fled.’  (Sp:123)

My assumptions regarding clause structure for this paper are as follows,
illustrated in (4) which shows a transitive sentence. I assume that transitive
186

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
agents are merged in the specifier of a peripheral applicative head (Kim 2011),
which assigns an Affecting Agent/Causer theta role, along with ergative case. I
assume the object is merged as sister to the verb, and that it moves to thespecifier of a null light v, which assigns absolutive case. I assume the verb
undergoes head movement through v and Appl to INFL to achieve VSO word
order. (This is a simplified version of my fuller analyses of Niuean clausestructure.3)(4)

Basic structure for a transitive clause in this paper (Sione cut bread)
IP
I’
INFL
Vi

ApplEP(=Appl-External/Ergative Phrase)

DPkAGENT ApplE’  ApplE 0vP
DPjTHEME

v’

[Abs]

VP
Vi

cut i

SionekDPjTHEME

breadjAs for unaccusatives, I consider that they are the same, without the
peripheral ApplEP. For unergatives (including noun incorporation (NI)sentences) I assume the external arguments are merged in a lower position thantransitive agents, in specifier of VP (or a low Vc above VP, but I use Spec VP
here for simplicity),  receiving  a  theta  role  of  ‘Doer’ rather than Affecting Agent,and raising to the specifier of the light v to receive absolutive case (Massam
2009, cf. Tollan 2015). This is shown below. I assume a null cognate object assister to V in unergatives (Hale and Keyser 1993).

3

In particular, I am assuming head movement rather than vP predicate fronting, and object shift
rather than predicate-externally merged arguments, and NI not PNI for this paper, contrary to
my usual assumptions, due to space limitations (cf. Massam 2001, 2010).

187

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(5)

Basic structure for an unergative/NI clause in this paper(Sione jumped/bread-cut)
IP(CO – cognate object, IN = incorporated noun)
I’
INFL
Vi

vP
DPj DOER

v’

[Abs]

VP
DPj DOERV’

Viec (CO or IN trace){cut bread
jumped} Sione
2. Questions Raised by Niuean aki Constructions
2.1.

Does aki introduce a new instrument argument in its specifier?

Let us now address the question whether aki introduces a new instrument
argument in its specifier, which is considered to be the normal function of an
applicative head. At first, the answer would seem to be yes, given (1b), where
there is a seemingly new argument bearing an instrument role. Here, it looks
like a fairly standard high applicative. However, the applicative marker aki has
another function, as in (6) (Gould et al 2009).
(6)

Kua fakatotō             aki e
au e
tau tupe aia
Perf cause-carry Instr Erg.P 1.Sg Abs.C Pl money Abs.P
3.Sg‘I  gave  him  some  money.’/  ‘I  made  him  carry  some  money.’  (Sp:324)

In such cases, aki is used in causative constructions, to license a third argument.
Here, the answer to the question above would seem to be no, because in suchsentences, all of the arguments are thematically linked to the verb (or in case of
the Causer, to the causative prefix faka- ‘CAUS’). The argument I is the Causer,
the argument him is the Doer of carry and the argument money is the Theme ofcarry. So here, the argument related to aki bears a theme role, not an instrumentrole, and it would appear to get this role from the root verb.
188

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
In fact, in such sentences, aki looks somewhat like a low applicative, inthat the two internal arguments are related by possession (Pyllkanen 2002,2008), and overall the sentence is like a double object construction, with thetranslation   ‘give’. However, morpheme order suggests that in (6), the verb isbelow aki, not above it, as a low Appl analysis would suggest. (See Georgala,Paul, and Whitman 2008, Georgala and Whitman 2009, Georgala 2012, andCarrier 2014 for similar arguments in other languages.) A low Appl structure
would be as in (7a), but the morpheme order of (6) would suggest a structure asin (7b).
(7) a. Low Appl Structure(Pyllkänen 2002)

V

ApplP
DP

Appl’
Appl DPb. Niuean structure(left adjunction of head)

Vi+aki
DP

VP
V’
Vi DP

Furthermore, in other causatives with faka- the relation between the two internalarguments is not one of possession unlike low applicatives according to
Pyllkänen (2002) (as also discussed for Inuktitut by Carrier 2014).
(8)

Fakagagau
aki
e
uga e
haana alima.
Cause-bitewith Abs.C crab
Abs.C 3.Sg.Gen Lnk hand
‘Make the coconut crab bite his hand.’ (Sp:98)

Here the relation is one of biting not of possession. In Niuean texts anddictionaries, there are many examples of causative constructions with aki. Some
examples are given (translated into English, but with Niuean word order) in (9).
(9)

Other examples with causative faka-:
make-keep-awake-with song us, make-block-with truck road, make-hitwith stick head, make-beautify-with flowers house, make-cheer-with his
tricks us, make-prettify-with girl flower, make-bite-with crab hand,
make-grip-with pliers lid, make squirt-with water garden, make-coolwith ice drink, make-smell-with dog crab, make-plop-with hand water

In all these cases, the root verb provides the core relation between thetwo internal arguments; hence it does not appear that aki is playing a role interms of thematic relations. I argue that we can provide a unified analysis of aki,
189

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
by extending to regular instrumentals the view that the internal arguments areboth arguments of the root verb, that is, the higher argument within VP is, inboth causatives and instrumentals, a non-volitional subject (whether a causee oran   instrument),   or   inanimate   ‘agent’   of   the   root   verb,   thus   forming   part   of   an  internally transitive VP. In case of causatives, examples include crab bite hand,pliers grip lid, and dog smell crab, and, in case of non-causatives, examples
include knife cut bread, club slay hero etc. (cf. Fillmore 1968, Jackendoff 1987
for supporting views about instruments). This argues for a structure like (7b)with V lower than aki.
Further support for this structure is found in that the theme of the root
verb can undergo noun incorporation, whereas the other argument of the root
verb does not (as noted by Carrier 2014 for Inutktitut). If NI targets the V sister(Baker 1988, Massam 2001), this argues that the theme is sister to the verb at
merge. I return to the absence of aki in (10) later.
(10) a. Volu niu
oti nakai ekoeetau  matā.
Grate coconut all Q
Erg.P 2.Sg Abs.C Pl scraper‘Did  you  grate  the  coconut  with  all  the  scrapers?’  (S:269)
b. Ua
fakatakitaki kato
e
koe
haku
tama.
Neg.Imp cause-hold basket Erg.P 2.Sg
1.Sg.Gen child‘Don't  you  make  my  child  hold  your  bags.’  (Sp:292)
The structure of the aki phrase is thus posited to be along the lines of (11).
(11)

Preliminary proposal for the structure of an aki phrase
NVS=Non-volitional subject (instrument/causee)
aki

VP
NVS

V’

V Themeuse crab
bite handuse scraper grate coconut
I next argue, following Georgala (2012), that the applicative head aki is araising applicative, which triggers the movement to its specifier of one of theinternal arguments of the root verb as in (12).

190The Proceedings of AFLA 21(12) a.
b.

[ __ aki [ NVS V THEME][{NVS/THEME} aki [ NVS V THEME]As schematized in (12b), this raising analysis allows for an account of the word
order variation in Niuean shown in (13): the aki-licensed argument is sometimes
the NVS and sometimes the Theme. Since, as noted in Footnote 1, Niuean
raising to subject and raising to object can freely target the external or theinternal argument (Seiter 1980, Massam 1985, Larson, Longenbaugh, &Polinsky 2015), I put aside the apparent locality violation here, simply notingthat as the choice of argument has implications for focus, perhaps there is no
locality violation, as the closest argument with the relevant focus feature is theone that is targeted for movement. Below, (13a, d) show raising of the NVS, and(13b, c) show raising of the theme.
(13) a. Ne haha aki eSione eakau
Pst hit with Erg.P Sione Abs.C stick‘John  hit  the  dog  with  a  stick.’ (FN)ekulī.
Abs.C dogb. Ne haha aki eSione ekulī
Pst hit with Erg.P Sione Abs.C dog‘John  hit  the  dog  with  a  stick.’ (FN)eakau.
Abs.C stickc. Kua fakaepo
aki hematua easekulimi emuke.
Perf cause-taste with Erg.C mother Abs.C ice-cream Abs.C baby
ʻThe  mother  let  the  baby taste the ice cream.’ (Sp:56)
d. Fakagagau aki e
uga e
haana
a
lima.
cause-bite with Abs.C crab Abs.C 3.Sg.Gen Lnk hand
ʻMake the coconut crab bite his hand.’ (Sp:98)(repeated from (8))
I consider that the other argument is licensed by absolutive from v, which is
between aki and the main verb (not shown in (7) and (11)).
(14) a. [ THEME aki [ NVS v [ NVS V THEME ]b. [ NVS aki [ THEME v [ NVS V THEME ]Aside from focusing the aki-licensed argument, another interpretive effect of theconstructions seems to be that the argument licensed by v acts as the true
affected argument (sentential theme) of the entire complex predicate so thereadings for (13) are more or less like The dog got hit with the stick, The stick
got used in hitting the dog, She fed the baby with the ice-cream, and His hand
got bitten by the crab. This sentential theme role is determined derivationally. If
191

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
the other movement pattern had occurred, the readings would be the reverse foreach sentence.
In summary, aki is a raising element. Georgala (2012) considers suchapplicatives to be expletives, thematically vacuous elements that serve only tocase-license an argument that is already theta-licensed. Is this the case for aki?
2.2.

Is aki always and only a case-licenser?

The sentence below demonstrates the answer to this question is no, because aki
can be present even if not necessary for case, with only one internal argument.
(15) a. Ne
hopo akieia
Pstjump with Erg.P 3.Sg
ʻShe  jumped  with  a  rope.’  (FN)ekave
Abs.C cord

toua
rope

b. Ne
hele falaoa aki eiaesisipi.
Past cutbread with Erg.P 3.Sg Abs.C knife
ʻHe  cut  bread  with  a  knife.’   (FN)
If aki is not there in such sentences, the instrument appears to be interpreted as a
Theme affected by the action, as in (16) (and (10a)), even though it is still an
instrument as well.
(16)

Kua  tā  fakatino hetama emalalaPerf draw picture
Erg.C child Abs.P charcoal
ʻThe  child  has  been  drawing  pictures  with  the  charcoal.’  (S:  51b)
(and the charcoal was affected, e.g. all used up)

I hypothesize that the causative construction necessarily requires a sentential
Theme so if the internal argument theme is incorporated or unexpressed, the
NVS must become the sentential theme and so must be licensed by v, so aki
does not appear in case of NI or unergatives in causatives, as in (10b) and (17).
In regular non-causative NI or unergatives, though, as in (15a, b), aki will
normally still appear, and the means or instrument argument is not interpreted asa sentential theme, as it is not licensed by v.
(17) Kua fakalele eiaemanulele.
Perf cause-fly Erg.P 3.Sg Abs.C bird
‘He  made  the  bird  fly.’  (Sp:180)
In addition, aki does not always assign case, as shown below, where theinstrument has been extracted.

192

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(18)ekave toua [nefā.ehopo akiaia]
AbsC cord rope [Nfut Prog jump with Abs.P 3.Sg]‘the rope that she is jumping with’ (Massam 1998)

Usually, A-bar extraction does not affect case in Niuean: if an object is
extracted, the subject remains ergative. The A-bar bound trace is thus casemarked and the sentences is construed as transitive, as in (19).
(19)

e
kofe
[ne
taute eau]
Abs.C coffee
lNfut make Erg.P 1.Sg]ʻthe  coffee  that  I  made’ (FN)In cases such as (18), it appears that aki serves as a resumptive clitic encoding
instrumental means (cf. Roberge and Troberg 2010, who argue that a Romance
applicative head position can be realized as a clitic, also Massam 1998). The
relative clause in (18) is thus really gapless, and the sentence is construed as an
intransitive, with an absolutive subject. Aki can be compared to locative ai inthis use (Chapin 1974, Massam & Roberge 1997).
In summary, aki assigns (or encodes, as in (18)) a secondary focusedrole  of    ‘by  means  of’ to the element to which it assigns case, either the NVS or
Theme (in contrast to v, which secondarily marks the sentential affected theme).
Thus aki contributes semantically to the sentence and is not an expletive caselicenser. (20) presents the full structure for aki sentences, augmented from (11).
One argument raises to specifier of vP and the other to specifier of akiP, as
determined either by focus features or randomly, by equidistance, and each
receives its acquired role in that position, in addition to its core role.
(20)

The structure of the aki-v-V phrase
akiP
_ aki

vP acquired thematic roles (Means/AffectedTheme)
_

v’
[abs]

VP
NVS

__ use ____ use ____ use __core thematic roles (NVS/Theme)
V’

V
Theme
crab bite
handflower beautify girlpliers grip
lid
193

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
2.3.

The highs and lows of aki

Pylkkänen (2002, 2008) argues that low applicatives cannot appear with
unergatives, as they require an internal argument because they create apossession relation between the applied argument and the internal argument.
Niuean aki can appear with unergative verbs, making the verb transitive, as in(21), hence it is not a low applicative. (Note that tohitohi “write”  is,  prior  to  aki,an obligatorily unergative verb, with tohi as its transitive counterpart.)(21)

Ne tohitohi akieSione epene.
Pst writing
with Erg.P Sione Abs.C pen.
‘Sione  is  writing  with  the  pen.’  (Massam  1998,  cf.  Ball  2008)

However, aki does require, in a certain sense, a VP with two arguments,
although one can be a null cognate object, as in (22), the assumed structure forunergatives (Hale and Keyser 1993). In the analysis proposed here, however, aki
does not create a relation between the two arguments in the VP, rather, the Verb
already does this.
(22)

Unergative structure

aki

VP
pen

V’
writing (NULL COGNATE/GENERIC OBJ)

Thus, aki is not a low applicative. However, given its use in causative sentencessuch as (6) and (8), it is clear that it is not a high applicative either, as it does not
relate an argument to an event, rather it licenses and augments an argument thatis already involved in the event. I have extended this view to include the noncausative sentences such as (1b) as well, considering the instrument in suchcases to be a NVS, just like the causee in (6) and (8).
What aki does seem to do, in fact, is create a new relation between theexternal argument and one internal  argument,  a  relation  of    ‘use’  or  ‘by meansof”.   There   are   potential   counterexamples to this claim, in which an externalargument appears not to be required for aki. Double unaccusatives, with an NVS
do appear with aki. An example is in (23) and others (in the form of English
translations) are in (23b).

194

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(23) a. Ne fakakofu
akievaka etau laukou
Pst cause-cover with
Abs.C canoe Abs.C Pl leaves
ʻThe  canoe  is  covered  with  leaves.’ (FN, Massam 1998)
b. Volcanic rock makes-secure the island / These actions make-unpopular
the leader / The sickness makes-suffer the people
However, it is notable that all such sentences include the causative prefix faka-.
From Pyllkanen (2002) we know that causative heads such as faka- can merge
in an ApplE head without taking a causer argument as specifer. We can thus
maintain our generalization that aki relates an external argument (either the
CAUS head itself or its specifier) to an internal argument via a ‘by  means  of’relation, that is, it does require a peripheral ApplE, but this ApplE can simply
express CAUS as in (23), rather than introduce an Agent or Causer. This isshown in (24).
(24)

CAUS may or may not have an argument in its specifier (e.g. (23))
ApplE/Caus akiP
( vP with Abs is left out of this tree, see (20))
aki

V’
NVS

V’
V ThemeIn summary, aki does not really show the behaviour of a high or a low
applicative, but instead seems to act like a secondary predicate that shares andrelates two arguments, by assigning each a secondary role, one (User) to an
external argument whether explicit or implicit (agent, causer or CAUS) and theother (Means) to an internal argument (NVS or Theme), via object shift or
raising.
3. Context: Niuean has a rich array of secondary predicates
I will briefly put this idea into context. Niuean, like other Oceanic languages,
has a rich array of secondary predicates (Bril and Ozanne-Rivierre 2004,
Massam 2013) and the claim here is that aki is one such secondary predicate (cf.
Ball 2008). The full range of secondary predicates is provided in (25) and ahypothetical full predicate is suggested in (26).

195

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(25) Secondary predicates in merge/scope order4a) Pre-verb + VERB
(Modals, evidentials)b) Light verb + VERB
(agentive, stative)c) VERB + Aspectual Adverb(always, immediately)d) VERB + Locative/Temporal(ai resumptive clitic)e) VERB + Universal Quantifier/Completion (oti)f) VERB + Instrumental(aki)g) VERB + Secondary Predicate(some can co-occur)a. Resultatives
b. Modifiersc. Depictivesh) VERB + NP
(Noun Incorporation)i) VERB + VERB(Compound Verbs)(26)[want do hit bash dog dead use all there always just Perf Q]
Did (he) always just want to really hit dogs dead with all (the sticks)
there?)

Due to successive movements of the verb, which I will not outline here, most ofthese predicates end up in inverse order, as shown in (27). See Massam (2010,2013) for details.
(27)

Surface positions of elements within the predicate:
a
b
i
h
g
f
e
d
c
preV + LtV + VB(+V1) + NP + V2* + aki + Quant + Loc + Adv

The main point to note here is that aki is adjacent on each side to anothersecondary predicate in the predicate complex, and that most of these secondary
predicates also share one or two arguments with the root verb. It thus isplausible that it too is a secondary predicate. Unlike the others, though, aki cancase-license an argument, and it does not appear as an independent verb (but see
Ball 2005, 2008, who argues that it is verbal even in its prepositional use).
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, in this brief paper I have provided an outline of a unified analysis
of aki in its causative and instrumental uses, and I have argued that it is neither ahigh nor a low applicative, as it does not display the usual properties ofapplicatives, and it does not create a relation between two internal arguments,
nor does it relate an argument to an event. Instead, I have argued that it is a4Note aki and oti appear in both orders, due, I think, to the fact that oti can be a completion
resultative (over the event), or a quantifier over an argument. There are other internal-orderquestions or variations, but I wonʻt deal with them here.

196

The Proceedings of AFLA 21transitive secondary predicate (Ball 2008), which assigns a secondary role
(User) to the external argument (explicit or implicit), and a secondary role
(Means) via object shift and case-licensing, to one internal argument in aninternally transitive VP clause (cf. Georgala 2012, Carrier 2014). In addition, I
noted that aki can also directly encode Means itself, as a resumptive clitic in a
relative clause (Chapin 1974, Massam and Roberge 1997, Massam 1998).
References
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ball, Douglas. 2005. A unified analysis of Niuean aki. Austronesian andTheoretical Linguistics, eds. Raphael Mercado, Joey Sabbagh, and Lisa
Travis, 249–270. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ball, Douglas. 2008. Clause structure and argument realization in Tongan.
Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
Bril, Isabelle, and Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre (eds.). 2004. Complex predicatesin Oceanic languages: Studies in the dynamics of binding andboundedness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carrier, Julien. 2014. Redefining the low applicative: Evidence in Inuktitut. Ms.,
University of Toronto, Toronto, On.
Chapin, Paul. 1974. Proto-Polynesian *ai. Journal of the Polynesian Society
83:259–307.
Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Cuervo, Maria-Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, eds.
Emmon Bach, and Robert Harms, 21–294. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Georgala, Effi, Waltraud Paul, and John Whitman. 2008. Expletive and thematic
applicatives. Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics 26, eds. Charles B. Chang, and Hannah J. Haynie, 181–189.
Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Georgala, Effi, and John Whitman. 2009. Ditransitives and applicative structure
in Greek. In Chicago Linguistic Society 43:1, eds. N. Adams, A. Cooper,
F. Parrill, and T. Wier, 77-91. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Georgala, Effi. 2012. Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: A
Minimalist account of multitransitivity. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell
University.
Gould, Isaac, Diane Massam, and Philip Patchin. 2009. Faka-Niue:
Understanding cause in Niuean. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics
31, University of Toronto, Toronto, On.
Hale, Ken, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1994. On Argument structure and the lexical
197

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
expression of syntactic relations, eds. Ken Hale, and Samuel Jay Keyser,
53–109. The View from Building 20. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Kim, Kyumin. 2011. External argument introducers. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Toronto.
Larson, Bradley, Nicholas Longenbaugh, and Maria Polinksy. 2015. Subjectobject parity in Niuean and the labeling algorithm. Paper presented atWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Simon Fraser University.
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object construction.
Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, ed. Samuel Mchombo, 113–
150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Massam, Diane. 1985. Case theory and the projection principle. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.
Massam, Diane. 1998. Aki and the nature of Niuean transitivity. Oceanic
Linguistics 37:12–28.
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language
and Linguistics Theory 19:153–197.
Massam, Diane. 2009. The structure of unergatives. Proceedings of theAustronesian Formal Linguistics Association 16, eds. Sandy Chung,
Daniel Finer, Ileana Paul, and Eric Potsdam, 125–135. London:
University of Western Ontario.
Massam, Diane. 2010. Deriving inverse order. Austronesian and Theoretical
Linguistics, eds. Raphael Mercado, Joey Sabbagh, and Lisa Travis, 271–
296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Massam, Diane. 2013. Nuclear complex predicates in Niuean. Lingua 135:56–
80.
Massam, Diane, and Yves Roberge. 1997. Operator-bound clitics and Niuean ai
clitics, pronouns and movement, eds. James Black, and Virginia
Motapanyane, 273–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
McGinnis, Martha. 2008. Applicatives. Language and Linguistic Compass 2:6,
1225–1245.
Niue: A History of the island. 1982. Alofi, Niue: Institute of Pacific Studies of
the University of the South Pacific and the Government of Niue.
Otsuka, Yuko. 2006. Niuean and Eastern Polynesian: A view from syntax.
Oceanic Linguistics 45:429–56.
Pawley, Andrew. 1966. Polynesian languages: A subgrouping based on sharedinnovations in morphology. Journal of the Polynesian Society 75:39–64.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation,
Cambridge: MIT.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Roberge, Yves, and Michelle Troberg. 2010. The high applicative syntax of the198

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance. Probus 21:249–289.
Seiter, William. 1980. Studies in Niuean syntax. New York: Garland.
Sperlich, Wolfgang. 1997. Tohi Vagahau Niue: Niue language dictionary.
Government of Niue and the University of Hawai‘i Press.
Tollan, Rebecca. 2015. Unifying transitivity and (un)ergativity: A view from
Samoan. Ms., University of Toronto, Toronto, On.

199

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

AN ACOUSTIC INVESTIGATION OF JAVANESE STOPCONSONANT CLUSTERS
Marc Matthews
University of Florida
mrmarc@ufl.edu
Previous research of Javanese stop consonants has shown that the phonemic
contrast is realized phonetically with stiff- and slack voice on the following
vowel in CV syllables with simple onsets. Little is known about the phonetic
realization of stiff- and slack voice on vowels in complex CCV syllables inwhich the vowel is separated from the stop by an intervening segment. In thepresent study, simple and complex stiff- and slack voiced syllables ([pV, plV]and [bV, blV], respectively) containing the vowels [a], [i], and [u] are analyzed
in terms of F0, F1 and F2 frequency, H1-H2 and H1-F2 amplitudes, the cues
most commonly identified in the literature as signally stiff- and slack voice.
Vowels following complex slack- and stiff-voice stop onsets show the sametypes of acoustic markers as their simple CV counterparts. Slack voiced
vowels show characteristically lower F0 and F1 frequencies than stiff voiced
vowels, which is taken to be an indicator of larynx lowering. Differences in
H1-H2 and H1-F2 amplitudes are inconsistent for [a], but follow predicted
patterns for the high vowels. In addition to vowels, lateral approximants
following stiff- and slack voice stops also show the acoustic characteristics ofstiff- and slack voice, respectively. While the differences between stiff- andslack voice appear distinct in Javanese, modal voiced lateral approximants do
not occupy a consistently intermediate position relative to the two nonmodal
voice qualities. The lack of a phonemic contrast between modal and nonmodal
segments in Javanese is proposed to account for this observed phenomenon.

1.

Introduction

Javanese stop consonants are phonetically unique among the Austronesianlanguages. Unlike more familiar voiced and voiceless consonants, Javanese stop
consonants do not contrast in terms of aspiration or Voice Onset Time (VOT),
e.g. the timing of the onset of vocal fold vibration relative to the release of thestop closure. Rather, Javanese stop consonants differ in terms of laryngeal
tension, also known as phonation type or voice quality. Stops represented
orthographically with <p,t,th,c,k> are produced with stiff-voice; those written as<b,d,dh,j,g> are produced with slack-voice. Earlier studies of Javanese stop
consonants used terms such as ‘light’ and ‘heavy’, ‘tense’ and ‘lax’, and ‘clear’and ‘breathy’ to refer to stiff-voice and slack-voice, respectively. However,following the descriptions of voice quality and laryngeal settings of Ladefoged
and Maddieson (1996), the terms ‘stiff’ and ‘slack’ are thought to be the mostappropriate. Furthermore, Thurgood (2004) demonstrated that true breathy voice
201

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
is used in Javanese as a form of emphasis, whereas stiff voice and slack voice
are used to contrast stop consonants.
Research beginning with Fagan (1988) has shown that the phonemic
contrasts of Javanese stiff- and slack voiced stops are realized phonetically on
the following vowel. Previous studies have shown that the most reliable acoustic
cues of stiff and slack voice are relative pitch and formant frequencies, as well
as differences in harmonic amplitudes. The data used in these studies havetypically come from simple CV syllables in which the vowel carrying theacoustic cues for phonation type immediately follows the stop segment. The
present study asks whether and to what extent these same acoustic cues can beseen in vowels following stop consonant cluster onsets.
2.

Nonmodal Phonation Types

There is a continuum of laryngeal tension within which phonation is possible.
Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) describe this continuum as containing five
distinct laryngeal settings ranging from creaky voice to breathy voice. When the
vocal folds vibrate at their tensest setting, it is perceived as creaky (orlaryngealized) voice; when the vocal folds vibrate at their loosest setting, it isperceived as breathy voice. Modal (or clear) voice is the default setting for
voicing, wherein the vocal folds are neither especially tense nor lax (Laver
1980). Stiff voice and slack voice are intermediate settings between creaky,
modal, and breathy voice, respectively. Voicelessness lies on either side of thecontinuum. When the vocal folds are completely taut and closed, as in a glottal
stop, voicing does not occur. Similarly, voicing does not occur when the vocal
folds are completely open, as in a voiceless glottal fricative.
2.2.

Acoustic Correlates of Stiff and Slack Voice

Javanese stop (and affricate) consonants are produced with either stiff- or slack
voice. The two nonmodal phonation types do not contrast phonemically withmodal voice in Javanese. That is, there are no modal voiced stops in Javanese,
nor are there stiff- or slack voiced fricatives, nasals or approximants. The
physical mechanisms and thus the acoustic cues that signal a particularphonation type are varied, and often involve a combination of cues (Blankenship2002, Wayland and Jongman 2003). I summarize Laver’s (1980) and Ladefoged
and Maddieson’s (1996) descriptions of stiff- and slack voice as follows. In stiff
voice, the vocal folds are slightly tenser and held closer together than in modal
voice. Additionally, the larynx is raised in the throat. The perceptual
consequence of this phonation type is that stiff voiced segments sound slightly
laryngealized and higher in pitch than modal segments. Conversely, slack voiced
segments are produced with the vocal folds held slightly looser and more open
than in modal voice, and with the larynx lowered in the throat. As a result, slack
202

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
voiced segments are perceived to be slightly breathy and lower in pitch thanmodal segments.
Several acoustic effects result from the differing mechanisms involved instiff- and slack voice phonation types. The predicted acoustic effect of larynx
lowering is the lowering of the fundamental (F0) and formant frequencies,
whereas larynx raising has the opposite effect (Laver 1980). The findings ofFagan (1988) and Thurgood (2004) support this prediction in part. Both studies
show that F0 and first formant (F1) frequencies are lower in vowels following
slack voiced stops compared to stiff voiced stops. Surprisingly, the second
formant (F2) frequency of slack voiced vowels was often found to be higher
than those in stiff voiced vowels. A higher F2 in slack voiced segments is
unexpected and cannot be explained by the effect of larynx lowering.
As laryngeal tension decreases, the vocal folds remain open for larger
portions of a single open-closed cycle, which boosts the spectral energy of thefirst harmonic (Wayland and Jongman 2003). The open quotient is the ratio of
the open phase of the vocal folds to a complete cycle (Blankenship 2002), and isthought to be larger for slack and breathy voice, and smaller for stiff and creaky
voice. As the open quotient increases (e.g. in slack voice compared with stiff
voice), the spectral energy in the first harmonic increases and energy in thehigher harmonics decreases. Therefore, the difference in amplitudes between thefirst and second harmonics (H1-H2) is expected to be higher for slack voiced
segments compared to stiff voiced segments.
Spectral slope—a measure of the relative concentration of acoustic
energy in a waveform—is also often used as a cue to phonation type
(Blankenship 2002). Due to the boost in H1 and dampening of the higher
harmonics in slack voice, the difference in amplitudes of the first harmonic andthe second formant (H1-F2) will be higher for slack voiced segments compared
to stiff voiced segments. That is, slack voiced segments are expected to have asteeper spectral slope than stiff voiced segments.
In summary, the perception of nonmodal phonation types such as stiffand slack voice likely arise from a combination of acoustic cues, rather thanfrom a single cue (Blankenship 2002). The most commonly used measures of
nonmodal phonation are fundamental frequency (F0), the first and second
formant frequencies (F1, F2), as well as the difference in amplitudes between
the first and second harmonics (H1-H2) and the first harmonic and second
formant (H1-F2). Of these, F1 frequency and H1-F2 appear to be the mostrobust acoustic cues across studies, with slack voiced exhibiting lower F1 andhigher H1-F2 compared with stiff voiced segments (Fagan 1988, Ladefoged andMaddieson 1996, Laver 1980, Thurgood 2004, Wayland and Jongman 2003).
This information is summarized in Table 1 below. Modal voiced segments are
expected to be intermediate to stiff- and slack voice in all of thesemeasurements, as modal voice represents the default setting of vocal foldvibration, neither tense nor lax.
203

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Table 1. Expected characteristics of stiff- and slack-voice(adapted from Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996, Blankeship 2002)
Stiff voice <p>

Slack voice <b>- raised larynx- vocal folds slightly tenseand close- lower open quotient- lowered larynx-vocal folds slightly lax
and open- higher open quotient- slightly laryngealized- higher pitch- slightly breathy- lower pitch

A. Articulatory characteristics:

B. Auditory characteristics:

C. Acoustic characteristics:
a. F0 and Formant frequencies:- higherb. H1-H2 (open quotient) and H1-F2 (spectral slope):- lower3.

- lower- higher

Research Questions

The analyses and conclusions regarding the acoustic correlates of stiff- and slack
voice in Javanese stops cited in section 2 were done on vowels following simple
onsets, e.g. CV syllables. This study represents the first step in studying theacoustic correlates of slack- and stiff voice in Javanese syllables with complex
onsets. Javanese phonotactics allow prenasalized stop clusters, as well as stopapproximant clusters as onsets. This study looks specifically at complex onsets
consisting of a bilabial stop followed by a lateral approximant, and compares
those to simple onsets of stiff- and slack voiced bilabial stops and modal voiced
lateral approximants. I attempt to answer the following two research questions.
First, to what extent can the effects of stiff- and slack voiced stops be measured
in vowels of ClV syllables, in which a lateral approximant separates the stop andvowel? Second, can the acoustic effects of stiff- and slack voiced stops be
observed in the intervening lateral approximant in ClV syllables?
Bilabial stops were chosen over lingual stops because of the possible
confounding effects that a lingual gesture might have on the actions of larynx
raising or lowering. Labial gestures are not expected to effect the tension
surrounding the larynx or the ability to raise or lower it. Lateral approximants
were chosen as the intermediate segment in target syllables for two reasons.
First, lateral approximants have a rather well defined harmonic structure (Reetz
and Jongman 2009), in which it may be possible to measure the effects of stiffand slack voice. Second, lateral approximants do not generally block the
spreading of articulatory gestures or features. In light of these observations, it ispredicted that the same acoustic cues for stiff- and slack voice will be present tosimilar degrees in vowels following simple and complex onsets of the same204

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
type. Furthermore, with regard to the second research question, if stiff- and slack
voice phonation types act to raise or lower frequencies or amplitudes in vowels,then that effect should also be observed in an intervening lateral approximant.
Although lateral approximants are produced with modal voice in Javanese,given the right environment (e.g. following a stiff- or slack voiced stop) I predictthat they will also be produced with stiff- or slack voice.
Blankenship 2002 raises the question of whether the phonemic status ofa nonmodal segment influences how it is realized phonetically. In Mazatec,
which contrasts creaky, modal and breathy segments phonemically, all threephonation types occupy distinct phonetic spaces. However, in Tagalog, in which
the nonmodal phonation types occur as allophones, no such clear distinction was
found. Javanese presents an interesting case because the nonmodal phonation
types, stiff voice and slack voice, contrast phonemically with each other within
the stop series, but do not contrast with any modal segment. That is, Javanese
has stiff voiced stops and slack voiced stops, but not modal voiced stops.
Therefore, of additional interest to the present study is the relationship of modal
voice to stiff- and slack voice in Javanese lateral approximants. Based on
Ladefoged and Maddieson’s (1996) continuum of laryngeal tension, it ispredicted that modal voiced laterals (e.g. word initially) will exhibit
characteristics intermediate to lateral approximants following stiff- and slack
voiced stops.
4.

Methodology

The data reported in this study were elicited from one adult female speaker of
the Central Javanese dialect. A word list (Appendix A) containing 45 targetwords was used to elicit the data. Target words began with one of the onset
sequences [bl], [pl], [p], [b], [l], followed by one of the point vowels [a], [i], [u].
The list contained three target words for each onset and vowel combination. The
target word list was randomized and divided into three pages. Two distractor
words were added to the beginning and end of each page (12 words total) inorder to reduce the presence of page-turning noise, starting- or endingintonation, or other undesirable prosodic and acoustic effects. The consultant
confirmed that all of the words on the list were commonly used words. She sat
in a quiet room and said each word twice inside the carrier phrase aku kondo___ ping loro ‘I say ___ two times’. There were six tokens for each consonant(cluster) and vowel combination, except for [plu]. Due to an oversight, one of
the [plu] words elicited (plung ‘something small falling into liquid’) was notproduced with the target [u] because of a phonological laxing rule on closed
syllables. As a result, there were only four tokens in the [plu] set.
Target words were extracted and analyzed using the Praat software.
Measurements of F0, F1, F2, H1-H2 and H1-F2 were taken over a 25ms interval
starting at the onset of each vowel and lateral approximant. Following Fagan’s
205

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(1988) and Thurgood’s (2004) criteria, a vowel onset was considered to be theonset of voicing and identifiable first and second formant bands following a stop
release. These criteria were also used to identify the onset of a lateralapproximant in a stop-lateral onset cluster. In the case of vowels that followed
lateral approximants, the vowel onset was identified as the steady state portionof voicing following the transition from the lateral. For consistency, all onset
measurements were taken from the nearest zero point of the waveform at theonset. Frequencies (Hz) were measured using wide-band spectrograms.
Harmonic amplitudes (dB) were measured using 25.6ms (Hamming) FFTs.
Results of the data analysis are presented in the next section. It wasdetermined that inferential statistical measures would be inappropriate for thecurrent data set, due to its relatively small size and in light of the fact that it was
obtained from a single speaker. Therefore, the data presented in the following
section summarize the observed trends in general terms.
5.

Stiff- and Slack Voice in Vowels

The first question investigated in the present study is whether and to what extent
the acoustic correlates of stiff- and slack voice are observed in vowels following
complex stop cluster onsets. To that end, acoustic measurements described in
section 2.2 and section 4 were compared for vowels following simple andcomplex stiff voiced onsets (e.g. [pV] and [plV]) and following simple andcomplex slack voiced onsets (e.g. [bV] and [blV]).
Figures 1 and 2 summarize the mean vowel frequencies for slack- andstiff voiced vowels, respectively. Based on the effects of larynx lowering
associated with the production of slack voice, vowel frequencies of slack voiced
vowels are predicted to be lower than stiff voiced vowels, regardless of onset
type. Within each group of stiff voiced onsets and slack voiced onsets, slightdifferences were observed between simple and complex onsets. However noconsistent pattern emerged within that variation, e.g. vowels following complex
slack voiced onsets were not consistently higher or lower in frequency thansimple slack voiced onsets for any of the three frequency measures.
Furthermore, stiff voiced onsets and slack voiced onsets occupy distinct, nonoverlapping regions in terms of F0 and F1 frequency. This trend is observed in
the mean vowel frequencies of all three vowels collapsed together (figures 1a,2a) and for each vowel individually (figures 1b, 2b), but is most apparent whencomparing the mean vowel frequencies of slack voiced [a] vowels with those of
stiff voiced [a] vowels. Mean vowel F0 and F1 are lower following slack voiced
onsets compared to those following stiff voiced onsets. Mean F2 frequencies for
slack- and stiff voiced vowels are not as clear-cut. Consistent with previous
findings (Fagan 1988, Thurgood 2004), F2 of back vowels are generally higher
following slack voiced onsets than stiff voiced onsets. Looking at the F2
frequencies for each of the three vowels, there is considerable overlap in the206

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
range of F2 frequencies between slack- and stiff voiced vowels, particularly in[a], and F2 is nearly identical for [i] following both slack- and stiff voiced
onsets.

dB

Figure 1.
a. Mean vowel frequencies (Hz): Slack voice
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Simple [bV]
Complex [blV]

[a]
-0.13
-1.30

[i]
13.47
9.98

[u]
7.72
4.27

b. Slack voice vowel frequencies (Hz): Breakdown by vowel and onset type
Vowel
[a]

Onset type
Simple [bV]
Complex [blV]

F0207.66
198.42F1
614.18706.17F21489.51
1899.68[i]

Simple [bV]
Complex [blV]

219.45222.21291.49340.842479.162476.46[u]Simple [bV]
Complex [blV]

220.97215.71353.53365.931691.491419.17

207

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

dB

Figure 2.
a. Mean vowel frequencies (Hz): Stiff voice
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Simple [pV]
Complex [plV]

[a]
2.98
2.70

[i]
19.10
21.82

[u]
19.58
20.43

b. Stiff voice vowel frequencies (Hz): Breakdown by vowel and onset type
Vowel
[a]

Onset type
Simple [pV]
Complex [plV]F0
237.06228.08F1
884.50903.39F21606.40
1648.01[i]

Simple [pV]
Complex [plV]

239.95239.45366.71
387.182674.00
2453.40[u]Simple [pV]
Complex [plV]

238.41
253.78457.53439.35823.371284.51

Differences in H1-H2 amplitudes for slack- and stiff voiced vowels are
summarized in figure 3. It was predicted that H1-H2 would be greater (e.g. ahigher number) for slack voiced vowels than stiff voiced vowels, regardless of
onset type, based on the prominence of spectral energy in H1 which results fromthe higher open quotient in slack voice (Blankenship 2002, Wayland andJongman 2003). This prediction is supported by the mean vowel H1-H2 for all
three vowels together. There is some variation in the range of H1-H2 for simple
and complex onsets for each phonation type, however two distinct clusters
emerge for averaged slack voiced onsets and stiff voiced onsets. Looking at eachvowel individually, the predicted pattern (e.g. slack > stiff) is most readily
observed for [u]. H1-H2 amplitudes for [i] form distinct groups to a lesser
extent. The predicted pattern is not observed for [a], in which H1-H2 of slack
voiced [a] is lower than stiff voiced [a].

208The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Figure 3.
Vowel H1-H2 (dB): Comparison of slack and stiff voice
Phonation type
Slack [b-]Stiff [p-]
10.53
3.79
6.48
3.15

Vowel
mean

Onset Type
SimpleComplex[a]

SimpleComplex

-0.13
-1.30

-0.77
0.05

[i]

SimpleComplex

13.47
9.98

8.92
4.70

[u]

SimpleComplex

7.72
4.27

-0.57
1.55

The final measure of phonation type considered in this study is that ofspectral slope (H1-F2), summarized in figure 4. Similar to the predictions foropen quotient H1-H2 above, spectral slope was predicted to be higher for slack
voiced vowels than in stiff voiced vowels, based on the prominence of H1 anddampening of spectral energy in the higher frequencies occurring in slack voice.
Again, this prediction is supported by the mean H1-F2 for all three vowels
together, and for the high vowels [i] and [u]. Here we can observe two distinctgroups for slack voiced vowels and stiff voiced vowels. There is some variation
between H1-F2 amplitudes for simple and complex onsets of the same type, yet
despite this range the two groups do not overlap for the high vowels, and there isno consistent pattern in the variation between onset types. The predicted patternis again not observed for [a], where the mean H1-F2 for complex slack voiced
onsets (e.g. [bla]) falls within the range of simple and complex stiff voiced
onsets (e.g. within the range for [pa] and [pla]).
Figure 4.
Vowel H1-F2 (dB): Comparison of slack- and stiff voice
Phonation type
Slack [b-] Stiff [p-]
39.55
20.83
30.45
22.47

Vowel
mean

Onset Type
SimpleComplex[a]

SimpleComplex

9.57
2.73

2.98
2.70

[i]

SimpleComplex

28.70
29.05

19.10
21.82

[u]

SimpleComplex

40.83
29.12

19.58
20.43

209

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
In summary, vowel measurements were taken for stiff- and slack voiced
vowels in terms of fundamental frequency, formant frequencies, and harmonic
amplitudes. As predicted, slack voiced vowels had lower F0 and F1 values thanstiff voiced vowels. This was particularly true for [a]. F2 values were higher on
average for slack voiced values, consistent with previous research yet
inexplicable by the assumed effect of larynx lowering. Differences in harmonic
amplitudes (H1-H2 and H1-F2) also supported our predictions, such that the
average H1-H2 and H1-F2 for all three vowels together was higher for slack
voice than stiff voice. However, the prediction was not borne out for [a], inwhich H1-H2 was lower for slack voice than stiff voice, and H1-F2 overlapped
for the two phonation types.
5.2.

Stiff- and Slack Voice in Lateral Approximants

The second aim of the present study is to investigate whether and to what extent
stiff- and slack voice can be observed in lateral approximants that occur after
stiff- and slack voiced stops, respectively. To that end, the acoustic
measurements described above were compared for lateral approximants in stiff-,slack- and modal voiced onsets (e.g. the [l] in [plV], [blV] and [lV] syllables).
Based on the observations that laterals contain a relatively well-defined formant
structure and do not typically block feature spreading, it was predicted that thesame acoustic cues observed in stiff- and slack voiced vowels (e.g. relativechanges in F0, F1, F2, H1-H2 and H1-F2) would also be observed in so-called
stiff- and slack voiced laterals. Furthermore, based on the proposed continuumof laryngeal settings (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996), it was predicted thatmodal [l] would exhibit intermediate values to stiff- and slack voiced [l].
The mean F0, F1 and F2 frequencies of lateral approximants for thethree phonation types are shown in figure 5a for all three following vowels
together. As was predicted and observed for vowels (section 5.1), F0 and F1 ofslack voiced [l] is lower than F0 and F1 of stiff voiced [l]. Also in line with thecurrent findings for vowels, F2 of slack voiced [l] is higher than F2 of stiff
voiced [l]. Modal [l] does show intermediate average values to stiff- and slack
voiced [l], however modal [l] does not appear to occupy its own distinct space inany of these three measures. In terms of F0, modal [l] and slack voiced [l] arenearly identical. Similarly, modal [l] and stiff voiced [l] are nearly identical interms of F1 and F2. This trend becomes more apparent when looking at theidentity of the following vowel (figure 5b). We see that when [l] precedes [a],the F0, F1 and F2 frequency values follow the predicted pattern (e.g. slack [l] is
lower than modal [l], which is lower than stiff [l]). However, when preceding[i], F1 of modal [l] is higher and F2 is lower than both stiff- and slack voiced [l].
Similarly, when [l] precedes [u], F0 and F2 of modal [l] are lower and F1 ishigher than both stiff- and slack voiced [l].

210The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Figure 5.
a. Mean lateral approximant frequencies (Hz)
3000
2500
Hz

2000
1500
1000
500
0

F0
216.76217.03240.08Slack [blV]
Modal [lV]
Stiff [plV]F1
352.45463.24471.95F2
1902.311722.89
1717.27b. Lateral approximant frequencies (Hz): Breakdown by phonation type andfollowing vowel
Following
Vowel
[a]

Phonation
Type
Slack
Modal
Stiff

F0

F1

F2

211.50223.67234.32379.99496.37545.27

1903.34
1685.731527.58

[i]

Slack
Modal
Stiff

223.98225.71238.08334.67473.47459.71

1964.191733.48
1822.95

[u]

Slack
Modal
Stiff

214.81201.73247.84342.68419.89410.87

1839.40
1749.47
1801.29

We can see similar trends in the differences in harmonic amplitudes of
stiff- and slack voiced laterals as those obtained for vowels (figures 3, 4). Figure
6 shows the H1-H2 amplitude difference for lateral approximants. As wasobserved for vowels in section 5.1, stiff- and slack voiced laterals follow thepredicted pattern such that H1-H2 is greater for slack voiced laterals than stiff
voiced laterals. This is true for all following vowels collapsed together, and foreach following vowel individually. As was observed in the fundamental andformant frequencies of modal [l] (figure 5), H1-H2 amplitude of modal [l] fails
to occupy an intermediate position to stiff- and slack voiced [l]. On average andespecially when preceding [u], H1-H2 of modal [l] is lower than stiff voiced [l],which was predicted to be the lowest of the three phonation types. When [l]211The Proceedings of AFLA 21
precedes [a] and [i], H1-H2 of modal [l] is intermediate yet nearly identical tostiff voiced [l].

dB

Figure 6.
H1-H2 of lateral approximants (dB)
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10

Slack [blV]
Modal [lV]
Stiff [plV]Slack [blV]
Modal [lV]
Stiff [plV]
mean
4.52
-6.06
-2.52

[a]
-0.78
-5.50
-5.83

[i]
7.52
-4.68
-5.27

[u]
6.82
-7.98
3.55

Figure 7 shows the differences in spectral slope (H1-F2) oflateral approximants. Again, we see that H1-F2 of slack voiced laterals is higher
than stiff voiced laterals, except when preceding [u]. However, H1-F2 of modal[l] does not appear to occupy a consistent intermediate position to that of stiffand slack voiced [l]. Looking at each following vowel, we see that whenpreceding [i], H1-F2 of modal [l] is intermediate to stiff- and slack voiced [l],although it is very close to the average value for stiff voiced [l]. Surprisingly,
H1-F2 of modal [l] is much lower than both stiff- and slack voiced [l] whenpreceding [a] and [u].

212The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Figure 7.
H1-F2 of lateral approximants (dB)
30
25
dB

20
15

Slack [blV]

10

Modal [lV]50
Slack [blV]
Modal [lV]
Stiff [plV]

Stiff [plV]
mean
22.12
8.61
17.26

[_a]
18.88
5.67
15.25

[_i]
24.73
10.52
9.77

[_u]
22.75
9.63
26.75

In summary, lateral approximants that were preceded by stiff- and slack
voiced stops showed the acoustic cues associated with their respective phonation
type. Similar to the findings for stiff- and slack voiced vowels (section 5.1),
slack voiced laterals exhibited lower F0 and F1, higher F2, and higher H1-H2and H1-F2 than their stiff voiced counterparts. Unexpectedly, modal [l] did not
occupy a distinct intermediate space in terms of these acoustic measurements,
particularly when modal [l] preceded the high vowels [i] and [u].
6.

Discussion

The data presented in the previous section suggest that the entire voiced portionof speech following a stiff- or slack voiced stop show acoustic cues for stiff- andslack voice, respectively, whether that voiced portion is a single vowel or alateral approximant followed by a vowel. Furthermore, the identity of the vowel
appears to have an effect on the particular cues that are used and on their relative
prominence. F0 and F1 frequencies were shown to be lower for slack voiced
laterals and vowels than stiff voiced laterals and vowels, particularly for [a].
Fagan (1988) and others have interpreted a lower F1 in slack voiced vowels as
indicating larynx lowering. However, amplitude differences (H1-H2 and H1-F2)
for [a] and laterals preceding [a] did not exhibit the predicted behavior, whereas
they were much more apparent for the high vowels [i] and [u]. These two
measures of open quotient and spectral slope, respectively, indicate the relative
degree of glottal tension via the prominence of H1 relative to the upperharmonics associated with stiff- and slack voice (Blankenship 2002). If weconsider the articulatory actions involved in the production of each of the threevowels in the present study, the tongue is least constricted in the production of213

The Proceedings of AFLA 21[a]. Due to the greater degree of tongue advancement and constriction in highcompared to low vowels, the speaker may be less able to achieve larynxlowering in [i] and [u], and instead relies on a similar action of relaxing glottal
constriction, resulting in more apparent differences in open quotient and spectral
slope for high vowels. This may explain why F1 differences are less pronounced
for the high vowels and more pronounced for the low vowel [a], and conversely
why the predicted amplitude differences observed for the high vowels and not
for [a]. In order to validate this proposed explanation, however, it will benecessary to first determine experimentally whether the speaker actually uses
larynx lowering in the production of slack voice, as is assumed in the literature,and the extent to which the action of larynx lowering is affected by vowel
height.
In addition to assessing the relationship between stiff- and slack voice insimple and complex onsets, this study also sought to determine the relationshipamong stiff-, slack- and modal voice. Ladefoged and Maddieson’s (1996)
distinction of five laryngeal settings predicts that modal voice will beintermediate to stiff- and slack voice, however Blankenship’s (2002) findings
suggest that the phonemic status of a nonmodal sound can influence whether itis realized as phonetically distinct from modal sounds. As described in section
2.2, the phonemic distinction between stiff- and slack voice is only relevant
within the stop series (including affricates as stops). Stiff- and slack voice do notcontrast phonemically with any modal segment in Javanese. The so-called stiffand slack voiced laterals and vowels described in the preceding sections arise ascontextual variants only when preceded by a stiff- or slack voiced stop,
respectively. Although the phonemically contrasting stiff- and slack voiced [l]occupied consistently distinct position in terms of frequency and amplitude,
non-contrasting modal voiced [l] did not. In many cases, frequency andamplitude values for modal [l] overlapped with those for either stiff- or slack [l].
In other cases, values for modal [l] were more extreme than those for either stiffor slack [l]. These findings lend further support to Blankeship’s (2002) notionthat the phonology of a language influences the ways in which particular sounds
are realized, such that an idealized continuum (e.g. Ladefoged and Maddieson
1996) may only be phonetically implemented when a phonemic contrast ispresent. It appears that, for the Javanese speaker in the present study, contrasting
phonation types occupy distinct regions of the laryngeal continuum. However,as noted previously, there are no modal sounds that contrast with stiff- or slack
voiced sounds in Javanese. Therefore, the phonetic implementation of modal
voice need not be as careful as the implementation of nonmodal voice settings.
In more concrete terms, when a Javanese speaker produces a [la] syllable, there
is no chance that it will be confused with a stiff voiced [la], and so it ispermissible to produce that syllable with slightly stiff voiced features or slightly
slack voiced features. However, it is very important for the speaker that slack

214

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
voiced [ba] not be confused with stiff voiced [pa]. Thus, their production must
be more distinct and closer to the hypothesized continuum.
7.

Conclusion

In this preliminary study of nonmodal phonation in Javanese, it wasdemonstrated that stiff- and slack voice are expressed on the vowel following a
stiff- or slack voiced stop, respectively, regardless of the presence of a lateralapproximant between the stop and vowel. Furthermore, it was shown that thesame acoustic cues for nonmodal phonation present in the vowel are also
observed in the intervening lateral approximant. The most prominent acoustic
cues for stiff- and slack voice appear to be influenced by the identity of thevowel. The lowering of F0 and F1 following slack voiced stops was most
readily observed for the low back vowel [a], and to lesser extents for the highvowels [i] and [u]. Clearer differences in H1-H2 and H1-F2 for stiff- and slack
voice were more readily observed for the high vowels than for [a], whichshowed greater overlap between phonation types. To explain the difference inacoustic cues relative to vowel identity, it was proposed that larynx lowering iseasier to achieve for low and back vowels compared to high and front vowels,
and that modulations of glottal tension are used to greater extents in order toproduce stiff- and slack voice for the high vowels. However, whether this
proposed explanation actually accounts for the observed phenomena must beborne out by future research.
Stiff- and slack voice in Javanese appear to occupy distinct position on
the continuum of laryngeal tension in terms of fundamental and formant
frequencies, and harmonic amplitude differences. This difference can be
attributed to the contrasting phonemic status of stiff- and slack voiced stops inJavanese. Similar measurements of word-initial modal voiced lateralapproximants did not distinguish them from the so-called stiff- and slack voiced
lateral approximants which resulted from the expression of stiff- and slack voicein [plV] and [blV] syllables, respectively. Following the work of Blankenship(2002), we proposed that the lack of a clear boundary between modal voice on
the one hand and stiff- and slack voice on the other hand may be due to the lackof a phonemic contrast between modal and nonmodal segments in Javanese.
The present findings are limited in their generalizability, as they are draw
from a relatively small data sample elicited from a single speaker. Future studies
of nonmodal phonation in Javanese stops should therefore collect a larger data
set from a larger sample of speakers, allowing a more thorough analysis using
inferential statistics. The future research should also elicit stiff- and slack voicestop clusters at additional places of articulation, and involving different
approximants. It was shown that the lateral approximant [l] does not block the
spreading of nonmodal phonation to the following vowel in [plV] and [blV]clusters, and that the approximant takes on those features of nonmodal
215

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
phonation. It remains to be seen whether this is true of the other approximants in
Javanese, particularly the trilled approximant [r], which may be less amicable tothe spreading of phonatory features than [l], [j] or [w]. Finally, the role that thevarious acoustic cues for stiff- and slack voice play in the categorical perceptionof Javanese stop consonants and consonant clusters must also be considered infuture research.
Appendix A. Word list
Target words are listed in alphabetical order with English gloss.
1. babad‘history’
2. bajag‘pirate’3. bapak‘father’4. bibar‘after’5. biji‘ore’
6. bikak‘open (karma register)’
7. blabag‘blackboard; one who is responsible for X’
8. blabar‘strong cord used as a boundary marker’
9. blacan‘wild cat’
10. bligo‘wax-gourd’
11. blimbing‘star fruit’
12. blirik‘spotted hen’
13. bludag‘to overflow, spill out/over; to be boastful; to be generous
to others’
14. bluluk‘coconut in its first stage of development on the tree’
15. blumbang‘pond, pool’
16. budhal‘departure’
17. buka‘to go’18. bungah‘excited’19. lagu‘song’
20. larang‘expensive’
21. layang‘note’
22. lima‘five’
23. lipet‘multiplied’
24. lisah‘oil’
25. lucu‘cute’
26. lukisan‘picture’
27. luweh‘the optimum
28. pager‘fence’29. pangan‘to eat’30. papat‘four’
31. pindah‘move’
32. pitu‘seven’216

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
33. piye
34. pladen
35. plak-plek
36. plana
37. pliket
38. plilik
39. plisir
40. plucut
41. plung
42. pluntur
43. pulisi
44. putih
45. puter‘how’‘one who serves or waits on people’‘to keep slapping’‘saddle’‘sticky’‘to stare wide-eyed’‘handbreadth’‘something slippery falling out of one’s hand’‘sound of something falling into liquid’‘cord used for hanging various gamelan instruments’‘police’‘to white’‘turn’

References
Blankenship, Barbara. 2002. The timing of nonmodal phonation in vowels.
Journal of Phonetics 30:163‒191.
Fagan, Joel L. 1988. Javanese intervocalic stop phonemes: The light/heavy
distinction. Studies in Austronesian Linguistics. Ohio University Center
for International Studies.
Ladefoged, Peter, and Maddieson, I. 1996. Sounds of the world’s languages.
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Laver, John. 1980. The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reetz, Henning, and Jongman, Allard. 2009. Phonetics: Transcription,
production, acoustics, and perception. Malden: John Wiley & Sons.
Thurgood, Ela. 2004. Phonation types in Javanese. Oceanic linguistics 43:277‒
295.
Wayland, Ratree, and Jongman, Allard. 2003. Acoustic correlates of breathy andclear vowels: The case of Khmer. Journal of Phonetics 31:181‒201.

217

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

DECOMPOSING MALAY ANAPHORIC EXPRESSIONS⇤
Hiroki Nomoto
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
nomoto@tufs.ac.jp
Previous studies on anaphoric expressions in Malay centre on two forms,
i.e. ‘diri + pronoun’ and ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’, and analyse them
non-compositionally. This paper shows that a compositional analysis of
Malay anaphoric expressions is not only possible but is empirically moredesirable than a non-compositional analysis, as it can account for a wider
range of anaphoric expressions in a systematic manner.

1.

Introduction

Previous studies on anaphoric expressions in Standard Malaysian/Singapore Malay(e.g. Cole and Hermon 1998, 2005; Nomoto 2011) centre on two forms: (i) ‘diri+ pronoun’ and (ii) ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’. They are non-compositional in thatthey treat these multimorphemic forms as single lexical items/words on a par withEnglish reflexives such as himself. Consequently, the anaphoric properties of therelevant forms are ascribed to the whole expression.
This study proposes an alternative analysis. The proposed analysis is compositional, and hence the anaphoric properties of a multimorphemic form are ascribedto its constituent parts. It is demonstrated that the proposed analysis can deal
with a wider range of anaphoric expressions in Malay, which include (i) ‘diri +pronoun’, (ii) ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’, (iii) ‘diri + non-pronoun’, (iv) ‘diri +non-pronoun + sendiri’, (v) diri, (vi) diri sendiri, (vii) ‘(non-)pronoun + sendiri’,and (viii) sendiri. The proposed analysis offers more insight into the study ofanaphoric expressions in related dialects/languages (e.g. Gil 2001; Paul 2004;
Davies 2008; Kartono 2013), as these dialects/languages have been reported to
employ similar multimorphemic anaphoric expressions.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 demonstrates that Malay indeed
possesses the various anaphoric expressions listed above by presenting examplesof them. Section 3 reviews Cole and Hermon’s (2005) analysis of patterns (i) and⇤
The research reported here was supported in part by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (#26770135). I thank my Malay consultants Faridah Mohamed and Kartini Abd. Wahabas well as audiences at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, the 21st Annual Meeting of theAustronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) and the 18th International Symposium on
Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL). I am grateful to Vincent Homer, who generously sharedwith me the LATEX source file of his AFLA 16 proceedings paper (Homer 2009).

219

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(ii) as a representative of non-compositional analyses. After pointing out problems of their analysis, I propose an alternative compositional analysis in section
4 and show how it accounts for the anaphoric properties of the various types ofanaphoric expressions in Malay in section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper.
2.

The Inventory of Malay Anaphoric Expressions

Besides the two types that have attracted previous researchers’ attention ((i) and(ii)), Malay has many other patterns of anaphoric expressions ((iii)–(viii)). Alleight patterns are easily found in naturally occurring texts. They are all madeup of one or more elements from diri, sendiri and noun phrases. This simple
fact already suggests the possibility of a compositional treatment. I will show insection 4 that it is possible to reduce the eight patterns to just three. Examples ofthe eight patterns are given below.
(i) ‘diri + pronoun’ It is this pattern that has intrigued previous researchers themost, as it shows a hybrid property of reflexives and pronominals. At first, one
may regard it as reflexive because, in elicitation sessions, native Malay speakers
will normally use this pattern to translate English expressions with reflexives suchas himself and herself. In support of this initial hypothesis, the pattern allows a local c-commanding antecedent, as indicated by index j in (1)–(2) below. However,a closer inspection reveals that the pattern also exhibits pronominal behaviours.
Thus, dirinya also allows non-local and non-c-commanding antecedents, as indicated by index i in (1) and (2) respectively. The referent indicated by index k is a
discourse referent that is salient in the current discourse but is not referred to by
any DP in the sentence.
(1)

Alii kata [Sitij mengambil gambar diri-nyai/j/k ].
Ali say Siti takepicture DIRI-3‘Ali said Siti took a picture of him/herself/her.’(2)[Bapak Sitii ]j tidak suka diri-nyai/j/k .
father Siti not like DIRI-3‘Siti’s father does not like her/himself/him.’ (Cole and Hermon 2005:631)(ii) ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’ Unlike ‘diri + pronoun’, this pattern shows regular reflexive behaviours. It is hence subject to Condition A of the canonicalbinding theory; dirinya sendiri must be locally bound in (3) below.1
(3)
1

a.

Alii kata Sitij mengambil gambar diri-nya sendiri⇤i/j/⇤k .
Ali say Siti takepicture DIRI-3 own

Note that examples like (i) involve a combination of pattern (i) ‘diri + pronoun’ and the adverbial sendiri meaning ‘alone, by oneself’, and should not be confused with pattern (ii).

220The Proceedings of AFLA 21b.

‘Ali said Siti took a picture of herself.’[Ibu
Sitii ]j mengambil gambar diri-nya sendiri⇤i/j/⇤k .
mother Siti takepicture DIRI-3 own‘Siti’s mother took a picture of herself.’

For patterns (iii)–(viii), I only present examples (all taken from the DBP (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka) Corpus).2 The anaphoric properties of these patterns
will be described in section 5, where I show that they can be accounted for by thecompositional analysis to be proposed in section 4.
(4)(iii) ‘diri + non-pronoun’3
Segala kejadian biologikal dan fizikal ke atas diri remaja
itu
allincident biological and physical to top DIRI adolescent that[. . . ].
‘All the biological and physical incidents that happen to the adolescent[. . . ].’(5)(iv) ‘diri + non-pronoun + sendiri’Apabila tersalah memilih teman, ia akan memberi kesan yang besar
when mistake choose friend it will giveeffect REL big
terhadap diri remaja
itu sendiri.
towards DIRI adolescent that own‘If friends are chosen wrongly, that will have a big influence on the adolescent.’(6)(v) diri
Itu penting, sebab dalam hidup ini keyakinan diri adalah 50%
that important because inlife this confidence DIRI be
50%
daripada kemenangan.
from
victory‘That is important because in life self -confidence is 50% of the success.’(7)(vi) diri sendiri
Sampai bila adikharus membohongi diri sendiri dan
until when younger.sibling should deceive
DIRI own
and(i)John fikir (yang) diri-nya sendiri akan pergi ke KL besok.
John think that DIRI-3 alone will go to KL tomorrow‘John thinks that he himself will go to KL (= Kuala Lumpur) tomorrow.’(Cole and Hermon 2005:634)

2

See my AFLA handout (http://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/nomoto/handout_afla21.pdf) for more examples.
3

Note that non-pronouns are not used as pronoun substitutes in this pattern, unlike adik ‘younger
sibling’ in (7), which is used as a substitute for the second person pronoun.

221

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
diri-nya?
DIRI -3‘When can you stop deceiving yourself and him?’(8)(vii) ‘(non-)pronoun + sendiri’Bangsa Melayu di-katakan tidak mampu berfikir dalam bahasa mereka
ethnic Malay PASS-say not able
think inlanguage their
sendiri.
own‘Ethnic Malays are said to be unable to think in their own language.’(9)(viii) sendiri
Di samping itu, responden tidak pasti sama ada mereka memiliki
at sidethat respondent not certain whether they havesikap bangga terhadap bahasa sendiri.
attitude proud towards language own‘Moreover, the respondents are not certain whether they take pride in theirown language.’3.

Non-compositional Analysis: Cole and Hermon (2005)

In this section, I briefly review Cole and Hermon’s (2005) study as a representative of non-compositional analyses of Malay anaphoric expressions. As noted at
the outset of this paper, Cole and Hermon focus on two patterns, i.e. (i) ‘diri +pronoun’ and (ii) ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’. They do so presumably for typological considerations rather than descriptive considerations concerning the anaphoric
system of a specific language. In particular, pattern (i) in Malay could pose a serious problem to some rather solid typological generalizations about long-distancereflexives if it were actually a reflexive (Cole and Hermon 1998, 2005). They
conclude that pattern (i) is in fact not a reflexive, and hence does not affect therelevant typological generalizations. This conclusion is based on the following
analysis of pattern (i).
In Cole and Hermon’s analysis, “dirinya is not treated by the syntax as a complex DP [. . . ], but rather as a unitary lexical entry” (643). They assume the existence of a paradigm of ‘diri + pronoun’ shown in Table 1, which is reminiscent of
the English reflexive pronoun paradigm.
Cole and Hermon claim that “diri + pronoun is unspecified in the lexicon withregard to the features [↵anaphor] and [↵pronominal]” (631). In other words, pattern (i) is neither a reflexive nor a pronominal; it has properties of both. This
unspecified feature analysis is able to account for the hybrid property of ‘diri +pronoun’ that we saw in the last section (cf. (1)).
Given this analysis, a similar analysis has to be assumed for true reflexives‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’, though Cole and Hermon are not explicit about them.
222

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Table 1: The full paradigm of ‘diri + pronoun’ (Cole and Hermon 2005:629)
PersonFirst Person
Second Person
Third Person

Singular

Pluraldiri saya/diri-ku
diri kami/diri kita
diri kamu/diri-mu diri kamu/diri-mu
diri-nyadiri mereka/diri-nya

That is to say, the lexicon of Malay should have ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’ as aunitary lexical entry with a paradigm similar to Table 1. Each lexical entry mustbe specified in the lexicon as [+anaphor, pronominal] to capture its canonicalreflexive behaviours.
While Cole and Hermon’s study has bolstered the general theory of longdistance reflexives by explaining away the typologically unusual behaviours ofreflexive-looking forms in Malay, i.e. ‘diri + pronoun’, it is problematic whentaken as an analysis of a phenomenon in a specific language. To begin with, thevarious other anaphoric expressions presented in section 2 (iii)–(viii) appear toresult from combinations of the constituent parts of ‘diri + pronoun (+ sendiri)’(i)–(ii). Yet, under Cole and Hermon’s non-compositional analysis (or any noncompositional analysis for that matter), the relation between (iii)–(viii) and (i)–(ii)remains unclear. Furthermore, the pronoun slot in ‘diri + pronoun (+ sendiri)’ isin fact not restricted to pronouns, but also available for other DPs, as is the casewith (iii) ‘diri + non-pronoun’ and (iv) ‘diri + non-pronoun + sendiri’. It is implausible to think that these patterns with non-pronouns are also unitary lexical
entries, for the number of non-pronouns is infinite, unlike that of pronouns.
Given these problems, it is more desirable if a compositional analysis is possible that can account for the anaphoric properties of ‘diri + pronoun (+ sendiri)’
as well as the other anaphoric expressions. I will propose one such analysis in thenext section.
4.

Compositional Analysis

The proposed compositional analysis has three main ingredients. The first ingredient is the syntax and semantics of diri. A proper understanding of diri enables
us to see how diri is involved in anaphoric expressions and why. It also leads
us to the second main ingredient, i.e. the null unspecified possessive pronoun pro,which plays an important role in reducing the numerous different patterns into justthree and thereby greatly simplifying the description and analysis of the anaphoric
expressions in Malay. The last ingredient is the semantics of the intensifier sendiri‘alone, own’. I argue that the semantics of sendiri involves a kind of focus semantics and that the local binding property characteristic of anaphors results from it.
223

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
4.1. DiriI make the following two claims about diri. First, diri is an NP that takes a possessor argument. Second, it denotes a function from an individual to that individual’s
physical self:(10)

JdiriK = x.x’s physical self

To put this informally, diri means ‘someone’s body’. Given that one’s body,
constituting his/her physical self, is the entire whole inalienably possessed byhim/her, one could analyse diri as a pseudo-identity function.4 In other words, theformula in (10) can be approximated as in (11), which roughly says that a person’s
body is that person himself/herself.
(11)

JdiriK = x.x’s physical self ⇡ x.x’s x ⇡ x.x

Two possibilities exist regarding the approximations in (11). The first possibility is that they are hypothesized diachronic processes in the grammaticalizationof diri. That is, there are two diri morphemes synchronically, i.e. (10) and theidentity function ( x.x in (11)). Only the former but not the latter preserves themeaning of ‘physical self’. The other possibility is that there is only one dirimorpheme and the approximations in (11) take place in the speaker’s mind/brain
as synchronic subconscious inference processes when diri is used in anaphoric
expressions. In what follows, I will assume the first possibility for simplicity’ssake, and treat diri as an identity function, unless otherwise noted. Further study
is needed to determine which possibility is actually the case.
There is evidence for the ‘physical self’ meaning of diri. First, diri can beused in contrast with words such as jiwa ‘soul’, hati ‘heart’ and batin ‘inner self’,words representing the mental self of an individual:
(12)

a.
b.

Saya terpaksa “meremajakan semula” diri dan jiwa saya.
I
have.to rejuvenate
DIRI and soul my‘I had to rejuvenate my body and soul.’[. . . ] cuba-lah
fahamilagi siapa Ade ini, fahami
try-PARTICLE understand more who Ade this understanddiri dan hati Ade.
DIRI and heart Ade‘[. . . ] try to understand more who I am, to understand my physicalself and heart.’(DBP Corpus)

Second, if only the physical aspect of an individual changes, it is a change in diri:4

Kartono (2013) glosses diri in Indonesian, Palembangese and Jambi as ‘body’. This is nota precise description of diri in Malay (and probably even in these languages). It is badan andtubuh that refer to ‘body’. Diri is not interchangeable with these words, as it is an abstract notion
reflecting the Malay perception of the self.

224

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(13)

Ular itu telah kembali kepada diri asal-nya, se-orang putera raja.
snake that PRF return to
DIRI original-3 one- CLF prince king‘The snake has transformed itself back into the original self, a prince.’(Si Bongsu dengan Kak Nam)

These examples also lend support to the claim that diri is an NP. It is smaller
than DP because it can be followed by a possessor DP and other modifiers. Moreover, it can be coordinated with another non-DP noun phrase.
4.2.

The Null Unspecified Possessive Pronoun pro

The second ingredient for the compositional analysis of various anaphoric expressions in Malay is the null unspecified possessive pronoun pro. It is comparable to
one’s in English, and is a part of the pronominal paradigm of the language.
Where anaphoric expressions are concerned, pro occurs in the following twocontexts: as a possessor argument of diri and with the intensifier sendiri. With theintroduction of pro, it becomes possible to reduce the eight different patterns into
just three types, as shown in (14).
9(i)‘diri + pronoun’=(14)(iii) ‘diri + non-pronoun’‘diri + DP’;(v) diri = diri + pro
9(ii) ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’=(iv) ‘diri + non-pronoun + sendiri’‘diri + DP + sendiri’;(vi) diri sendiri = ‘diri + pro + sendiri’(vii) ‘(non-)pronoun + sendiri’‘DP + sendiri’(viii) sendiri = ‘pro + sendiri’
When diri appears to occur with no noun phrase, as in (v) and (vi), it actually contains the phonologically null DP pro as its complement. Likewise, when sendiri
appears to occur with no noun phrase, as in (vi) and (viii), it actually modifies pro.
Notice that (vi) can be parsed in two ways: [diri + pro] + sendiri and diri + [pro+ sendiri]. Also notice that ‘diri + DP + sendiri’ is a combination of ‘diri + DP’
and ‘DP + sendiri’.
Now, the various anaphoric expressions in Malay can be summarized as in
Table 2. Emphatic forms are so called because their denotations are virtually
identical to those of the corresponding non-emphatic forms (cf. (11)), but havemore expression.5 The forms containing sendiri are referred to as focussed forms
because the semantics of sendiri involves focus semantics, as we shall now see.
5

In this connection, Kartono (2013:50–53) points out that emphatic forms in Indonesian (morespecifically ‘diri + pronoun’ in a subject position) are used to express respect and empathy. This
description seems also valid in Malay.

225

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Table 2: The composition of Malay anaphoric expressions
Non-focussed

Focussed (sendiri)(A) DP(C) DP + sendiri[A DP ][C [A DP ] sendiri ]pro/-nya/Ali
pro/-nya/Ali sendiri‘one’s/his/her/Ali’s’ ‘one’s/his/her/Ali’s own’
Emphatic (B) diri + DP(D) diri + DP + sendiri(diri)[B diri [A DP ]][D [B diri DP ] sendiri ]/[D diri [C DP sendiri ]]diri pro/-nya/Ali
diri pro/-nya/Ali sendiri‘one’s/his/her/Ali’s ‘one’s/his/her/Ali’s own
physical self’
physical self’
Nonemphatic

4.3. Sendiri
According to Alsagoff (1992), sendiri ‘alone, own’ (in a non-subject position)requires a local antecedent when used by itself, as in (15).
(15)

Mariami kata bahawa Alij menjual kereta sendiri⇤i/j .
Mariam say thatAli sellcar own‘Mariam said that Ali sold *her/his car.’(Alsagoff 1992:41)

Alsagoff’s other example (16) and the additional example in (17) show that theantecedent of sendiri must c-command the NP modified by sendiri too. These
properties seem inherent to sendiri.6
(16)

(17)

Alii mengusik doktor ituj di rumah sendirii/⇤j .
Ali teasedoctor that in house own‘Ali teased the doctor in his own house.’(Alsagoff 1992:40)[Ibu
Alii ]j menjual kereta sendiri⇤i/j .
mother Ali sell
car own‘Ali’s mother sold her/*his own car.’In the present analysis, sendiri in the examples above is in fact pro sendiri.
Given this analysis, the role of sendiri is to restrict the otherwise unspecified referent of pro to that of its antecedent. Crucially, sendiri restricts possible interpretations to a reflexive one.
6

One might wonder whether they can be attributed to parts of sendiri, as sendiri contains diri.
However, synchronically, sendiri should not be analysed into smaller parts. The etymology ofsendiri is not clear. Zaharani Ahmad (p.c.) suggested to me that it emerged from se-orang diri[one-CLF DIRI] ‘alone’, which is highly probable, given the fact that the related language Minangkabau employs surang, the equivalent of seorang in Malay, in contexts where Malay uses
sendiri such as dirinya sendiri (Yusrita Yanti, p.c.).

226

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Let us look at the function of sendiri (in a non-subject position) in more detail. Sendiri plays a dual role, syntactic and semantic. Syntactically, it searches
the sentence for the antecedent of the expression it combines with. As we haveseen above, the antecedent must locally c-command sendiri. Semantically, sendiri
involves a kind of focus semantics, as Gil (2001) proposes for sendiri in Riau Indonesian.7 This focus semantics has to do with its meaning translated into English
as ‘own’. Sendiri induces a set consisting of the potential referents of the expression it combines with, and excludes from this set all members but the referent of
the antecedent.
Given the expression in (18a), where DPa (a for “antecedent”) denotes individual a (JDPa K = a), ‘DPf sendiri’ induces a set of the potential referents ofDPf (f for “focus”), as in (18b). Call this set F . F must include a, otherwise
the expression is ungrammatical. Sendiri entails that among the members of F , V
applies only to a (18c).
(18)

a.
b.
c.

DPa V [OBJ NP DPf sendiri]F = {a, b, c, d, . . . }8x[V(x) ! x = a]

If DPf is a pronoun whose -features are compatible with DPa , then the referentof DPf becomes identical to that of DPa (JDPa K = JDPf K = a). A reflexive interpretation is obtained in this case. For example, in (15) with the expression ‘Ali
V [OBJ NP pro sendiri]’, the -features of Ali and pro are compatible with eachother, as the latter is unspecified in terms of -features. Thus, the otherwise unrestricted referent of pro is fixed to Ali, giving rise to a reflexive interpretation. By
contrast, if pro is replaced by another pronoun whose -features are incompatible
with those of Ali as in (19), the sentence becomes ungrammatical. This is because
Ali is not in F , the set of potential referents of saya ‘my’.8(19)*Alia menjual [OBJ kereta sayaf sendiri].
Ali sell
car my own(‘*Ali sold my own car.’)In the examples above, the DP that sendiri combines with is a pronoun. However, when sendiri combines with a non-pronoun DP as in Siti sendiri ‘Siti herself’, it works slightly differently. Specifically, the DP itself becomes the antecedent of sendiri. Moreover, the set F consists not of the potential referents of
the DP, but of the DP’s actual referent and its alternatives, because the referent of7

Gil refers to the function of sendiri as ‘conjunctive operator’. Moreover, the specific formulation of it to be presented below differs from Gil’s.
8
One might wonder whether the sentence is grammatical if Ali is used as a substitute for the
first person pronoun. Such a sentence is unacceptable or very unnatural at best for an independent
reason: when a proper name is used as a substitute for a pronoun, the substitution must occur
throughout the sentence consistently.

227

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
a non-pronoun DP is already fixed to a particular individual. As a consequence ofthe first difference, sendiri does not affect the referent of the DP. Thus, I will not
discuss cases involving non-pronouns below, i.e. patterns (iii) and (iv) as well as
pattern (viii) with non-pronouns.
5.

Accounting for Each PatternThis section discusses how the compositional analysis proposed in the last section
accounts for the various anaphoric expressions. Since one of the patterns in focussed forms (C), i.e. (viii) sendiri, has been already explained in the last section,
I begin with focussed forms (C). I will then turn to emphatic focussed forms (D),as sendiri plays a crucial role here too. Emphatic forms (B), which unlike theother two forms do not involve sendiri, are discussed at the end.
5.1.

DP + Sendiri (C. Focussed Forms)

As seen in section 4.3, sendiri restricts possible interpretations to a reflexive one,by limiting the referent of the expression it combines with to that of its antecedent,
which must locally c-command it. To repeat the account of pattern (viii), while thereferent of pro in (20a) is unconstrained, allowing both reflexive and non-reflexive
interpretations, that of pro in (20b) is restricted to that of sendiri’s antecedent, i.e.
Ali. As a result, only a reflexive interpretation is available in (20b).
(20)

a.
b.

Alii menjual kereta proi/j .9
Ali sellcar pro‘Ali sold his/her/their/etc. car.’ (reflexive and non-reflexive)
Alii menjual kereta proi/⇤j sendiri.
Ali sellcar proown‘Ali sold his/*her/*their/*etc. own car.’ (reflexive only)

Another pattern of focussed forms, i.e. (vii) ‘pronoun sendiri’, differs from(viii) only in that an overt pronoun is used instead of pro. Hence, no additional
mechanism is necessary to account for (vii). In (21a) without sendiri, the referentof the third person pronoun -nya can be either that of the local subject Ali or thatof the matrix subject Mariam, or even a discourse referent that does not appear
in the sentence. A reflexive interpretation is obtained in the first case whereas a
non-reflexive interpretation is obtained in the second and third cases. However,
the addition of sendiri rules out the latter interpretative possibility and forces areflexive interpretation, as in (21b).
9

The same surface string has another structure without the possessor pronoun pro. This alternative structure is irrelevant here; it is associated with an interpretation in which the possessor is
unimportant (e.g. ‘Ali sold a car.’).

228

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
(21)

a.
b.

Mariami kata bahawa Alij menjual kereta-nyai/j/k .
Mariam say thatAli sellcar-3‘Mariam said that Ali sold her/his car.’ (reflexive and non-reflexive)
Mariami kata bahawa Alij menjual kereta-nya⇤i/j/⇤k sendiri.
Mariam say thatAli sellcar-3
own‘Mariam said that Ali sold *her/his own car.’ (reflexive only)

Notice that in my analysis (the relevant use of) sendiri always modifies thepossessor. This is obvious when the possessor is overt. Where there does not seemto be any possessor, as in pattern (viii), my analysis assumes a null DP possessor
pro. My analysis thus accords with the following observation by Gil (2001:112):“in Standard Malay/Indonesian, the actual form sendiri appears to function asa reflexive only in possessive constructions.” It is worth noting here that while
Malay and Modern English allow both reflexive and non-reflexive interpretations
only in possessive constructions, some languages allow both interpretive possibilities for non-possessive pronominals as well (cf. Table 3). These languages
include Old English (e.g. van Gelderen 2000; König and Siemund 2000; Keenan
2002), Madurese (Davies 2008), Jambi (Mudung Darat and Tanjung Raden dialects) (Cole et al. 2010), and Palembangese (Kartono 2013). Conversely, otherlanguages distinguish between two kinds of possessive pronouns for reflexive andnon-reflexive interpretations. Russian is one such language (Kazuhiro Kojima,p.c.). I am not aware of a language that has distinct reflexive and non-reflexive
forms only in possessive constructions.
Table 3: Cross-linguistic variation in the reflexive vs. non-reflexive formal distinction
Non-possessive Possessive
Old English, Madurese, etc.
Modern English, Malay
Russian

5.2.

+
+

+

Diri + DP + Sendiri (D. Emphatic Focussed Forms)

As seen in section 2, (ii) ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’ shows typical reflexive behaviours. It must be bound locally, as in (22b). This is not a property of theexpression as a whole but one of sendiri alone, as is the case with focussed forms
discussed above. (22a) without sendiri has both reflexive and non-reflexive interpretations, putting aside the reason why it does for the moment (see section
5.3). With the addition of sendiri, the interpretation is restricted to a reflexive
one, as in (22b). This restriction can be achieved in two ways, as diri-nya sendiri
can be parsed in two ways: (a) [[diri -nya] sendiri] and (b) [diri [-nya sendiri]].
229

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Since diri is an identity function (cf. section 4.1), these two parses can be rewritten as (a) [[-nya] sendiri] and (b) [[-nya sendiri]] respectively, and end up being
denotationally identical to pattern (vii) ‘DP + sendiri’ of focussed forms (C).
(22)

a.

b.

Alii kata [Sitij mengambil gambar diri-nyai/j/k ]. (= (1))
Ali say Siti takepicture DIRI-3‘Ali said Siti took a picture of him/herself/her.’ (reflexive and nonreflexive)
Alii kata Sitij mengambil gambar diri-nya sendiri⇤i/j/⇤k . (= (3a))
Ali say Siti takepicture DIRI-3 own‘Ali said Siti took a picture of *him/herself/*her.’ (reflexive only)

It is expected that local binding is also required for (vi) diri sendiri, because
it is in fact ‘diri pro sendiri’ in my analysis and hence differs from (ii) ‘diri +pronoun + sendiri’ only in that the former involves a null pronoun. This prediction
is borne out, as in (23).
(23)

5.3.

Alii kata Sitij mengambil gambar diri pro⇤i/j/⇤k sendiri.
Ali say Siti takepicture DIRI
own
‘Ali said Siti took a picture of *him/herself/*her.’
Diri + DP (B. Emphatic Forms)

There are two emphatic form patterns to consider: (i) ‘diri + pronoun’ and (v)diri. The first pattern has been the main concern in previous studies. The second pattern is in fact diri pro, and differs from the first pattern only with regard
to the type of pronoun used, overt or null. I discuss these two patterns in separate subsections below, because the choice of the pronoun affects the resultant
interpretation considerably.
5.3.1. Pattern (i): Diri + Pronoun
Recall that diri is an NP that takes a possessor argument (cf. section 4.1). Thus,in this pattern, diri’s possessor argument is saturated by the pronoun, resulting inan emphatic pronoun. English does not have a distinct form corresponding to this
Malay form, but a similar meaning can be conveyed by prosodic emphasis.
Being an emphatic pronoun, ‘diri + pronoun’ behaves pronominally. For instance, dirinya in (24) can take as its antecedent the matrix subject Ali and a
discourse referent indicated by index k. What is surprising, however, is that local
binding is also possible, as indicated by index j.
(24)

230

Alii kata Sitij selalu memuji [diri-nya]i/j/k .
Ali say Siti always praise DIRI-3‘Ali says Siti always praises him/her/herself.’

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
I adopt an account for this local binding property suggested (but rejected) byCole and Hermon (2005). Under this analysis, the interpretation of ‘diri + pronoun’ is determined by the antecedent of the possessor pronoun. This is because
diri denotes an identity function (cf. (11)), and hence the indices of the possessor
and the entire phrase become identical, as shown in (25).
(25)

dirinya: y1
diri: x.x

-nya: y1

Now, a direct object possessor can be coreferential with the local subject, as in(26). Replacing anak lelaki in (26) by diri, (27) is obtained, where local binding
holds between the embedded subject Siti and dirinya, making dirinya look like areflexive pronoun.
(26)

Ali kata Sitij selalu memuji [anak lelaki-nyaj ].
Ali say Siti always praise child male-3‘Ali says Siti always praises her son.’(27)

Ali kata Sitij selalu memuji [diri-nyaj ]j .
Ali say Siti always praise DIRI-3‘Ali says Siti always praises herself.’

Of course, a direct object possessor can be coreferential with other DPs in the sentence and discourse referents, in which case a non-reflexive reading is obtained.
Cole and Hermon (2005) reject the analysis above. They expect sentences(28) to pattern with (29) rather than (30) in terms of Condition C, presumably
confusing the index of the possessor -nya in (29) with that of the whole DP.10
What the analysis actually predicts, however, is (28) patterning with (30) rather
than (29) based on the correct indexing shown in the parentheses after the Malay
sentences.
(28)

a. *Diri-nyai mencium Johni . ([diri-nyai ]i )DIRI -3kissJohn‘He kissed John.’b. *Diri-nyai di-cium (oleh) Johni . ([diri-nyai ]i )DIRI -3
PASS-kiss by
John‘He was kissed by John.’

(29)

a.
b.

10

Anjing-nyai menggigit Johni . ([anjing-nyai ]j )
dog-3
bite
John
‘His dog bit John.’
Anjing-nyai di-pukul (oleh) Johni . ([anjing-nyai ]j )dog-3
PASS -hit by
John

Paul (2004) makes a similar mistake in her discussion of Malagasy ny tenany [DET self.3(GEN)].

231

The Proceedings of AFLA 21‘His dog was hit by John.’(30)

a. *Diai mencium Johni . (diai )3 kissJohn‘He kissed John.’b. *Diai di-cium (oleh) Johni . (diai )3
PASS-kiss by
John‘He was kissed by John.’

5.3.2. Pattern (v): Diri
When diri appears to be used by itself, the meaning is generic, and not one ofsimple reflexivity. Recall that diri in such cases is in fact accompanied by the null
unspecified pronoun pro (i.e. diri pro). I argue that the generic meaning is dueto the unspecified nature of pro accompanying diri; pro means ‘one’s’ rather than‘my/your/his/her/etc.’. Furthermore, the meaning of diri involved in this pattern,in most instances, is not an identity function but ‘physical self’ (10). This isbecause most instances of this pattern involve a reflexive meaning, which cannot
be captured by the composition of an identity function and pro. Arguably becauseof the use of the ‘physical self’ diri instead of the identity function diri, (v) ismuch less common than the other patterns discussed above. Its distribution seems
to be lexically determined, even though the semantic contribution of diri is clear.
In this respect, (v) resembles self- in English (e.g. self-care, self-ignite).11
Diri (= diri pro) can occur as either a noun modifier or a verbal complement.
In (31), diri modifies an NP. An NP modified by diri is interpreted genericallyas in (31a), and cannot be associated with a particular individual as in (31b).12
Gambar diri could mean ‘selfie’, but like nouns with self- in English, the use mustbe established in the speaker community in order to become fully acceptable.
(31)

a.

Siti tidak lalai
menjaga [kecantikan/maruah diri].
Siti not careless keep
beauty/dignity
DIRI‘Siti does not fail to take care of her beauty/dignity.’ (cf. self-beauty,
self-dignity)

11

Chung (1976) analyses diri in Indonesian as a clitic attaching to a verb, as it cannot be separated
from the verb by a PP, as in (i). Gil (2001) reaches a similar conclusion for diri in Riau Indonesian.
However, under the present analysis, where diri is actually a phrase containing the null possessor
DP pro, the same data needs a different explanation, e.g., the adjacency requirement on Accusative
Case assignment (Ramli 1995).
(i)

a.
b.

12

Apakah dia membunuh diri [di kebun]?
Q
he kill
DIRI at garden‘Did he kill himself in the garden?’*Apakah dia membunuh [di kebun] diri?
Q
he kill
at garden DIRI

(31b) is acceptable with the irrelevant reading ‘Siti took a standing picture’.

232(Chung 1976:44)

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. *Siti mengambil [gambar diri].13
Siti takepicture DIRI
For: ‘Siti took a picture of herself.’ (cf. self-picture)
When diri is used as a verbal complement, the VP containing it describes anevent that is generally self-directed rather than one that can be other-directed aswell as self-directed. For example, memukul diri ‘to hit oneself’ in (32) describes
a self-hitting action conducted for specific purposes (e.g. religious rituals), but notjust any kind of self-hitting.14(32)

Alii kata Sitij memukul diri⇤i/j/⇤k .
Ali say Siti hit
DIRI‘Ali said Siti hit herself.’ (cf. self-hit)(33) shows examples of VPs with diri that are commonly used.
(33)

a.
b.

membunuh diri
kill
DIRI
‘to commit suicide’
melarikan/melepaskan
make.run/release
diri

c.
d.

melibatkan diriinvolveDIRI‘to get involved’
menyerahkan diri
yield
DIRI
‘to surrender’DIRI‘to run away’
These phrases suggest that the generic meaning ‘V one’s physical self ⇡ V oneself’ makes a transitive verb semantically intransitive-like.15 This quasi-intransitivization explains the inherently self-directed meaning of VPs with diri. It
also provides an account for what appears to be local binding in (32), because
an intransitivized transitive verb has reflexivity encapsulated in the verb meaning. Hence, one can treat the transitive VP memukul diri ‘x hits one’s physicalself’ in (32) as if it means ‘x hits x’ or, to put it more intransitively, ‘x x-hits’( x.x hits x).
6.

Conclusion

This paper has shown that a compositional analysis of Malay anaphoric expressions is not only possible but is empirically more desirable than a non-com13

Examples of gambar diri were actually found in the Internet, though they were very rare. Allattested examples were in Indonesian, and gambar diri had a specialized meaning, namely ‘selfie’,and hence was not associated with a particular individual.
14
Not all speakers accept (32). It is acceptable only for those who know or can imagine some inherently self-directed hitting action. Nomoto (2011) thus reports a sentence with the same phrase,
i.e. memukul diri, as ungrammatical.
15
It is possible that a third diri morpheme exists that technically intransitivizes a transitive verb.

233

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
positional analysis, as it can account for a wider range of anaphoric expressions in a systematic manner. The complex anaphoric expressions comprising‘body’ plus pronoun in some related languages are known to behave similarly
to ‘diri + pronoun’ in Malay. These languages include Malagasy (Paul 2004),
Madurese (Davies 2008), Jambi (Cole et al. 2010; Kartono 2013), Javanese andPalembangese (Kartono 2013). The proposed analysis extends to these languages
straightforwardly. By contrast, in non-compositional analyses, it remains unclear
why the relevant binding properties are associated with ‘body’ + pronoun, but notwith some other forms, and why the association is consistent across languages.
In fact, Paul (2004) suggests a compositional analysis for ny tenany in Malagasy.
This paper has developed her basic idea into a more complete and plausible hypothesis.
I would like to end this paper with an important empirical finding recently put
forward by Kroeger (2014). He points out cases of ‘diri + pronoun + sendiri’(pattern (ii)) occurring in a subject position, where it cannot be bound locally.
(34)

Diri-nya sendiri selalu di-utamakan-nya.
DIRI -3 own
always PASS-prioritize-3‘Himself is always prioritized by him.’ (i.e. ‘He always gives priority tohimself.’)(Kroeger 2014:18)

Examples like this can be real counterexamples to the previous generalizationthat pattern (ii) does not occur in subject positions (Cole and Hermon 2005). (34)
is not an apparent counterexample of the type mentioned in footnote 1, where
dirinya (pattern (i)) happens to be immediately followed by the adverbial sendiri
meaning ‘alone, by oneself’, because sendiri in (34) cannot be moved to a clausefinal adverbial position without changing the meaning. The status of pattern (ii) isextremely important in Malay syntax, as it is one of the few diagnostics for determining the precise phrase structure of a construction (see Kroeger 2014 for a relevant discussion, and Kartini and Nomoto 2012 for an example of an argument fora particular syntactic structure based on pattern (ii)). While a non-compositional
analysis like Cole and Hermon’s (2005) cannot handle examples like (34), thepresent analysis should be able to handle them. The key lies in understanding thefunction of sendiri in the subject position, which is something that is glossed overin this study and needs to be explored in future research.
References
Alsagoff, Lubna. 1992. Topic in Malay: The other subject. Doctoral dissertation,
Stanford University.
Chung, Sandra. 1976. An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesia. Linguistic
Inquiry 7:41–87.
234

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 1998. Long distance reflexives in Singapore
Malay: An apparent typological anomaly. Linguistic Typology 2:57–77.
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2005. The typology of Malay reflexives.
Lingua 115:627–644.
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and Yanti. 2010. Anaphora in traditional Jambi
Malay. In Austronesian and theoretical linguistics, ed. Raphael Mercado,
Eric Potsdam, and Lisa deMena Travis, 327–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davies, William D. 2008.
Madurese reflexives with reference to
Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118:1603–1616.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns: Person, self,
and interpretability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gil, David. 2001. Reflexive anaphor or conjunctive operator: Riau Indonesiansendiri. In Long-distance reflexives, ed. Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon,and C.-T. James Huang, volume 33 of Syntax and Semantics, 83–118. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Homer, Vincent. 2009. Backward control in Samoan. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA
16), ed. Sandy Chung, Daniel Finer, Ileana Paul, and Eric Potsdam, 45–59.
Kartini Abd. Wahab, and Hiroki Nomoto. 2012. Passives without ‘by’ in Malay.
Paper presented at the 19th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 19).
Kartono, Bambang. 2013. A puzzle in binding: Half reflexives and locally boundpronouns. A comparative study of anaphoric systems in Indonesian, Javanese, Palembangnese, City Jambi and Village Jambi. Master’s thesis,
Utrecht University.
Keenan, Edward L. 2002. Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Studies in the history of English: A millennial perspective, ed.
Donka Minkova and Robert P. Stockwell, volume 1, 325–355. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives. In Reflexives: Forms and functions, ed. Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl,
41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kroeger, Paul. 2014. Passive agents in Malay: The binding properties and discourse functions of agentive =nya. In Current trends in Malay linguistics, 5–29 ed. Siaw-Fong Chung and Hiroki Nomoto, volume 57 of NUSA.
Jakarta and Tokyo: Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya and Tokyo
University of Foreign Studies.
Nomoto, Hiroki. 2011. Teori tambatan dalam bahasa Melayu. Toukyou Gaidai
Tounan’ajiagaku 16:1–16.

235

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Paul, Ileana. 2004. NP versus DP reflexives: Evidence from Malagasy. Oceanic
Linguistics 43:32–48.
Ramli Haji Salleh. 1995. Sintaksis bahasa Melayu: Penerapan teori Kuasaan dan
Tambatan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

236

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN POLYNESIANAND THE ROLE OF D
Yuko Otsuka
University  of  Hawai‘iyotsuka@hawaii.edu
Using a modified DP movement approach to relativization, this paper
examines various types of relative clauses in Polynesian: (1) headed relatives;(2) free relatives morphologically identical to headed relatives; (3) freerelatives seemingly headed by a determiner; and (4) Tahitian headed relatives
containing a determiner and an optional predicate marker ‘o between the headnoun and the relative clause. It is argued that the presence or absence of adeterminer in free relatives is determined by whether the free relative pronoun
D is morphologically realized or receives null spell-out. Tahitian ‘o-relatives
are analyzed as involving relativization of a nominal, instead of verbal,
construction. The proposed analysis of Tahitian ‘o relatives sheds new light on
the morphological difference between headed and free relatives in Tagalog, inwhich  the  former,  but  not  the  latter,  contain  a  “linker”  between  the  head  noun  and the relative clause.

1.

Introduction

This paper examines the morphological differences between headed and freerelatives in some Polynesian (PN) languages. Free relatives in Polynesiantypically occur in argument wh-questions as part of a pseudo-cleft construction.
In some PN languages such as Hawaiian and Tahitian, free relatives differ fromheaded relatives with respect to the item occurring in the clause-initial position,
as illustrated with Tahitian examples in (1). Imperfective aspect is expressed bye in headed relative clauses, but by tē in free relative clause. 1

Thanks to Bob Blust, Piet Lincoln, and the Austronesian Discussion Group at the University of
Hawai‘i   at   Mānoa for their helpful feedback on an early version of this paper. My deepest
gratitude goes to my students who served on the AFLA21 Organizing Committee and whose
incredible hard work made AFLA21 a great success.
1
Abbreviations: ABS= absolutive, ACC = accusative, DEF = definite, DEM = demonstrative,
DET= determiner, DIR = directional, ERG = ergative, EXCL = exclusive, FUT = future, IPFV =imperfective, LNK = linker, PFV = perfective, PL = plural, POSS = possessive, PRED =predicate, PRS = present, PST= past, REF = referential, REL = relative, SG = singular, TR =transitive, 1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person.

237

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(1) TAHITIAN
a. te ta’ata [ehōpoi   maiite fāraoa]
2
DEF man IPFVbring DIR
ACC
DEF bread‘the man  who  will  bring  the  bread’  (Coppenrath and Prevost 1975:277)
b. ‘o

vau
[tē
taora ‘ite‘ofa’i]
1.SG IPFV throw ACC DEF
stone‘It  is  I  who  will  throw  stones.’  (lit. the one who will throw stones is I.](Tryon 1970: 87)
PRED

Not all PN languages show such a morphological difference between
headed and free relative clauses. In Tongan, Niuean, and Māori,   for example,
free relatives are morphologically identical to the headed relative clause, as seenin the Tongan examples in (2).
(2) TONGAN
a. moetohi        [na‘ewith REF
book PST‘with  the  book  John  read’
b. ko

lau
read

‘e
ERG

Sione __ ]Johnhā       [na‘e lau‘eSione __ ]?
what PST read ERG John
‘What  did  John  read?’  (lit.  what  John read is what?)
PRED

e

REF

The objective of this paper is twofold. First, using a version of DP
movement approach to relativization proposed by Tonoike (2008), I propose a
uniform analysis of all types of relative clauses in PN: (a) headed relatives; (b)free relatives with a determiner; and (c) free relatives without a determiner.
Second, I put forward a historical account for the typological variation acrossPN languages regarding the morphosyntactic difference between headed andfree relatives.
One phenomenon that requires special treatment is an idiosyncratic
behavior of headed relatives in Tahitian, in which the regular tense/aspectmarker can be replaced with the corresponding form occurring in free relatives(e.g., tē vs. e) and the predicate marker ‘o may optionally appear between thehead noun and the relative clause, as illustrated in (3).

2Whether   the   so   called   “definite”   articles   in   PN   indicate   definiteness,   referentiality,   or  specificity is a matter of debate. In this paper, I use the label DEF, following the traditional
grammarians, but remain agnostic about the actual semantic analysis, except for Tongan, forwhich I use the label REF, as definiteness is indicated by other means (Anderson and Otsuka
2006).

238

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(3) TAHITIAN
teta‘ata (‘o) [tē/*e hōpoi   maiDEFman PRED IPFV bring DIR‘the  man  who  will  bring  the  bread’

i

te

ACC

DEF

fāraoa]?
bread

I propose that these relative clauses are derived from a nominal construction, in
which the predicate nominal is a free relative (Section 6). The proposed analysis
of Tahitian headed relatives with ‘o sheds new light on the morphologicaldifference between headed and free relatives in Tagalog, in which the former,
but   not   the   latter,   contain   a   “linker”   ng/na between the head noun and therelative clause. I propose that headed relatives in Tagalog are also derived fromnominal constructions (rather than verbal ones) and that the so-called linker isan allomorph of ang, which is used to mark the predicate nominal in an
embedded clause. The proposed analysis provides a unified account for bothhead-initial and head-final relatives in Tagalog without postulating any unusual(and unmotivated) operation such as remnant TP movement to derive head-final
relatives (cf. Aldridge 2003).
2.

Basic Morphosyntax of PN languages

PN languages are predicate initial. In verbal constructions, the clause-initial
position is occupied by a tense/aspect/mood marker (TAM). Noun phrases arealways marked by a determiner (except in Samoan, in which definite plural
nouns are zero-marked), which is preceded by a case marker. Western PN
languages such as Tongan and Samoan show an ergative pattern of casemarking. In Tongan, for example, ERG is marked by ‘e and ABS is marked by‘a. The ABS marker is obligatory with proper names, but may be dropped when
it is followed by a pronoun (personal as well as demonstrative) or a referential
article e (which has an allomorph he used with ERG).
(4) TONGAN
a. Na‘ekata ‘aPST
laugh ABS‘John  laughed.’b. Na‘elau‘ePST
read ERG‘John  read  a book.’

Sione.
John
Sione (‘a)
John ABS

e
REF

tohi.
book

In Eastern PN languages such as Hawaiian and Tahitian, canonicaltransitive construction shows a nominative-accusative pattern of case marking:239

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
NOM is unmarked, while ACC is marked by a particle i. This is illustrated in (5)with Hawaiian examples.
(5) HAWAIIAN
a. Ua
hele
PFV
go
‘I  went.’

au.
1.SG

b. Ua

‘ai kekanaka
i
ka
poi.
PFV
eat DEF
man
ACC
DEF
poi
‘The  man  ate  the  poi.’  (Elbert  and  Pukui  1979:39)

In nominal constructions, the predicate nominal precedes the subject
noun phrase, as shown in (6). The former is marked by a predicate marker, areflex of Proto-Polynesian (PPn) *ko, and the latter appears in ABS/NOM.
(6) TONGAN
Ko
e

‘a

PRED

ABS

faiakoteacher
ʻJohn  is  a  teacher.’

3.

REF

Sione.
John

Headed vs. Free Relatives in Polynesian

In this section, some morphological differences between the three types ofrelative clauses in PN are described: (a) headed relatives, (b) free relatives
identical to headed relatives, and (c) free relatives different from headed
relatives. The latter two types are in complementary distribution.
3.1. Headed Relative Clauses
Relative clauses in Polynesian are head-initial, that is, the relative clause follows
the NP it modifies. Like simple declarative clauses, relative clauses contain a
TAM in the clause-initial position. Relative clauses do not contain what can beanalyzed as a relative pronoun. In Western PN languages, typically, the relative
clauses are identical to simple declarative clauses except that the former
contains a gap in lieu of the relativized NP.
(7) TONGAN
a. Na‘elau‘eread ERG‘John read a book.’
PST

240

Sione ‘aJohn ABS

e
REF

tohi.
book

The Proceedings of AFLA 21b. moetohi [ na‘ewith REF
book PST‘with the  book  John  read’

lau
read

‘e      ERGSione __ ]John

In Eastern PN as well as Niuean, a distinct set of TAMs (hereafter“dependent”   TAMs) are used in relative clauses, as shown in (8) below.
Morphological differences between the dependent TAMs and those used inmatrix clauses are illustrated in Table 1 with Hawaiian examples.
(8) Hawaiian
a. Ua
hae
ka ‘īlio.
PFVbark DEF dog‘The  dog  barked.’b. ka ‘īlio [ihae __]
DEF dog
PFV
bark‘the  dog  that  barked’    (Hawkins  1982:109)

REGULARuake  …  nei  IMPERFECTIVE +CONTINUOUS e  …  ana
–CONTINUOUS e
TABLE 1. HAWAIIAN TAMSPERFECTIVE
PRESENT

DEPENDENT

ie  …  neie  …  anae

3.2. Free Relatives Identical to Headed Relatives
Free relatives typically occur in argument wh-questions in PN languages, as the
subject of a pseudo-cleft construction (cf. Potsdam and Polinsky 2011). In
Tongan, Niuean, and Māori, free relatives are identical to headed relatives
except for the absence of the head noun, as illustrated in (9)-(11).
(9) TONGANkoehā[ na‘e lau‘e  Sione __]? (cf. 7b)what PST
read ERG John
‘What  did  John  read?’  (lit.  what  John  read  is  what?)
PRED

(10)

REF

MĀORI
a. te wahine [ etuumai ra __ ].
DEF woman
IPFVstand DIR.1 DEM.3‘ the woman who is standing there.’  (Biggs 1998:159)

241

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. Ko

wai
[e
haere __]?
who IPFV go‘Who  is  to  go?’  (lit.  the  one  that  will go is who) (Harlow 2001:193)
PRED

(11)

NIUEANa. ke hetagata [kanofo __ i kaina]
to DEF
person FUT
stayat home‘to the  person  who’s  going  to  stay  at  home’  (Seiter  1980:93)
b. Ko

e

heigoa [katāelautolu __]?
PRED ABS
what FUT
build ERG 3.PL
‘What  are  they  going  to  build?’  (Seiter  1980:110)

3.3. Free Relatives Different from Headed Relatives
In Hawaiian and Tahitian, free relatives contain an item different from theexpected dependent TAMs. This is illustrated in (12) and (13) below, where theitems in question, Hawaiian kai and Tahitian tē, are glossed with a question
mark.
(12)

HAWAIIANa. ka ‘īlio [ihae __]
DEF dog
PFV
bark‘the  dog  that  barked’    (Hawkins  1982:109)b. ‘O

wau [kainoho melākou].
PRED 1.SGPFV? staywith 3.PL‘I am the one who stayed with them.’  (Creeland 1994:351)

(13)

242

TAHITIANa. teta’ata [ ehōpoi   mai itefāraoa]DEF
man IPFV bring DIR.1 ACC DEF
bread‘that  man  who  will  bring  the  bread’  (Coppenrath and Prevost 1975:277)

The Proceedings of AFLA 21vau[tētaora ‘ite‘ofa’i]3
PRED 1.SGIPFV? throw ACC
DEF
stone
‘It  is  I  who  will  throw  stones.’  (Tryon  1970:87)[lit. the one who will throw stones is I]b. ‘o

At first glance, it appears that free relatives and headed relatives use
different kinds of TAMs, e.g., i vs. kai in Hawaiian. However, what appears to
be a special TAM can be analyzed as consisting of a definite article ka/te and adependent TAM that is used in the headed relative clause: te + e  tē in
Tahitian and ka + i  kai in Hawaiian. Thus, we may conjecture that at least
historically, these items consist of two separate morphemes, although they aresynchronically spelt as a single item.
Samoan permits both types of free relatives, as shown in (14). Samoan isa little different from Hawaiian and Tahitian, however. In the second type, therelative clause includes a regular TAM in addition to the item in question. In(14c), for example, the additional item lē is followed by a regular TAM, na.
Thus, lē could be analyzed as a complementizer or a free relative pronoun.
Samoan data will be discussed in section 5.3.
(14)

SAMOANa. letamāloa   [na maitau-ina
tupe]
DEF
man
PST count-TR
money‘the  man  who  counted  the  money’  (Chung  1978:86)
b. ʻo

ai
[ na
fasia __ lemaile]?
PRED who
PST
hit
DEF
dog
‘Who  hit  the  dog?’  (lit. the one that hit the dog is who?)(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992:633)

c. ‘o

ai
[lē
na
fasia a’u]
who
REL? PST
hit
1.SG‘Who  is  the  one  who  hit  me?’ (Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992:433)
PRED

The above observation leads to two questions. First, assuming that these
items historically consisted of two separate items, how should they be analyzed
synchronically? Are they (a) special (third) type of TAMs, (b) complementizers,or (c) still comprised of two morphemes, article and TAM? Second, how can we
account for the typological variation within PN with respect to the derivation offree relatives?
3

Tryon (1970) uses te with a short vowel to represent this item. I use tē with a long vowel,
following Coppenrath and Prevost (1975).

243

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
4.

Theoretical Assumptions

Two approaches to relativization have been proposed and widely accepted in theliterature: the operator movement approach (Chomsky 1981, inter alia) and theraising approach (Kayne 1994). In the following analysis of PN relative clauses,
I adopt a third approach, which is proposed by Tonoike (2008).
4.1. Operator Movement Approach
In the Operator (OP) movement approach, a relative clause is generated as an
adjunct to an NP and contains an operator in an argument position in the basestructure. This operator moves to [Spec, C] (wh-movement) and is realized as arelative pronoun if pronounced in this position. The gap in the relative clause is
therefore a trace of the moved operator. While widely accepted, this approach
has a technical problem in view of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995 andsubsequent work); namely, it requires a special operation/device (such ascoindexation or predication) to establish the coreference between the head noun
and the extraction site.
(15)[DP DPi [CP OPi [C’ C [TP …  <OP>  …]]]]
DP
DPi
CP
the book
OPi
which
C

C’
TP
…  <OP>  …
I read <which>

4.2. Kaynean Raising Approach
In contrast, Kayne (1994) proposes an analysis in which a relative clause istreated   as   a   complement   of   D.   In   this   approach,   the   “head   noun”   is   base  generated within the relative clause. For relative clauses without a relative
pronoun, it is assumed that the base generated item is an NP and undergoes
movement to [Spec, C], as schematically illustrated in (16a). For those with arelative pronoun, it is proposed that the item undergoing movement is a DP
headed by a relative pronoun and that after raising to [Spec, C], the complement
NP moves to [Spec, D], DP-internally. This derivation is shown in (16b).
244

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(16)

a. [DP D [CP NP [C’ C [TP …  <NP>…]]]]
DP
D
the

CP
NP
book

C’
C
that

TP
…  <NP>  …  I read <book>(16)

b. [DP1 D [CP [DP2 NP [D’ D <NP>] [C’ C [TP …  <DP2>…]]]]
DP1
D
the

CP
DP2

C’

NP
D’ C
book
D
<NP>
which <book>TP…  <DP2>  …
I read <which book>

A significant advantage of this approach is that coreference is naturally
explained in terms of movement. On the other hand, it comes with somedisadvantages (Borsley 1997; also see Bianchi 2000 for counter-arguments).
First, in analyzing the relative clause without a relative pronoun, the relevant
argument is argued to be an NP rather than DP. This is in conflict with a widely
accepted assumption that semantically, NP is a predicate and requires a DP layer
to become an argument (Stowell 1991, Longobardi 1994). Also, the proposed
derivation allows D to take a CP complement rather than an NP complement asstandardly assumed. (See Donati and Cechetto 2011, which addresses this issue
and  proposes  some  modification  to  Kayne’s model.) Second, in order to accountfor relative pronouns, it postulates a highly unusual operation of DP-internal NP
movement that raises the complement NP to [Spec, D]. Third, syntactically,
relative clauses behave like adjuncts: they are optional as adjuncts; they show
the binding contrast observed by Van Riemsdijk and Williams (1981) and
Freidin (1986), as illustrated in (17). Coindexation of the embedded subject
John with the pronominal subject of the matrix clause is ungrammatical when245

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
the embedded clause is a complement (17a), but permissible if the embedded
clause is an adjunct (17b).
(17)a. Which claim [that Johni was guilty] was he*i/j willing to discuss?
b. Which claim [that Johni made] was hei/j willing to discuss?

4.3. Modified DP Movement Approach
A third approach, which I call modified DP movement approach, has been
proposed by Tonoike (2008). Similar   to   Kayneʻs   analysis,   this   approach  assumes that the head noun is base generated as DP in the argument position
within the relative clause and undergoes movement to [Spec, C]. This DP
subsequently undergoes sideward movement to create a new syntactic object(Nunes 2001), to which the relative CP adjoins. These three steps are indicatedin the tree diagram below as (I) relativization, (II) sideward movement, and (III)adjunction.
(18)

DP
DP

(III)

CP

<DP>

C’

(II)
C

TP
…<DP>  …

(I)It is assumed that each movement of DP leaves a copy of D alone. Thus,
strictly speaking <DP> should be <D> in the diagram in (18). If the copy in[Spec, C] is pronounced, it is realized as a relative pronoun. In free relatives, themoved DP is headed by a free relative pronoun such as what in English andlacks NP complement. In this structure, only the highest copy is pronounced.
The derivations of headed and free relatives are schematically shown in (19) and(20), respectively.
(19)

246

[DP DP [CP <D> [C’ C [TP …  <D>  …]]]][DP the book][CP <the> [C‘ C [TP …  <the>  …]]]
↓ Spell-Out
which

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(20)[DP DP [CP <D> [C’ C [TP …  <D>  …]]]][DP what] [CP <what> [C’ C [TP …  <what>  …]]]This approach addresses the disadvantages of the previous approaches
that have been just discussed. First, unlike the OP movement approach,coreference is naturally accounted for in terms of movement. Second, unlike
Kayne’s   approach,   relative clauses are analyzed as adjuncts. Third, relative
pronoun is regarded as a spell-out of a copy of D and hence, there is no need topostulate unusual movement.
Additionally, this approach provides a natural explanation forresumptive pronouns. Consider Tongan as an example. Relativization of anergative argument requires a resumptive pronoun, as shown in (21).
(21)

(21)

a. TONGAN: ERG ungrammatical gap*ki hefefinei [ na‘e   kai __i ‘ato REF
woman
PST
eat
ABS
‘to a  woman  who  ate  a  fish’

e

ika]
fish

REF

b. TONGAN: ERG resumptive pronoun
ki hefefinei[na‘a neikai ‘ato REF
woman
PST
3.SG eat ABS‘to  a  woman  who  (she)  ate  a  fish.’

e
REF

ika]
fish

Since pronouns are D-heads, the present analysis with an assumption thatmovement leaves a copy of D instead of DP gives a natural account for why
resumption is always pronominal. It is a spell-out of the lowest copy of D (i.e.,the copy in the position in which its Case feature is valued).4,5 In the operator
movement  analysis  and  Kayne’s  approach,  the  resumptive  pronoun  presumably  occurs in lieu of the copy of OP and a copy of NP, respectively. Either way, it is
not clear how such an item can and must be morphologically realized as apronoun (i.e., D-head).

4

I assume that Tongan has a language specific constraint that the lowest copy of D with a Casefeature [ERG] must be pronounced. See Otsuka 2006 for discussion on how such constraint canbe  captured  in  terms  of  C’s  features.
5With respect to free relatives, however, a reasonable question arises as to how a copy of aphonetically null D (i.e., free relative pronoun) can possibly be pronounced. I assume that thefree relative pronoun D has phi-feature with a default value of [3.SG] and a Case feature (valued
in the course of derivation).

247

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
5.

Analysis of Relative Clauses in PN

In this section, the three types of relative clauses in PN languages are analyzed,
using the modified DP movement approach.
5.1. Headed Relatives
Headed relatives behave the same way in all five languages under examinationand can be analyzed as follows. A DP headed by a definite/referential article isbase generated in the argument position and undergoes cyclic movement ofrelativization. The relevant derivation is illustrated in the bracketed structure in(22) with a Hawaiian example.6(22)

HAWAIIAN [DP ka NP][CP <D> C [TP …  <D>  …]]
[DP ka ‘īlio][CP <ka> i [TP hae <ka>]]

5.2. Free Relatives
Free relatives come in two types. One preceded by a determiner (section 3.3)
and the other, without (section 3.2). For the former, I propose that in theselanguages, the definite article may also function as a free relative pronoun,
taking no NP complement. This is illustrated with a Hawaiian example in (23).
In other words, I argue that what appears to be a special TAM in free relatives
such as Hawaiian kai and Tahitian tē consists of two separate items in separate
structural position, a determiner ka/te and a TAM.
(23)

HAWAIIAN [DP ka ][CP <ka> C [TP …  <ka>  …]]  [DP ka][CP <ka> i [TP noho <ka> me Kalei]]

As for the latter, I propose the same derivation, with the only difference
that the free relative pronoun is phonetically null. This is illustrated in (24) witha Tongan example. I assume V-to-T-to-C movement in Tongan (Otsuka 2000,
2011).
(24)

6

TONGAN[DP D ][CP <D> C [TP …  <D>  …]]  [DP Ø ][CP <Ø> na‘e lau [TP <na‘e  lau>  ‘e  Sione  <Ø>]]

I remain agnostic about the position of the verb in Hawaiian, as it requires detailed
examination to conclude whether the verb-initial order in Hawaiian is derived as a result of Vraising (as proposed by Otsuka (2000, 2011) for Tongan) or VP-raising (as proposed by Massam(2000, 2001) for Niuean).

248

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
5.3. Historical Account of the Typological Variations
The present analysis essentially proposes that the difference between the freerelatives with a determiner and those without is not structural, but only
morphological, namely, whether the free relative pronoun has an overt form
(syncretic with the definite article) or phonetically null. In this section, I proposea diachronic account of how such a difference came about. My argument is thatthe difference resulted from two different kinds of reanalysis of the original
construction.
As a point of departure, I argue that historically, the source of present
day free relatives was headed relatives containing *me‘a ʻthing’ as a dummy
head noun. Such a construction is synchronically available, as shown in (25).
(25)

TONGANKoehā(‘a)   e me‘a [na‘e fakatau  ‘e   Sione __ ]?
PRED REF what (ABS) REF thing PSTbuy
ERG John‘What  is  the  thing  that  John  bought?’  (lit.  the  thing  John  bought  is  what)  Superficially, free relatives are derived from this construction by omitting thisdummy head noun me’a. In fact, this  situation  is  referred  to  as  “contraction”  in  Hawaiian within the pedagogical framework (Creeland 1994:350-351). In (26),(a)-sentences represent the “full”   relative   clause   with   the   dummy   head   mea
‘thing’;;  (b)-sentences are the contracted version, where this dummy head mea isomitted and the definite article ka and the TAM e (imperfective) or i (perfective)
are fused into a single item so to speak, or at least orthographically represented
as such.
(26)

HAWAIIAN
a. ‘O  wau [kamea ewalaʻau  PRED 1.SGDEF
thing IPFV talk‘I  am  the  one  who  should  talk  with  them.’
b. ʻO

me
with

lākou]2PL

HAWAIIAN
a. ‘O  Kanoa [ka mea inoho me
PRED Kanoa DEF thing PFV
stay with‘Kanoa  is  the  one  who  stayed  with  Kalei.’

Kalei]
Kalei

PRED

(27)

b. ‘O  
PRED

wau
1.SG

[ke

walaʻau  DEF.thing.IPFV talk

me
with

Kanoa [kainoho meKanoa DEF.thing.PFV stay withlākou]
2.PL

Kalei]
Kalei
249

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Formally, this can be captured as replacement of the dummy N with aphonetically null N. Simple replacement would yield a construction in which a
regular definite D is followed by a phonetically null N. I propose that thissituation led to two different innovations. One is to allow the definite D to takeno complement, whereby the definite D gained a new function as a free relative
pronoun. This took place in Tahitian and Hawaiian. The other is to add aphonetically  null  free  relative  pronoun  to  the  language’s  inventory  of  D’s, while
maintaining the constraint that an overt D must take an NP complement withphonological content. This option is taken by Tongan, Niuean, and Māori. The
two scenarios are illustrated in (28) (reconstruction of PPn forms are based on
Clark 1976).
(28)

Historical development of free relatives in PN[DP *te [NP *me’a]][CP…]  [DP *te [NP Ø]][CP…][DP *te][CP …][DP Ø ][CP …]

Samoan facts do not exactly fit this historical model. Recall that Samoan
permits two kinds of free relatives, one with lē and one without. The formal
similarity of this item lē and the definite article le gives us reasonable suspicion
that Samoan lē free relatives are just another instance of free relatives with adefinite article. Unlike free relatives in Hawaiian and Tahitian, however,Samoan lē free relatives additionally contain a regular TAM. The relevant
examples are repeated here in (29).
(29)

SAMOAN
a. ʻo
ai
[ na
fasia __ le maile]?(= 14b)
PRED who
PST
hit
DEF dog‘Who  hit  the  dog?’  (lit. the one that hit the dog is who?)(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992:633)b. ‘o            ai          [lēna fasia a’u] (= 14c)
PRED who DET.REL
PST hit
1.SG‘Who  is  the  one  who  hit  me?’ (Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: 433)

In Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992, this item is analyzed as bimorphemic,l=ē, where ē is   called   “relative   preform”.   It turns out that this clause-initial
element inflects for definiteness/specificity and number: lē, ē, sē, corresponding
to a set of articles le [+DEF, SG], Ø [+DEF, PL], and se [–DEF]. This fact
clearly indicates that the initial consonant in these items is D. The inventory ofTAMs in Samoan does include e,  which  is  synchronically  analyzed  as  “generic”  250

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
and does not indicate any specific  tense/aspect,  but  expresses  “general  truth”  or  “habitual   action”   (Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992:366). It is plausible that
Samoan went through a similar path as Hawaiian and Tahitian following thedeletion   of   *me‘a: the definite article le acquired a new function as a freerelative pronoun. When the TAM in the relative clause was e, the sequence le…e arose as a result. It seems, however, that Samoan took a step further. Thissequence has been reanalyzed as a single unit, not only phonologically, but also
morphosyntactically, resulting in a new type of D, a free relative pronoun lē.
With this reanalysis, the relative clause in free relatives lacks a TAM, since theoriginal TAM e no longer exists. This has led to the use of a regular TAM infree relatives. Once lē has been added to the inventory of determiners, gradually
other forms such as ē for plural and sē for indefinite were added so as to fit thethree-way paradigm of the determiners. If this speculation is on the right track,
similar innovations may take place in future in other languages that use thedefinite determiner as a free relative pronoun.
6.

Tahitian ‘o in Headed Relatives

It should be noted at this point that the facts about headed relatives in Tahitian
are a little more complicated than what has been described so far. Headed
relatives may also contain tei/tē instead of the dependent TAMs i/e. Furthermore,and even more problematically, when headed relative clauses contain tei/tē, they
may optionally be preceded by a predicate marker ‘o. See (30) below. The
distribution of the two kinds of headed relatives seems to be governed by aspect.
While Coppenrath and Prevost (C&P) (1975:277-278) state that it   is   “always  possible to paraphrase  the  relative  clause  containing  a  ʻrelative  pronoun’  [tei/tē]as  a  relative  clause  without  it”, they also note that the omission of te is strongly
preferred in continuous aspect. Tryon (1970:87-88) makes a stronger statement,
namely, relative clauses in Tahitian contain just a dependent TAM in continuous
aspect, but they contain tē or tei and is preceded by ‘o  in non-continuous aspect.
(30)

TAHITIANa. teta’ata   [ehōpoi   maiitefāraoa]DEF
man IPVF bring DIR.1 ACC DEF
bread‘thet  man    who  will  bring  the  bread’ (C&P 1975: 277)b. teta‘ata    (‘o) [ tēhōpoi   mai
iDEFman PRED DEF.IPFV bring DIR.1 ACC‘the man  who  will  bring  the  bread’  (C&P 1975: 268)

te faraoa]?
DEF bread

Relative clauses like the one in (30b) raise two questions: (a) why ‘o ispresent between the head noun and the relative clause; and why the definite
251

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
article te (in the form tē) is used in the relative clause instead of a simple
dependent TAM (e or i). I propose that these questions can be readily answered
if we assume Tahitian headed relatives involve nominal constructions rather
than verbal constructions. The relevant nominal construction is illustrated in
(31).
(31)

TAHITIAN[PRED ‘o  Tahiti] [SUBJ tō  mātou
‘āi’a]
Tahiti
POSS 1.PL.EXCL country‘Our country is Tahiti.’ (C&P 1975: 35)
PRED

Headed relatives with ‘o  te/tei can be derived by relativizing the subject of thenominal construction in which the predicate nominal contains a free relative, as
illustrated in (32).
(32)

a. TAHITIAN: Nominal construction[PRED ‘o   te [ehōpoi  mai  itefaraoa]]PRED DEF IPFV bring DIR.1
ACC DEF bread[SUBJ teta’ata].7
DEF
man‘the man is the one who will bring the bread.’b. TAHITIAN: Relativization[DP te  ta’ata][CP <te>  [‘o  te  [e  hōpoi  mai  i  te  faraoa]]]  [SUBJ <te>]‘the  man  who  is  the  one  who  will  bring  the  bread’

The presence of ‘o and te in (32b) has nothing to do with the operation ofrelativization per se, but is simply due to the fact that the relevant clausecontains a nominal predicate which itself is a free relative. The optionality of ‘omay be understood as indication of two kinds of reanalysis: (a) reanalysis of therelevant construction as involving relativization of a verbal construction; and (b)reanalysis of tē as a general relative pronoun in a way similar to how Samoan lēcame to function as a free relative pronoun (section 5.3).
The present analysis of ‘o in Tahitian headed relatives has an interesting
implication for the analysis of the reflexes of PPn *ko. In addition to marking
predicate nominals, *ko is used in “appositional” constructions, as illustrated in
(33).

7

Though the reverse order may be preferred for this particular example, in general the subject
DP and the predicate DP are interchangeable (C&P 1975:36).

252

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(33)

a. TAHITIAN
Te‘oire  ra,‘opape’ete
DEF
village
DEM
PRED Papeete‘the  village  (of)  Papeete’ (C&P 1975:39)
b. TONGAN(ki he) tamasi’i ko
Sione
to REF boy
PRED John‘to a  boy  (called)  John’c. HAWAIIAN(i) kaluahine,‘o  Peleto DEF
old.woman PRED Pele
‘to  the  old  woman,  Pele’ (Hawkins 1982: 56)

One may speculate that at least historically, such constructions were derived
through relativization of the subject of the nominal construction. The process inquestion is illustrated in (34) with a Tongan example.
(34)

TONGANa. [PRED Ko

Sione] [SUBJ
PRED John‘The boy is John.’b. (‘a)  e  

‘a  

e

ABS

REF

tamasiʻi [CP <e> [C’
ABS REFboy‘the  boy, who is John’

8.

ko
PRED

tamasi‘í].8
boy.DEF
Sione <e>]]John

Tagalog Relative Clauses

The present analysis of Tahitian ‘o-relative constructions sheds new light on theanalysis of relative clauses in Tagalog. Tagalog is also predicate initial. The
syntactically prominent argument of a sentence is marked by a pre-nominal
8

Synchronically, a more natural expression would be (i) topic construction or (ii), where thesubject is more individuated.
(i) ko etamasi‘i  eni,   ko Sione.
this PRED John
‘This  boy  here,  (it  is)  John’
PRED REF boy(ii) Ko

Sione ‘a e tamasi‘i   na‘e  John
ABS REF boy
PSTʻThe  boy  who  went  was  John.’
PRED

‘alú.
go.DEF

253

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
marker ang, which I analyze as a definite determiner here. Headed and freerelatives show morphological differences in Tagalog, too, as illustrated in (35).
Argument wh-questions contain a free relative, which is unmarked in a way
similar to Tongan. In (35a), the free relative is preceded by ang, as it is the
subject of the nominal construction. In headed relatives, a linker ng/na(phonologically conditioned allomorphs) is obligatory between the head noun
and the relative clause, as in (35b). Note also that the linear positions of the headnoun and the relative clause can be switched, as in (35c).
(35)

a. [DP PRED ano] [DP SUBJ ang [CP b<in>ili ___niMaria]]
what
DEF
buy.PFV
DET
Maria‘What  did  Maria  buy?’  (lit.  the  thing  Maria  bought  is  what?)b. (ang) libro=ng[ b<in>ili ni
DEFbook-LNK
buy.PERF DET‘the  book  Maria  bought’  Maria]Mariac. (ang) [b<in>ili
niMaria]=ng
DEF
PFV -buy DET
Maria-LNK‘the  book  Maria  bought’

libro
book

Otsuka (to appear) proposes the following analysis of these facts about
Tagalog relatives, using the modified DP movement approach. Tagalog issimilar to Tahitian in that the free relative pronoun must be pronounced. Since
in Tagalog only ang-marked DPs may undergo wh-extraction, I assume that thefree relative pronoun in Tagalog is ang and hence the copy of D inside therelative clause is represented as <ang> in (36).9(36)[DP ang] [CP <ang> [C’  b<in>ili <ang> ni Maria]]
DET
buy.PFV
DET Maria‘the  (thing  which)  Maria  bought

Analysis of the headed relatives is not that straightforward, however.
First, there is the obligatory linker, which curiously cannot occur in freerelatives. Second, a successful analysis of Tagalog relative clauses must accountfor the free alternation between head-initial and head-final linear orders. I
propose that unlike free relatives, headed relatives in Tagalog at least
historically involve relativization of nominal constructions in which the9Though it is represented as ang in the final position in this and following examples, themorphological realization of the D in the final position is not always ang. Similar to Samoan, its
morphological form is determined by larger morphosyntactic context, showing inflection forCase (Schachter and Otanes 1975).

254

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
predicate DP is a free relative. Consider the nominal construction in (37a),whose structure is represented in (37b).
(37)a. ang libro ang b<in>ili=ko
DEF book DEF buy.PFV=1.SG‘The  one  I  bought  was  the  book.’b. [DP PRED ang libro] [DP SUBJ [D ang][CP <ang> [C’  b<in>ili=ko <ang>]]]
DEF book
DEF
buy.PFV=1.SG

Relativization of the subject in (37b) would result in the structure in (38) (theinternal structure of the predicate DP is omitted).
(38)[DP [DP (ang) [CP binili=ko]] [CP <ang> [TP [DP_PRED ang libro] <ang> ]]]‘the  one  I  bought  which  was  the  book’

The linear sequence of this awkward double relative construction is identical toa verbal construction: binili-ko ang libro ‘I  bought  the  book’.  I suggest that theneed to disambiguate these two constructions (relative clause vs. verbal
construction) led to the replacement of ang in (38) with ng. When thisreplacement took place historically, this gave rise to an allomorph of ang whichmarked the predicate DP in a relative clause. Synchronically, this allomorphy
may   be   formally   understood   as   realization   of   C’s   clause-type feature on D:
when its value is [Rel(ative)], it is spelled out as ng. Head-initial relatives can bederived in a similar fashion; only, the subject and predicate DPs are switched, as
shown in (39). The replacement of ang with ng is also necessary here, as thelinear sequence of the resulting head-initial relative is identical to a nominal
construction: ang libro ang binili=ko ‘what  I  bought  was  the  book’.
(39)

a. [DP_PRED

ang b<in>ili=ko] [DP_SUBJ
DET buy.PFV=1.SG‘The  book  is  the  one  I  bought.’  ang libro ]DEF bookb. [DP [DP_SUBJ (ang) libro] [CP <ang> [TP [DP_PRED ang b<in>ili=ko]<ang> ]]]
c. [DP [DP_SUBJ (ang) libro] [CP <ang> [TP [DP_PRED ng b<in>ili=ko]<ang> ]]]
‘the  book  which  is  the  one  I  bought’255

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
The lack of linker in free relatives is also accounted for in this analysis. Since
free relatives involve verbal constructions, they do not contain a predicate DP
marked by ang. Therefore, it is neither necessary nor possible for ng to arise as areplacement of ang.
(40)

[DP [D ang] [CP <ang> [TPDEF

b<in>ili=ko <ang>]]]buy.PERF=1.SG‘the  (thing  which)  I  bought’  An apparent problem for this analysis is that the structure in (39a) is
synchronically considered ungrammatical (Schachter & Otanes 1976:530).
Nevertheless, I argue that it is reasonable to assume that nominal constructions
like (39a) historically existed (Starosta, Pawley, and Reid 1982; Kaufman 2009).
According to Starosta, Pawley, and Reid (1982), such constructions werereanalyzed as verbal constructions, giving rise to the synchronic binili-ko ang
libro ‘I   bought   the book’,   in   which   ‘the   book’   is   in   focus.   This   essentially   is  semantically   identical   to  ‘the  book  is   what   I   bought’,  the  intended  meaning  of  (39a). It is thus reasonable to conjecture that (39a) is synchronically generable,
but that it is blocked because of the corresponding verbal construction.
It should be noted that the linker ng/na appears to mark noun modifiersof any type, including adjectives and numerals, and that these modifiers can also
occur before or after the noun that is modified: dalawa-ng libro vs. libro-ng
dalawa for  ‘two  books’,  mabuti-ng tao vs. tao-ng mabuti for  ‘good  person’.  In  the present analysis, these modifier-noun constructions are also treated as
relative  clauses:  e.g.,  ‘the  books  that  are  two’,  ‘the  person  who  is  the  good  one’,  in which the predicate DP is marked by an allomorph ng/na of the definite
determiner ang.
Aldridge (2003) proposes an alternative analysis of Tagalog headed
relative   clauses   using   Kayneʻs   model. Head-initial relatives are derived bymeans of NP movement to [Spec, CP] (41a). As for head-final relative clauses,
Aldridge proposes subsequent remnant TP movement to [Spec, DP] to derive(41b).
(41)

a. [DP [CP book [TP Maria bought tbook]]]b. [DP [TP Maria bought tbook] [D’ [CP book [C’ tTP]]]]

In addition to the lack of clear theoretical motivation for the optional remnant
TP  movement,  Aldridge’s  analysis  has  two  problems. First, it does not explain
the categorial status as well as the structural position of the linker. In the
structure proposed in (41a), the linker ng occurs below [Spec, C] and above TP
in head-initial relatives. Therefore, one may hypothesize that it is acomplementizer. (Incidentally, sentential complements of verbs such as think
256

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
are introduced by a homophonous item, ng/na, even showing the same
allomorphy). However, this hypothesis fails to account for the position of thelinker in head-final relatives such as (35c), which precedes the head noun in[Spec, C]. If the linker were C in the structure proposed in (41b), the expectedorder would be binili ni Maria libro-ng instead. Note also that it fails to accountfor the lack of linker in free relatives. The second problem is the position of thedeterminer in head-final relatives. If the structure in (41b) is correct, this D is
located below the TP which has undergone movement to [Spec, D]. Thus, thepredicted linear order would be [binili ni Maria] ang libro (ignoring the linker)
instead of the actual ang [binili ni Maria]-ng libro.10
9. Conclusion
I have examined two phenomena concerning relativization in PN languages: (a)morphological differences between headed and free relatives in languages like
Hawaiian and Tahitian; (b) crosslinguistic variation within PN regarding thismorphological difference between headed and free relatives. Using the modified
DP movement approach (Tonoike 2008), I have argued that the items occurringin free relatives in Hawaiian (kai and ke) and Tahitian (tei and tē) in lieu of aregular TAM should be regarded as consisting of two independent items, adefinite determiner and a dependent TAM. I have also proposed a historicalaccount for the observed typological variation. Namely, the difference between
two types of free relatives, those containing the definite article and those which
do not, arose due to two innovations that took place separately in relevant
languages: (a) addition of a new function (free relative pronoun) to the definite
article *te; and (b) addition of a phonetically null free relative pronoun to theinventory  of    D’s.  
Intriguingly, the distribution of the two types of free relatives does notcoincide with any subgrouping or typological classification (e.g., case alignment
and presence or absence of dependent TAMs), as shown in Table 2. The present
diachronic analysis of PN free relatives leads to an interesting observation about
syntactic innovations in general: syntactic innovations are arbitrary in terms of
motivation as well as direction and therefore, cannot be used as evidence forsubgrouping. This very point is supported by another observation made in thisstudy: Tagalog and Tahitian utilize nominal constructions as a major source ofrelativization, but no other PN languages show evidence of such a strategy.

10

See Law (this volume) for another alternative approach. He argues (a) headed relatives in
Tagalog all have the same structure, the only difference being which copy is pronounced; (b)linker  is  a  “category-less morpheme filling  any  empty  head  position.”  As  such,  it  occurs  as  C  in  head-initial relatives and as D in head-final   relatives).   Law’s   basis   for   the   latter   claim   is   that  neither ang nor ng may appear to mark the head N of the head-final relatives.

257

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Tongan Niuean Samoan Māori––±–
Tongic Tongic Ellicean
EP
ERG
ERG
ERG
ACC
–
+
–
+

Hawaiian Tahitian
D in free realtives++
Subgroup
EP
EP
Case
ACC
ACC
Dependent TAMs++
TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF TWO TYPES OF FREE RELATIVES IN PN
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2003. Remnant movement in Tagalog relative clause formation.
Linguistic Inquiry 34:631-640.
Anderson, Victoria and Yuko Otsuka. 2006. The phonetics and phonology of“definitive  accent”  in  Tongan.  Oceanic Linguistics 45:33-53.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to
Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31:123-140.
Borsley, Robert. 1997. Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure.
Linguistic Inquiry 28:629–647.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian.
Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.
Clark, Ross. 1976. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. Auckland: LinguisticSociety of New Zealand.
Coppenrath, Hubert and Paul Prevost. 1975. Grammaire approfondie de lalangue tahitienne: Ancienne et moderne. Papeete: Librairie Pureora.
Creeland,  Hōkūlani.  1994.  ʻŌlelo  ʻōiwi.  Honolulu:  ʻAha  Pūnana  Leo.
Donati, Caterina and Carlo Cechetto. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified accountfor relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42:519-560.
Elbert, Samuel H. and Mary Kawena Pukui. 1979. Hawaiian grammar.
Honolulu:  University  of  Hawai‘i  Press.
Freidin, Robert. 1986. Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. Studies in
the acquisition of anaphora, ed. Barbara Lust, 151-188. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Harlow, Ray. 2001. A  Māori  reference  grammar. Auckland: Longman.
Hawkins, Emily. 1982. Pedagogical grammar of Hawaiian: Recurrent problems.
Honolulu:  Hawaiian  Studies  Program,  University  of  Hawai‘i  at  Mānoa.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A
Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35:1-49.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry
25:609-665.
258

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. The
syntax of verb initial languages, eds. Andrew Carnie and Eithne
Guilfoyle, 97-116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 19:153-197.
Mosel, Ulrike and Evan Hovdhaugen.1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo,
Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31:303-344.
Otsuka, Yuko. 2000. Ergativity in Tongan. Doctoral thesis, Oxford University.
Otsuka, Yuko. 2006. Syntactic ergativity in Tongan: Resumptive pronouns
revisited. Ergativity: Emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam,and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 79-107. Dordrecht: Springer.
Otsuka, Yuko. 2011. PRO vs. null SE: Case, tense, and empty categories in
Tongan. Syntax 14:265-296.
Otsuka, Yuko. To appear. On Tagalog relative clauses. In untiring pursuit ofbetter alternatives, eds. Hiroki Egashira, Hisatsugu Kitahara, Kazuo
Nakazawa, Tadao Nomura, Masayuki Oishi, Akira Saizen, Motoko
Suzuki. Tokyo: Kaitakusha..
Potsdam, Eric and Maria Polinsky. 2011. Questions and word order in
Polynesian. Topics in Oceanic morphosyntax, eds. Claire Moyse-Faurie
and Joachim Sabel, 83-109. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
van Riemsdijk, Henk and Edwin Williams. 1981. NP-Structure. The Linguistic
Review 1:171-217.
Schachter, Paul and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkley:
University of California Press.
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley, and Lawrence Reid. 1982. The evolution of
focus in Austronesian. Papers from the Third International Conference
on Austronesian Linguistics 1: Tracking the travellers, eds. AmranHalim, Lois Carrington, and S. A. Wurm, 145-170. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.
Stowell, Tim. 1991. Determiners in NP and DP. Views on phrase structure, eds.
Katherine Leffel and Denis Bouchard, 37-56. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tonoike, Shigeo. 2008. DP movement analysis of relativization. Ms., Universityof  Hawai‘i, Honolulu.
Tryon, Darrell T. 1970. Conversational Tahitian: An introduction to the
Tahitian language of French Polynesia. Canberra: Australian National
University Press.

259

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

CONTROL INTO NOMINALIZED COMPLEMENTS IN
MALAGASY*
Eric Potsdam
University of Florida
potsdam@ufl.edu

Maria Polinsky
Harvard University
polinsky@fas.harvard.edu

We consider the analysis of control structures in Malagasy in which thecomplement clause is introduced by the morpheme ny. Ny is the default
determiner in Malagasy and we argue that such structures instantiate control
into nominalized clauses. We consider and reject the dominant position in theliterature that ny in such control structures has been reanalyzed as acomplementizer.

1.

Introduction

Control phenomena have figured prominently in the generative syntax literature,going back to Rosenbaum 1967. One development in the history of obligatory
control in particular is the inclusion of other languages and phenomena beyond
the canonical case of obligatory control into nonfinite clauses seen in English.
For example, recent work has documented and analyzed control into finite
complement clauses (Landau 2004 and others). A phenomenon that is known
from English and other languages but which has received relatively little
attention is control into nominalized clauses (see Stiebels 2007:32‒33 andLandau 2013:43‒46). Examples from Arabic and Q’eqchi’   are   in   (1), where
nominalization of the complement clause is variously indicated by casemorphology, a nominalization affix, and/or a determiner. We will call thisNOMINAL CONTROL.
(1)

a. STANDARD ARABIC
ZiyaadqarraraZiyad
decided.3MSG‘Ziyad  decided  to  leave.’l-raħiil-a.
DEF-leaving-ACC* Examples come from our own fieldwork unless otherwise indicated. We thank our Malagasy
consultants Bodo and Voara Randrianasolo and Naunau Mezandrinaivo. The following nonLeipzig abbreviations are used in glossing: AT-actor topic voice, DIR-directional, CTcircumstantial topic voice, PREP-preposition, TT-theme topic voice.

261

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. Q’EQCHI’
N-in-lubchi
x-mesunk-il
li kabl.
PRS-1SG.ABS-tire COMP 3SG.ERG-sweep-NMLZ
the house‘I  am  tired of  sweeping  the  house.’(Kockelman 2003:(13))
The goal of this paper is to argue for the existence of nominal control in
Malagasy, a VOS Austronesian language spoken on the island of Madagascar. A
representative example is given in (2b), alongside ordinary control in (2a). It is
the presence of the determiner ny which suggests a nominal control analysis.
(2)a. Nanandrana
PAST.try.AT

hisambotra
IRR.catch.AT

ilay akoho ny ankizy.
chicken DET children

DEM

b. Nanandrana ny hisambotra
ilay akoho ny ankizy.
PAST.try.AT
DET IRR.catch.AT DEM
chicken DET children‘The  children  tried  to  catch  that  chicken.’
The paper is structured as follows. We begin in section 2 with a discussion of
Malagasy complement control patterns. Existing analyses of (2b) claim that it is
not in fact nominal control but ordinary control with the formative ny having
been reanalyzed as a complementizer (Randriamasimanana 1986, 2007,
Ntelitheos 2012, 2013). Section 3 argues against this approach, attempting toestablish that ny in such examples is a determiner. Section 4 presents ourconclusions.
2.

Malagasy Control

Malagasy is an Austronesian language of the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup. It is
typically described as having VOS word order with a Philippine-stylesymmetrical voice system. The precise analysis of Malagasy word order andclause structure is actually of some debate (see Pearson 2005 and references
therein for discussion) so for concreteness we will assume the following picture:
the core of a clause is a fully saturated predicate. The order of elements within
this predicate is V + SUBJECT + OBJECT + OBLIQUE + ADJUNCT. From within thepredicate, one element, called the TRIGGER, externalizes to the clause-final
position. Following Pearson 2005, this externalization is A' movement. Verbal“voice”   morphology   registers   the   underlying grammatical role of the trigger.
There are three voices: actor topic (AT) in which the subject is the trigger, (3a),theme topic (TT) in which the object is the trigger, (3b), and circumstantial topic(CT) in which an oblique element is the trigger, (3c). Subjects in non-actor topic
clauses  appear  immediately  after  the  verb,  phonologically  “bonded”  to it. This isindicated in the orthography by a hyphen or apostrophe.

262

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(3)

a. N-i-antso
mpiasaPAST-AT-callworker‘Mary called the worker.’b. N-antso-in’iMery
PAST-call-TT
DET Mary‘Mary called the worker.’

i
DET

Mery.
Mary

ny
DET

mpiasa.
workerc. N-i-antso-an’iMerympiasaPAST-CT-call-CT DET Mary
worker‘Mary called the worker with the whistle.’ny
DETkiririoka.
whistleControl verbs in Malagasy allow a number of patterns and have been muchdiscussed in the generative syntax literature (Keenan 1976, 1995,
Randriamasimanana 1986, 2007, Law 1995, Paul and Ranaivoson 1998, Pearson
2001, Polinsky and Potsdam 2002, 2003, 2005, Potsdam 2006, 2009, Ntelitheos
2006, 2012, 2013, Potsdam and Polinsky 2007). A typical paradigm for a
subject control verb is given below.
(4)

Nanandrana ø/mba/ny
hisambotra
tried.AT
Ø/COMP/NY
IRR.catch.AT‘Rasoa  tried  to  catch  a  chicken.’akoho Rasoa.
chicken Rasoa

In (4), the actor topic control verb manandrana ‘try’   selects   a   clause-likecomplement.1 This clause may be introduced paratactically, a construction wecall BARE CONTROL. The complement clause may also be introduced by thecomplementizer mba (Randriamasimanana 1986, Potsdam and Polinsky 2007),
what we will call MBA-CONTROL. Finally, the complement clause may beintroduced by the formative ny, which we will argue below is a determiner andthus instantiates nominal control. To not prejudge the situation, we will for now
call this NY-CONTROL. The complements introduced by these elements will becalled bare clauses, mba-clauses, and ny-clauses, respectively.
The goal of this paper is to investigate more closely the ny-control pattern.
As far as we have been able to determine, the control structure with ny isallowed with all control verbs, as is the bare control option. This contrasts with
mba-control, which is only available with certain verbs. For example, mba ispermitted  with  ‘remember’  but  not  with ‘refuse’:1

All verbs in Malagasy show morphological tense: n(o)- ‘PAST’, h(o)- ‘FUT/IRR’,  and  ø- ‘PRES’(Pearson 2001). To first approximation, tense marking in controlled clauses follows twopatterns: For some control verbs, the embedded tense marking must be future/irrealis; for others,
there must be tense matching with the matrix verb (Paul and Ranaivoson 1998:121;
Randriamasimanana 1986, 2007; Ntelitheos 2006:309‒317).

263

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(5)

a. Nahatadidy ø/ny/mba hanidy ny varavarana ianao.2
rememberØ/NY/COMP lock
DET door
2SG‘You  remembered  to  lock  the  door.’b. Nanda ø/ny/*mba hamafa trano ny vehivavy.
refuse Ø/NY/COMP sweep house DET woman‘The  woman  refused  to  clean  the  house.’

It is widely recognized since Williams 1980 that there are two types ofcontrol constructions: obligatory control (OC) and non-obligatory control(NOC). There are a number of well-known diagnostics for distinguishing thetwo (see Williams 1980, Hornstein 1999, Landau 2013, among others fordiscussion). They include the following:
(6)
a.
b.
c.
d.

characteristics of OC
requires a linguistic controller
requires a local controller
requires a c-commanding controller
prohibits a strict reading under ellipsis

We have elsewhere shown that the other options in (4) are also OC (Polinsky
and Potsdam 2003 for bare control and Potsdam and Polinsky 2007 for mbacontrol). The data in (7‒10) confirm that ny-control instantiates OC as well.
(7)

Mikasany hanadio ny lapany
ny andriana.
intend.AT NY clean
DET castle.3SG DET king‘The  king  intends  to  clean  his  castle.’(lit.: intends the cleaning of his castle)*‘The  king  intends  for  someone  to  clean  his  castle.’(8)

Mihevitra Rasoa fa mikasa ny handao an’ i
Tana
think
Rasoa that intend NY leave
ACC DET Tanany governemanta.
DET government‘Rasoa  thinks  that  the  government  intends  to  leave  Tana.’*‘Rasoa  thinks  that  the  government  intends  for  her  to  leave  Tana.’(9)

Mikasa ny hanambady an- dRasoa ny fianakavianintend NY marry
ACC Rasoa
DET family‘#Rabe’s  family  intends  to  marry  Rasoa.’*‘Rabe’s  family  intends  for  him  to  marry  Rasoa.’2Here and below, all verbs are in the actor topic form unless otherwise indicated.

264

dRabe.
Rabe

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(10)

Nanaiky ny hividy ity trano ity ny mpitsara.
agree
NY buyDEM house DEM DET judge
Toa izany koa ilay mpampiasa.
CONJ that
also DEM employer‘The  judge  agreed  to  buy  this  house  and  the  employer  also  agreed  to  buy  this  house.’*‘The  judge  agreed  to  buy  this  house  and  the  employer  also  agreed  for  the judge to buy this  house.’

The primary issue discussed in the literature regarding ny-control is thestatus of the formative ny. Ntelitheos 2006:284ff discusses ny-control and calls
ny and the following clause a nominalization. He provides arguments, some ofwhich we review in section 3, that ny and the following clause constitute DPs.
In particular, he points out that ny is the default determiner in Malagasy (seePaul 2009). We will call this the DETERMINER HYPOTHESIS. On the other hand,
Randriamasimanana 1986:498ff, 2007 and later Ntelitheos 2012, 2013 assertthat ny is a complementizer. We will call this the COMPLEMENTIZER HYPOTHESIS.
These two hypotheses for the structure of examples like (2b) are shown in (11).
Under the determiner analysis, ny is   a   D˚   and   projects   a   DP.   Under thecomplementizer analysis, ny belongs   to   the   lexical   category   C˚ and projects a
CP.
(11)

DETERMINER HYPOTHESISCOMPLEMENTIZER HYPOTHESIS

a.

b.

VP
3
V
DP
control
3
verb D
TP
ny

VP
3
V
CP
control
3
verb CTP
ny

Our   primary   goal   is   to   reinforce   Ntelitheos’   original   position   that   ny-control
does involve nominal control, with the formative ny being a determiner. To dothis, we will systematically compare ny-control and mba-control, as we take
mba to be an uncontroversial complementizer:
(12)

VP
3
V
CP
control
3
verb C
TP
mba

265

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
3.

Evidence for Nominal Control

This section presents arguments in favor of the determiner hypothesis. We
consider   facts   related   to   Malagasy’s   determiner   inventory,   complement  selection, advancement to trigger, fronting, coordination, comparatives, andislandhood.
3.1.

Malagasy determiners

There is a well-known formal restriction in Malagasy that triggers must have adeterminer (Keenan 1976, 2008, Pearson 2001, Paul 2000, 2009, Law 2006, andothers). The basis for this restriction is not clear but it accounts for the data in
(13).
(13)

Nihomehy *(ny)
zaza.
laugh
DET
child
‘The  child  laughed.’

Ny is the default determiner used in such cases, but its semantic contribution is
not well-defined. Even in other positions, its semantic contribution, if any, issometimes not evident (Law 2006, Keenan 2008, Paul 2009), as shown by (14).
It is thus the expected determiner in the control context.
(14)

Tia (ny) boky frantsay
like DET book French‘I  like  French  books.’

aho.
1SG
(Paul 2009)

Ntelitheos 2012 observes that if ny is a determiner in ny-control, then given the
structure in (11), one expects to see other determiners in the same position.
Malagasy has a large number of demonstratives that encode number, distancefrom the speaker, and visibility (Rahajarizafy 1960:24, Rajemisa-Raolison
1969:53, Paul 2009). Demonstratives may be used alone in a prenominal
position or as framing demonstratives that have an identical demonstrative bothpreceding and following the noun phrase:(15) a. izany zaza
DEM
child
‘that  child’b. ireoolona
DEM
person‘those  people’

ireo
DEM

Ntelitheos 2012:293 offers the following data showing that demonstratives may
not replace ny in ny-control structures.

266

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(16) a. *Mameno ilay handeha ho any Antsirananawish
DEM goPREP LOC Antsiranana(‘Rabe  wished  to  go  to  Antsiranana.’)b. *Nikasa ity
hanoratra taratasy
intendDEM
write
letter(‘Rabe  intended  to  write  a  letter.’)

Rabe.
Rabe

ity

Rabe.
DEM Rabe

While our consultants also rejected the above examples, which would argue
against the determiner hypothesis, they did accept control clauses with thedeterminer izany:(17) a. Mikasa ny hanasa alika i
Ainaintend NY washdog
DET Aina‘Aina  intends  to  wash  the  dog.’b. Mikasa izany hanasa alika i
Ainaintend DEM washdog
DET Aina‘Aina  is  contemplating  washing  the  dog.’
Izany is the most vague demonstrative, encoding something that is invisible andindefinitely far from the speaker. If izany projects a DP in such examples it
supports the determiner hypothesis. The impossibility of other demonstratives
may arise because they are too lexically specified to be used with an event; forexample, they may have an unwanted deictic interpretation.
3.2.

Complement selection

A claim of the determiner hypothesis is that all verbs that participate in nominal
control subcategorize for a DP complement and thus should allow a non-clausal
DP complement. This appears to be the case. The examples in (18) arerepresentative.
(18) a. Tsy

nahatadidy ny pepetra aho.
NEG
remember DET rule1SG
‘I  don’t  remember  the  rules.’b. Nitsahatra ny ady
ny fahavalo.
stop
DET war
DET enemy‘The  enemies  stopped  the  war.’c. Mihevitra ny fiainana
think
DET life‘I  am  thinking  about  life.’

aho.
1SG

267

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
d. Mikasa izany
ireo mpiasa ireo.
intend DEM
DEM
worker DEM‘The  workers  intend  that.’e. Te
hanandrana ny sakafony
want try
DET food.3SG‘I  want  to  try  his food.’

aho.
1SG

The complementizer hypothesis, in contrast, predicts no correlation: we might
expect ny to be lexically selected like mba ‘COMP’, as we saw above.3
3.3.

Subject position

A test for nominal status in Malagasy is the ability to appear in trigger position.
Only nominals can be triggers (Keenan 1976, Paul 2000:95‒96, Potsdam
2011).4 Ny-clauses in ny-control can advance to trigger position, (19b) (Paul andRanaivoson 1998:117, Netlitheos 2013:7). Comparison to mba-clauses and bareinfinitives suggests that ny-clauses are in fact nominal. Mba-clauses and bareinfinitives cannot be triggers, (19c).

3

We did find one verb that allows ny-control but does not seem to take a DP complement. The
verb mirohotra means  ‘to  rush  to  V,  to  do  all  at  once/together’.  It  allows  various  control  patterns  but excludes a DP complement:
(i)

a.

b.

c.

Mirohotra ø/ny/mba
mivoaka ny
trano
rush
ø/NY/COMP exit
DET building‘The  people  are  rushing  to  exit  the  building.’ny*Mirohotra{izany,ny
tsinjaka vaovao}rush
DEM
DET dance
new(‘The  people  rushed  to  that/the  new  dance.’)ny

Mirohotra ho
amin’ izanyrush
PREP PREP
that‘The  people  are  rushing  to  that.’

ny
DET

DET

DET

olona.
peopleolona.
peopleolona.
people4

One potential exception is argument clauses, which seem to show up as triggers, (i). As
Keenan (1976:254, 285‒286) indicates however, it is rather difficult to show that such clauses
are triggers and not extraposed complements as suggested by the alternative extrapositiontranslation.
(i)

268

Mazava/Antenaiko [faefalasa ny
mpianatra].
clear/hope.TT.1SG
that alreadygone DET student‘That  the  students  already  left  is  clear/hoped by me.’‘It  is  clear/hoped by me that  the  students  already  left.’(Keenan 1976:254)

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(19) a. Milaneed[ø/ny/mba
Ø/NY/COMP

hividy
buy

sira]
salt

ny
DET

b. Ilain’ny mpahandro
need.TT DET cook

[ny hividy
NY buyc. *Ilain’
ny mpahandro
need.TT DET cook
‘The  cook  needs  to  buy  salt.’[(mba)
COMP

mpahandro.
cooksira].
salt

hividybuysira].
salt

The contrast suggests that ny-clauses and mba-clauses do not have the same
categorial status. If they did, the above contrasts would be mysterious. The
contrast makes sense if ny-clauses are DPs in trigger position and mba-clauses
are CPs that cannot advance to trigger position.
A similar pattern occurs with object control predicates. One might expectthat ny control would be impossible with object control verbs if ny clauses arenominal because that would require the verb to select two DP complements. In
fact, Malagasy is a double object language: ditransitive complement frames canbe expressed with either a DP PP frame or a DP DP frame (Randriamasimanana
1986, Pearson 2000):(20) a. Nanome voankazo ho
an’ ny gidro aho.
give
fruit
PREP PREP DET lemur 1SG‘I  gave  some  fruit  to  the  lemur.’b. Nanome voankazo ny gidro aho.
give
fruit
DET lemur 1SG‘I  gave  the  lemur  some  fruit.’
It is thus not surprising that ny clauses are possible with object control verbs,
even if they are nominals:5

5Randriamasimanana notes the ungrammaticality of ny-clauses in the following object control
examples, which our consultants also rejected. We have no explanation for this difference.
(i)

a.

b.

*Niangavy an’ iJeanneask
ACC DET Jeanne‘Marie  asked  Jeanne  to  go.’ny
NY

*Nanery an’ iJeanneny
force
ACC DET Jeanne
NY‘Paul  forced  Jeanne  to  wash  John.’handehagoiMarie.

DET Marie(Randriamasimanana 2007:(10a))hanasa
wash

an’

i

ACC

DET John

Jaonai

Paoly.

DET Paul(Randriamasimanana 1986:536)

269

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(21) a. Niteny ahy
ø/ny/mba hianatra
tell
1SG.ACC Ø/NY/COMP learn
ny lehibeko.
DET boss.1SG‘My  boss  told  me  to  learn  Malagasy.’

teny
gasy
language Malagasy

b. Nampahatsiahy ahy
ø/ny/mba hanidy
remind
1SG.ACC Ø/NY/COMP locki
Soa.
DET Soa‘Soa  reminded  me  to  lock  the  door.’ny
DETvaravaranadoor

As with subject control verbs, the ny-clause can be promoted to subject position;
the object control verb appears in its circumstantial topic form:(22) a. Nitenenan’ ny lehibeko ahy
ny hianatra
tell.CT
DET boss.1SG 1SG.ACC NY learn
teny
gasy.
language Malagasy‘To  learn  Malagasy  was  told  to  me  by  my  boss.’b. Nampahatsiahivan’ i
Soa ahy
ny hanidy ny varavarana.
remindDET Soa 1SG.ACC NY lock
DET door‘To  lock  the  door  was  reminded  to  me  by  Soa.’
The ability of ny-clauses to advance to trigger position strongly supports theirstatus as DPs.
3.4.

Fronting

Malagasy has two fronting constructions which, to first approximation, target
only triggers (Keenan 1976, Paul 2000, 2002, Sabel 2002, Pearson 2005,
others). In each, the trigger is fronted and followed by a particle. The particle nois used to focus the fronted phrase and the particle dia is used to topicalize thefronted phrase:(23) a. Manasa lamba
Rasoa.
washclothesRasoa‘Rasoa  is  washing  clothes.’b. Rasoa dia
manasa lamba.
Rasoa TOP wash
clothes‘Rasoa,  she’s  washing  clothes.’

270

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
c. Rasoa no manasa lamba.
Rasoa FOC wash
clothes‘It’s  Rasoa  who  is  washing  clothes.’
The determiner hypothesis correctly predicts that ny-clauses can front since
they can be triggers, (24) (see similar examples in Randriamasimanana
1986:507, Keenan 1995:196, and Ntelitheos 2013:290).
(24) a. Heverin- dRabe[ny hividy
think.TT Rabe
NY buy‘Rabe  is  thinking  of  buying  a  car.’fiara].
carb. Ny

hividy fiara noheverin- dRabe.
NY buycar
FOC
think.TT Rabe
‘It’s  buy  a  car  that  Rabe  is  thinking  of  doing.’c. Nyhividy fiara dia heverin- dRabe.
buycar
TOP think.TT
Rabe‘Buying  a  car,  Rabe  is  thinking  of  doing  that.’
NY

The complementizer hypothesis would not allow such examples because such
CPs could not first become triggers. As expected, mba-clauses and bareinfinitives cannot front:(25) a. * (Mba)hividy fiara no heverin- dRabe.
buy
car
FOC think.TT
Rabe(‘It’s  buy a car  that  Rabe  is  thinking  of  doing.’)COMP

b. * (Mba)hividy fiara dia heverin- dRabe.
COMP
buy
car
TOP think.TT
Rabe(‘Buying  a  car,  Rabe  is  thinking  of  doing  that.’)

3.5.

Comparatives

Comparatives provide a test for DP status. Potsdam 2011 argues that thestandard of comparison in comparatives must be a DP with an overt determiner,as suggested by the representative examples in (26).
(26) a. Nividy laoranjy betsaka [noho *(ny) akondro] Rabe.
bought orange
many
than
DET banana
Rabe‘Rabe  bought  more  oranges  than  bananas.’271

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
b. Betsaka kokoa ny vola
nangalarin’ ny olon-dratsy
many
more
DET money steal.TT
DET thief
tamin- dRasoa [noho *(ny) tamin’ ny sakaizany].
PREP Rasoa
than
DET PREP DET friend.3SG‘The  thief  stole  more  money  from  Rasoa  than  from  her  friend.’
The determiner hypothesis correctly predicts that ny-clauses will appear as thestandard of comparison, (27). The complementizer hypothesis would rule out
such examples.
(27)

3.6.

Mankahala (kokoa) ny mipasoka lamba [noho ny mamafa
hate
more
NY ironclothes thanNY sweep
trano] Rasoa.
house Rasoa‘Rasoa  hates  to  iron  clothes  more  than  to  sweep  the  house.’
Double passives(28a) illustrates what Randriamasimanana 1986 calls the DOUBLE PASSIVECONTROL construction (see also Polinsky and Potsdam 2005). Both the control
verb and the embedded verb are in the theme topic form and the embedded
clause object is the matrix trigger. The construction is used to front the object of
the embedded clause, (28b), because, as we saw, only triggers can be fronted.
(28) a. Nandraman- dRasoa hosamborana ny akoho.
tried.TTRasoa IRR.catch.TT
DET chicken
lit.    “The  chicken  was  tried  by  Rasoa  to  be  killed.’‘Rasoa  tried  to  catch  the  chicken.’b. Inona no nandraman- dRasoa
what
FOC tried.TTRasoa‘What  did  Rasoa  try  to  catch?’hosamborana?
catch.TT

Ny is excluded from the double passive construction while mba is not, (29). We
provide an account for this different below but it already suggests a difference
between ny-clauses and bare/mba-clauses.
(29)

Nandraman- dRasoa ø/mba/*ny hosamborana
tried.TTRasoa Ø/COMP/NY catch.TT‘Rasoa  tried  to  catch  the  chicken.’ny
DETakoho.
chicken

Our explanation for the contrast in (29) crucially relies on the DP status of
ny-clauses. It is based on the novel claim regarding Malagasy syntax in (30).

272The Proceedings of AFLA 21
DPs are islands and movement cannot take place from within a DP. This
includes advancement to trigger.
(30)

DPs are islands

This claim is supported by a number of constructions. First, we suggest that
Malagasy Tough-Movement (Keenan 1976) involves actual movement anddisplaces a constituent from the complement clause of a tough-predicate to thematrix trigger position:(31) a. Sarotra
vakina ilay boky.
difficult read.TT DEM book
lit.  “That  book  is  difficult  to  be  read.’‘That  book  is  difficult  to  read.’b. Sarotra [vakina ilay boky]
difficult read.TT

ilay boky.
DEM book

Evidence that the final DP is the matrix trigger comes from the fact that it canbe fronted using the constructions discussed in section 3.4 and can be precededby the question particle ve, which appears between the predicate and the trigger(Keenan 1995):(32) a. Ilay

boky no sarotra
vakina.
book FOC difficult read.TT‘It’s  that  book  that  is  difficult  to  read.’DEM

b. Sarotra
vakina ve ilay
difficult read.TT Q
DEM‘Is  that  book  difficult  to  read?’

boky?
book

If DPs are islands, then we correctly predict that the complement to toughpredicates cannot contain ny:(33)*Sarotra ny vakina ilay boky.
difficult NY read.TT DEM book
lit.  “That  book  is  difficult  to  be  read.’(‘That  book  is  difficult  to  read.’)A second instance of movement in Malagasy is the Subject-to-Object
Raising (SOR) construction shown in (34b) (Keenan 1976, Paul andRabaovololona 1998, Pearson 2001).

273

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(34) a. Nanantena Rabe [fa nanasa ny
zaza Rasoa].
hopeRabe that wash
DET
child Rasoa‘Rabe  hoped  that  Rasoa  washed  the  child.’
b. Nanantena an-dRasoa [honanasahope
ACC-Rasoa COMP wash
‘Rabe  hoped  Rasoa  washed  the  child.’

ny

zaza]
Rabe.
child
Rabe
(Keenan 1976:283)

DET

Pearson 2001:150ff argues that the embedded subject undergoes A' movement:(35)

Nanantena an-dRasoa [honanasahope
ACC-Rasoa COMP washny
DETzaza Rasoa] Rabe.
child
Rabe

As with tough-movement, ny is not possible in complement clauses with SOR:
(36)

*Nanantena an-dRasoa [ny nanasa
hope
ACC-Rasoa NY wash(‘Rabe  hoped  Rasoa  washed  the  child.’)ny
DETzaza Rasoa] Rabe.
child
Rabe

Two other potential movement environments in Malagasy are Subject-toSubject Raising (Flegg and Paul 2003), shown in (37), and Possessor Raising(Keenan 1976, Keenan and Ralalaoherivony 1998) shown in (38). In neithercase can movement take place if the domain of extraction is introduced by ny.
(37)

(38)

Manomboka [(*ny) avy
ny
begin
NY
come
‘It’s  beginning  to  rain.’orana]

ny
DET

orana.
rain

Maty [(*ny) vady Rabe]
Rabe.
dead
NY
spouseRabe‘Rabe  was  widowed.’(Keenan and Ralalaoherivony 1998:69)

Given this generalization, the determiner hypothesis correctly predicts thatny-clauses will be islands for advancement to trigger. This accounts for theimpossibility of double passives with ny, (29). The embedded object cannot
advance to trigger position out of the DP. It is able to do so if the embedded
clause is introduced by a complementizer, either mba or zero, as CPs are notislands.
3.7.

Summary

We have presented a number of phenomena that identify ny-clauses as DPs andmba-clauses as CPs, supporting the determiner hypothesis. This is in agreement
274

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
with Ntelitheos 2006 but contra Randriamasimanana 1986, 2007 and Ntelitheos
2012, 2013.6
Although the data in the previous sections strongly support the claim thatny-clauses can be DPs and cannot only be CPs, they do not in fact rule out adual analysis in which ny-clauses are ambiguous between DP and CP. That is,allowing ny-clauses to also be CPs is also compatible with the data. This is inline with Ntelitheos’s   (2013)   claim   that   ny is undergoing reanalysis fromdeterminer to complementizer. The only decisive argument against a dual
analysis is based on the double passive and islandhood of DP. If ny-clauses werealso CPs, one would not expect the contrast between ny and mba/ø with respect
to the double passive. There should be an analysis of clauses with ny that patternwith mba. At the same time, this is the most theory-internal argument.
Before concluding, we consider a semantic argument for thecomplementizer analysis from Ntelitheos 2013. It is based on the observationthat ny does not seem to make a semantic contribution to ny-control structures.
Speakers generally indicate that examples are synonymous with and without ny.
Ntelitheos does note one weak semantic difference, in (39), however.
(39) a. Nikasa (?ny) hanasa ny lamba Rasoa
intendNYwash
DET clothes Rasoa
fa narary tampoka izy.
but illsuddenly 3SG‘Rasoa  intended  to  wash  the  clothes  but  she  suddenly  became  ill.’b. Nikasa ?(ny) hanasa ny lamba Rasoa
intendNYwash
DET clothes Rasoa
fa tsyvitanyintsony
izany.
but NEG complete.3SG anymore DEM‘Rasoa  intended  to  wash  the  clothes  but  they  weren’t  finished  by  her.’(Ntelitheos 2013:(45, 46))
In (39a), an event of washing did not take place and ny is dispreferred on thisunrealized event. In (39b), in contrast, an event of washing was initiated and ny
is preferable. This contrast is understandable if ny is contributing specificity or
definiteness to an event of washing clothes. At the same time, he notes that thecontrast is not systematic and not all speakers are sensitive to it. Some of ourconsultants did not perceive this difference. Ntelitheos concludes   that   “ny incontrol complements does not imply definiteness or specificity as in normal

6

Ntelitheos 2006 provides two further arguments in favor of the determiner hypothesis fromcoordination and object shift. We were not able to fully replicate the supporting data. For
reasons of space, we do not discuss them here.

275

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
noun phrases, exhibiting semantic bleaching of the sort illustrated with theEnglish complementizer that (Ntelitheos  2013:8)”.
While his observation about the lack of a semantic contribution from ny may
be well-founded, the conclusion that it is therefore a complementizer is notnecessarily warranted. Law 2006 and Paul 2009 discuss the interpretation of ny
and suggest that it signals familiarity not definiteness/specificity; however, thisinterpretation can be overridden in certain contexts.
4.

Conclusion

We conclude that Malagasy does instantiate obligatory nominal control, as in
the example below:(40)

Nanandrana [DP ny hisambotra ilay akoho] ny ankizy.
tried
DET catch
DEM
chicken DET children‘The children tried to catch the chicken.’(lit.: tried the catching of the chicken)

Ny in such examples can be a determiner that heads a DP. We were not able torule out a complementizer analysis for ny suggesting that ny may in fact beundergoing a category change in this environment (Ntelitheos 2012, 2013). The
one decisive argument against the complementizer hypothesis was based on thenovel claim that DPs in Malagasy are islands, a claim that requires further
investigation.
Nominal control in Malagasy instantiates obligatory control, as we showed
in section 2. English nominal control, in contrast, is non-obligatory control(Landau 2013:43‒46). It is not yet clear what the relationship is between control
and nominalized clausal complements cross-linguistically. This is another issue
in need of further investigation.
References
Flegg, Jill Heather, and Ileana Paul. 2003. On the differences between raisingand control. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 50‒63. Departmentof Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69‒96.
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. Subject and topic, ed.
Charles Li, 247‒301. New York: Academic Press.
Keenan, Edward L. 1995. Predicate-argument structure in Malagasy.
Grammatical relations: Theoretical approaches to empirical questions, eds.
Clifford S. Burgess, Katarzyna Dziwirek, and Donna B. Gerdts, 171‒216.
Stanford: CSLI.

276

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Keenan, Edward. 2008. The definiteness of subjects and objects in Malagasy.
Case and grammatical relations, eds. Greville Corbett and Michael Noonan,
241‒261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Keenan, Edward, and Baholisoa Ralalaoherivony. 2000. Raising from NP in
Malagasy. Lingvisticae Investigationes 23:1‒44.
Kockelman,  Paul.  2003.  The  interclausal  relations  hierarchy  in  Q’eqchi’  Maya.  
IJAL 29:25‒48.
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival
constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Landau, Idan, 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 22:811‒877.
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Law, Paul. 1995. On grammatical relations in Malagasy control structures.
Grammatical relations: Theoretical approaches to empirical questions, eds.
Clifford S. Burgess, Katarzyna Dziwirek, and Donna B. Gerdts, 271‒290.
Stanford: CSLI.
Law, Paul. 2006. Argument marking and the distribution of wh-phrases in
Malagasy, Tagalog, and Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics 45:153‒190.
Ntelitheos, Dmitrios. 2006. The morphosyntax of nominalizations: A case study.
Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Ntelitheos, Dmitrios. 2012. Deriving nominals: A syntactic account of Malagasy
nominalizations. Leiden: Brill Publications.
Ntelitheos, Dimitrios. 2013. Subordination through nominalization: Det as
Comp in Malagasy control complements. Morphologie, syntaxe etsémantique des subordonnant, 151‒166. Clermont Ferrand, France: Presses
universitaires Blaise Pascal.
Paul, Ileana. 2000. Malagasy clause structure. Doctoral dissertation, McGill
University.
Paul, Ileana. 2002. On extraction asymmetries. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 44, 211‒224. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT,
Cambridge, Ma.
Paul, Ileana. 2009. The presence versus absence of determiners in Malagasy.
Determiners: Universals and variation, eds. Jila Ghomeshi, Ileana Paul, andMartina Wiltschko, 215‒242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paul, Ileana, and Lucie Rabaovololona. 1998. Raising to object in Malagasy.
UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20, 50‒64. Department ofLinguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, Ca.
Paul, Ileana, and Jeannot F. Ranaivoson. 1998. Complex verbal constructions in
Malagasy. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20, 111‒125.
Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, Ca.

277

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist
approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A' element. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 23:381‒457.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2002. Backward control: Evidence from
Malagasy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44, 257‒272. Department ofLinguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Ma.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2003. Control in Malagasy. Cornell
Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 173‒187. Department of Linguistics,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2005. Malagasy control and its theoretical
implications. Berkeley Linguistics Society 30, 365‒376. Berkeley Linguistics
Society, Berkeley, Ca.
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Backward object control in Malagasy: Against an empty
category analysis. The Proceedings of WCCFL 25, 328‒336. Cascadilla
Proceedings Project, Somerville, Ma.
Potsdam, Eric. 2009. Malagasy backward object control. Language 85:754-784.
Potsdam, Eric. 2011. A direct analysis of Malagasy comparatives. Tampa
Papers in Linguistics 2, 1‒24. University of South Florida, Tampa, Fl.
Potsdam, Eric, and Maria Polinsky. 2007. Missing complement clause subjects
in Malagasy. Oceanic Linguistics 46:277‒303.
Rahajarizafy, Antoine. 1960. Essai sur la grammaire malgache. Antananarivo:
Imprimerie Catholique.
Rajemisa-Raolison, Régis. 1969. Grammaire malgache. Fianarantsoa: Librairie
Ambozotany.
Randriamasimanana, Charles. 1986. Causatives of Malagasy. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Randriamasimanana, Charles. 2007. Malagasy control structures. Concentric:
Studies in Linguistics 33:91‒120.
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement
constructions. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. Wh-questions and extraction asymmetries in Malagasy.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44, 309‒323. Department of Linguistics
and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Ma.
Stiebels, Barbara. 2007. Towards a typology of complement control. ZAS
Papers in Linguistics 47, 1‒80. ZAS, Berlin.
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11:203‒238.

278

The Proceedings of AFLA 21

63/,7)2&8635()(5(1&(6,17$*$/2*
(9,'(1&()520&+,/'/$1*8$*( 1R]RPL7DQDND
8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDL‫ދ‬LDW0ƗQRD
QR]RPLW#KDZDLLHGX

:LOOLDP2¶*UDG\8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDL‫ދ‬LDW0ƗQRDRJUDG\#KDZDLLHGX
&KDH(XQ.LP
8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDL‫ދ‬LDW0ƗQRD
FKDHHXQ#KDZDLLHGX
,YDQ3DXO0%RQGRF
8QLYHUVLW\RIWKH3KLOLSSLQHV0DQLOD
LPERQGRF#XSHGXSK.DPLO'HHQ
8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDL‫ދ‬LDW0ƗQRD
NDPLO#KDZDLLHGX
5\RNR+DWWRUL 
8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDL‫ދ‬LDW0ƗQRD
UKDWWRUL#KDZDLLHGX
-HQQLIHU86RULDQR
8QLYHUVLW\RIWKH3KLOLSSLQHV0DQLODMXVRULDQR#XSHGXSK

7KLV VWXG\ PDNHV XVH RI DQ HOLFLWHG SURGXFWLRQ WDVN WR LQYHVWLJDWH FKLOG DQGDGXOWSUHIHUHQFHVIRUSDUWLFXODUIRFXVSDWWHUQVLQ7DJDORJGHFODUDWLYHVHQWHQFHV
DQG UHODWLYH FODXVHV 2XU ILQGLQJV SRLQW WR D JHQHUDO SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKHPH
IRFXV RYHU DJHQW IRFXV LQ GHFODUDWLYH VHQWHQFHV RQ WKH SDUW RI ERWK FKLOGUHQ
DQG DGXOWV EXW D SUHIHUHQFH DPRQJ FKLOGUHQ IRU UHODWLYH FODXVHV ZLWK DJHQWIRFXV


,QWURGXFWLRQ$VLJQDWXUHIHDWXUHRI7DJDORJLVLWVVRFDOOHGIRFXVV\VWHPLQZKLFKWKHYHUELVPDUNHGZLWKDQDIIL[LQGLFDWLQJWKHWKHPDWLFUROHRIRQHRILWV13DUJXPHQWVZKLFKLQWXUQLVPDUNHGE\WKHFDVHSUHIL[aƾDQGRIWHQVDLGWREHµIRFXVHG¶,Q
WKLV VWXG\ ZH ZLOO LQYHVWLJDWH WZR FRUH SDWWHUQV RI WKLV VRUW DJHQW IRFXV $) 
 :H WKDQN WKH VWXGHQWV IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII DW 'H /D 6DOOH 8QLYHUVLW\'DVPDUxDV 3KLOLSSLQH
1RUPDO 8QLYHUVLW\ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI WKH 3KLOLSSLQHV &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW &HQWHU DQG WKH8QLYHUVLW\ RI WKH 3KLOLSSLQHV 0DQLOD IRU FRRSHUDWLQJ ZLWK RXU UHVHDUFK 7KLV UHVHDUFK ZDVVXSSRUWHGZLWKWKH$UWV 6FLHQFHV6WXGHQW5HVHDUFK$ZDUGVIURPWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDL‫ދ‬LDW
0ƗQRD RIILFH RI DOXPQL UHODWLRQV DQG WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI /LQJXLVWLFV (QGRZPHQW )XQG ERWKDZDUGHG WR WKH ILUVW DXWKRU :H WKDQN WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI +DZDL‫ދ‬L /DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQ5HDGLQJ*URXS8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDL‫ދ‬L$XVWURQHVLDQ'LVFXVVLRQ*URXSDQGWKHVW$QQXDO0HHWLQJRIWKH$XVWURQHVLDQ)RUPDO/LQJXLVWLFV$VVRFLDWLRQIRUYDOXDEOHFRPPHQWV$OWKRXJK WKH WHUPV ³YRLFH´ RU ³WULJJHU´ DUH DOVR VRPHWLPHV XVHG IRU WKLV SKHQRPHQRQ ZH
FKRRVHWKHWHUP³IRFXV´LQWKLVSDSHU



279

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
DQGWKHPHIRFXV 7) 7KHH[DPSOHVLQ  ±  KHOSLOOXVWUDWHKRZWKHV\VWHPZRUNV

7XP!DNER  Dƾ  ODODNH$)3)9!UXQ )2& ER\
µ7KHER\UDQ¶%XP!LOL    QDƾ  OLEUR  Dƾ   ODODNH$)3)9!EX\  )2& ERRN )2& ER\
µ7KHER\ERXJKWDERRN¶   %LQ!LOL    QDƾ ODODNH  Dƾ   OLEUR7)3)9!EX\  )2&ER\   )2& ERRN
µ$ER\ERXJKWWKHERRN¶,Q WKH FDVH RI WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH VHQWHQFH LQ   WKH YHUE FDUULHV WKH DJHQW IRFXVLQIL[ -um- UHIOHFWLQJ WKH IDFW WKDW LWV VROH DUJXPHQW WKH DJHQWlalakeµER\¶ LVIRFXVHGDVLQGLFDWHGE\WKHFDVHSUHIL[aƾ:KHUHDVLQWUDQVLWLYHVHQWHQFHVDOORZMXVW WKLV RQH RSWLRQ SDWWHUQV FRQWDLQLQJ D WZRSODFH SUHGLFDWH SHUPLW WKHDOWHUQDWLRQH[HPSOLILHGLQ  DQG  ,Q  WKHDJHQWDUJXPHQWLVIRFXVHGDVVKRZQE\LWVRFFXUUHQFHZLWKaƾDQGE\WKHSUHVHQFHRIDJHQWIRFXVLQIL[-um-
RQWKHYHUE,Q  LQFRQWUDVWWKHWKHPHDUJXPHQWLVIRFXVHGLWLVPDUNHGE\aƾDQGWULJJHUVWKHWKHPHIRFXVLQIL[-in-RQWKHYHUE  5HODWLYH FODXVHV 5&  LQ 7DJDORJ DUH LQWURGXFHG E\ WKH µOLQNHU¶ -ƾ DQGIROORZWKHQRXQWKDWWKH\PRGLI\ODODNL >5&ƾ  WXP!DNER    BB@
ER\ /1.   $)3)9!UXQµWKHER\WKDWUDQ¶$ NH\ IHDWXUH RI 7DJDORJ LV WKDW RQO\ IRFXVHG DUJXPHQWV FDQ EH UHODWLYL]HG
7KXVDVLOOXVWUDWHGEHORZRQO\WKHDJHQWDUJXPHQWFDQEHUHODWLYL]HGLQDJHQWIRFXVSDWWHUQVDQGRQO\WKHWKHPHDUJXPHQWFDQEHUHODWLYL]HGLQWKHPHIRFXVSDWWHUQV D 5HODWLYL]DWLRQRIWKHDJHQWLQDQDJHQWIRFXVSDWWHUQ DFFHSWDEOH ODODNL >5&ƾ  EXP!LOL    QDƾ OLEUR  BB@
ER\ /1.   $)3)9!EX\  )2&ERRNµWKHERRNWKDWWKHER\ERXJKW¶


$EEUHYLDWLRQV $)  DJHQW IRFXV )2&  IRFXV PDUNHU )2&  QRQIRFXV PDUNHU ,3)9 
LPSHUIHFWLYH/1. OLQNHU3)9 SHUIHFWLYH5& UHODWLYHFODXVH7) WKHPHIRFXV
:H RQO\ VKRZ KHDGLQLWLDO UHODWLYH FODXVHV KHUH KRZHYHU 7DJDORJ DOVR KDV KHDGILQDO DQGKHDGLQWHUQDOUHODWLYHFODXVHV $OGULGJH 

280

The Proceedings of AFLA 21






E 5HODWLYL]DWLRQRIWKHDJHQWLQDWKHPHIRFXVSDWWHUQ XQDFFHSWDEOH  ODODNL >5&ƾ ELQ!LOL     BB  Dƾ   OLEUR@
ER\ /1.  7)3)9!EX\     )2& ERRN
µWKHERRNWKDWWKHER\ERXJKW¶ D 5HODWLYL]DWLRQRIWKHWKHPHLQDWKHPHIRFXVSDWWHUQ DFFHSWDEOH 
OLEUR >5&ƾ ELQ!LOL     QDƾ  ODODNH BB@
ERRN /1. 7)3)9!EX\  )2& ER\

µWKHERRNWKDWWKHER\ERXJKW¶ E 5HODWLYL]DWLRQRIWKHWKHPHLQDQDJHQWIRFXVSDWWHUQ XQDFFHSWDEOH  OLEUR >5&ƾ EXP!LOL    BB  Dƾ   ODODNH@
ERRN /1. 7)3)9!EX\     )2& ER\

µWKHERRNWKDWWKHER\ERXJKW¶  'HVSLWHLWVXQXVXDODQGLQWULJXLQJIHDWXUHVWKH7DJDORJIRFXVV\VWHPKDV
UHFHLYHGOLWWOHDWWHQWLRQLQWKHOLWHUDWXUHRQODQJXDJHDFTXLVLWLRQ7KHIHZVWXGLHVWKDW KDYH EHHQ GRQH RQ GHFODUDWLYH VHQWHQFHV 7XFNHU  6HJDORZLW] DQG*DODQJ   VXIIHU IURP FRPSOLFDWLRQV WKDW PDNH WKHLU UHVXOWV GLIILFXOW WR
LQWHUSUHW DQG WKHUH KDYH EHHQ QR VWXGLHV DW DOO RQ UHODWLYH FODXVH SDWWHUQV :H
DWWHPSWWRUHPHG\WKLVVLWXDWLRQE\DGGUHVVLQJWKHIROORZLQJWZRTXHVWLRQV L :KDW LV WKH SUHIHUUHG IRFXV SDWWHUQ LQ GHFODUDWLYH VHQWHQFHV IRU FKLOGUHQ DQGDGXOWV" LL :KDWLVWKHSUHIHUUHGUHODWLYHFODXVHSDWWHUQIRUFKLOGUHQDQGDGXOWV"
:HUHSRUWRQRXUILQGLQJVLQWKHQH[WWZRVHFWLRQV([SHULPHQW²GHFODUDWLYHFODXVHV([SHULPHQW  DLPHG WR DQVZHU WKH ILUVW UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ E\ XVLQJ D SLFWXUH
EDVHG HOLFLWHG SURGXFWLRQ WDVN WR H[DPLQH DGXOWV¶ DQG FKLOGUHQ¶V SURGXFWLRQ RI
GHFODUDWLYHFODXVHV0HWKRG
3DUWLFLSDQWV:HVWXGLHGFKLOGUHQDJHGWR PHDQ DVZHOODVDGXOWFRQWUROV0DWHULDOV
7KHH[SHULPHQWFRQVLVWHGRIIRXUFRQGLWLRQVFURVVLQJWKHGHILQLWHQHVVRIDJHQWV
DQG WKHPHV GHILQLWH DJHQW DQG GHILQLWH WKHPH GHILQLWH DJHQW DQG LQGHILQLWHWKHPHDQGVRRQ 'HILQLWHQHVVZDVHVWDEOLVKHGZLWKWKHKHOSRIDFRQWH[WWKDWLQFOXGHGDSLFWXUHDQGDEDFNJURXQGVHQWHQFH VHH)LJXUHVDQGEHORZ 

281

The Proceedings of AFLA 21  +DOIWKHLWHPVZLWKLQHDFKFRQGLWLRQFRQWDLQHGDQDQLPDWHDJHQWDQGDQDQLPDWH WKHPH LQYROYHG LQ D VHPDQWLFDOO\ UHYHUVLEOH HYHQW KXJJLQJ FDUU\LQJSLQFKLQJ SXOOLQJ DQG SXVKLQJ7KH RWKHU KDOI LQYROYHG DQ DQLPDWH DJHQW DQGDQ LQDQLPDWH WKHPH LQYROYHG LQ D VHPDQWLFDOO\ QRQUHYHUVLEOH HYHQW FXWWLQJHDWLQJSLFNLQJZDVKLQJDQGUHDGLQJ)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVSDSHUZHZLOOUHVWULFWRXUDWWHQWLRQWRWHVWLWHPVLQ ZKLFK ERWK DJHQW DQG WKHPH DUH GHILQLWH DQG DQLPDWH %HFDXVH IRFXVHGDUJXPHQWV WHQG WR EH GHILQLWH LQ 7DJDORJ 5HLG DQG /LDR   WKLV FRQGLWLRQRIIHUVSDUWLFLSDQWVDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRFDVWWKHLUUHVSRQVHDVHLWKHUDQDJHQWIRFXVRU D WKHPH IRFXV SDWWHUQ WKHUHE\ UHYHDOLQJ DQ\ SUHIHUHQFHV WKDW WKH\ PLJKW
KDYH $ IXUWKHU DGYDQWDJH RI WKLV VRUW RI WHVW LWHP LV WKDW LW SHUPLWV D GLUHFWFRPSDULVRQ ZLWK UHODWLYH FODXVHV WKH VHFRQG VWUXFWXUH W\SH ZLWK ZKLFK ZH DUHFRQFHUQHG$VZHZLOOVHHLQVHFWLRQWKHFODXVHW\SHQRUPDOO\XVHGLQVWXGLHVRIUHODWLYHFODXVHVDOVRFRQWDLQVWZRDQLPDWHGHILQLWHDUJXPHQWV3URFHGXUH(DFKWHVWLWHPEHJDQZLWKSUHVHQWDWLRQRIDSLFWXUHVXFKDVWKHRQHLQ)LJXUHDFFRPSDQLHGE\WKHEDFNJURXQGVHQWHQFH LQ7DJDORJ ³+HUHLVDIDPLO\IDWKHUEURWKHUVLVWHUDQGPRWKHU´WRHQVXUHWKDWHDFKFKDUDFWHUZRXOGEHIDPLOLDUWR
WKHSDUWLFLSDQWV DQGKHQFHGHILQLWH )LJXUH&RQWH[WSLFWXUHRIWKHIDWKHUEURWKHUVLVWHUDQGPRWKHULQ&RQGLWLRQ
3DUWLFLSDQWVZHUHWKHQSUHVHQWHGZLWKWKHDFWXDOWHVWLWHPZKLFKFRQVLVWHGRIDSLFWXUHVXFKDVWKHRQHLOOXVWUDWHGLQ)LJXUHDORQJZLWKWKHTXHU\³:KDWLV
KDSSHQLQJKHUH"´,QWKLVSDUWLFXODUFDVHSDUWLFLSDQWVDUHH[SHFWHGWRUHVSRQGE\


$QHYHQWLVVHPDQWLFDOO\UHYHUVLEOHLILWLVHTXDOO\SODXVLEOHIRUHLWKHUSDUWLFLSDQWWRIXQFWLRQDV
DJHQWRUWKHPH7KXVDVHQWHQFHVXFKDVThe boy hugged the girlLVVHPDQWLFDOO\UHYHUVLEOHVLQFHLQSULQFLSOHDER\FRXOGKXJDJLUORUDJLUOFRXOGKXJDER\,QFRQWUDVWThe boy read the book
LVQRWUHYHUVLEOHVLQFHDERRNFDQQRWUHDGDER\282

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
UHSRUWLQJWKDWWKHIDWKHULVFDUU\LQJWKHEURWKHUJLYLQJXVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WR
REVHUYHDSRVVLEOHSUHIHUHQFHIRUHLWKHUDJHQWIRFXVRUWKHPHIRFXV)LJXUH7DUJHWSLFWXUHLQ&RQGLWLRQ7KHWDUJHWDQVZHULVD7DJDORJHTXLYDOHQWRI³7KHIDWKHULVFDUU\LQJWKHEURWKHU´5HVXOWV$IWHUUHPRYLQJLUUHOHYDQWDQVZHUVZHZHUHOHIWZLWKUHVSRQVHVIURPDGXOWVDQG  IURP FKLOGUHQ $V VKRZQ LQ )LJXUH  ERWK JURXSV PDQLIHVWHG DQ
RYHUZKHOPLQJ SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKHPH IRFXV  IRU DGXOWV  IRUFKLOGUHQ 

96.8%

100%

84.2%

80%
60%
Agentfocus
40%

Themefocus
15.8%

20%
3.2%
0%
AdultsChildren)LJXUH$GXOWV¶DQGFKLOGUHQ¶VIRFXVSUHIHUHQFHZKHQDJHQWDQGWKHPHDUH
ERWK>DQLPDWH@>GHILQLWH@
7KLV DV\PPHWU\ VWURQJO\ VXJJHVWV WKDW WKHPH IRFXV LV RYHUDOO WKH SUHIHUUHG
SDWWHUQ LQ ERWK DGXOW DQG FKLOG SURGXFWLRQ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK UHSRUWV LQ WKHOLWHUDWXUH WKDW WKHPH IRFXV LQWKH GHIDXOW LQ 7DJDORJ 3D\QH 'H*X]PDQ $OGULGJH   :H WXUQ QH[W WR WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU D FRPSDUDEOH
SUHIHUHQFHLVIRXQGLQUHODWLYHFODXVHV

283

The Proceedings of AFLA 21([SHULPHQW²UHODWLYHFODXVHV([SHULPHQWH[DPLQHVSUHIHUHQFHVLQWKHXVHRIUHODWLYHFODXVHVZLWKWKHKHOSDSLFWXUHEDVHGHOLFLWHGSURGXFWLRQ0HWKRG
3DUWLFLSDQWV)RXUWHHQ FKLOGUHQ DJHG  WR  PHDQ   SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ RXU VHFRQG
H[SHULPHQWDORQJZLWKVHYHQDGXOWFRQWUROV0DWHULDOV:H PDGH XVH RI  SDLUV RI EODFNDQGZKLWH SLFWXUHV ZKLFK FRQVLVWHG RI 
SUDFWLFHLWHPVDQGWDUJHWLWHPV7KHWDUJHWLWHPVLQYROYHGUHYHUVLEOHHYHQWVZLWKDQDQLPDWHDJHQWDQGDQDQLPDWHWKHPHERWKRIZKLFKZHUHPDGHGHILQLWHZLWKWKHKHOSRIDFRQWH[W7KHUHZHUHWZRFRQGLWLRQV²RQHWKDWHOLFLWHGDJHQWIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHVDQGRQHWKDWHOLFLWHGWKHPHIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHV3URFHGXUH(DFKWHVWLWHPFRQVLVWHGRIDWZRSLFWXUHSDQHOGHSLFWLQJWKHVDPHDFWLRQXVLQJGLIIHUHQWFKDUDFWHUVDQDFFRPSDQ\LQJSDLURIVHQWHQFHVSURYLGHGDEDFNJURXQG
FRQWH[W)LJXUH6DPSOHDJHQWIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHLWHPIRUWKHWDUJHWUHVSRQVH³WKHER\ZKRLVFDUU\LQJWKHJLUO´,QWKHFDVHRI)LJXUHIRULQVWDQFHSDUWLFLSDQWVZHUHWROG LQ7DJDORJ ³$ER\LV FDUU\LQJ WKH PRQNH\ $QRWKHU ER\ LV FDUU\LQJ WKH JLUO´ %HFDXVH WKHFKDUDFWHUV LQ WKH SLFWXUH ZHUH PDGH IDPLOLDU WR WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV E\ WKH OHDGLQ
VHQWHQFH WKH\ FDQ EH FRQVLGHUHG GHILQLWH DV ZDV DOVR WKH FDVH ZLWK WKHFKDUDFWHUVLQWKHWHVWLWHPVXVHGLQRXUILUVWH[SHULPHQW7KH\ZHUHWKHQDVNHG
284

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
³:KR KDV WKH DUURZ PDUN"´ 7KH WDUJHWHG UHVSRQVH LQ WKLV FDVH LV DQ DJHQWUHODWLYHFODXVHDVVKRZQLQ  ODODNL >5&ƾ  EXP!XaEXKDW  QDƾ EDEDH  BB@
ER\ /1.   $)!,3)9aFDUU\ )2&JLUOµWKHER\ZKRLVFDUU\LQJWKHJLUO¶)LJXUH6DPSOHWKHPHIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHLWHPIRUWKHWDUJHWUHVSRQVH³WKH
JLUOZKRWKHER\LVFDUU\LQJ´)LJXUHH[HPSOLILHVDWHVWLWHPGHVLJQHGWRHOLFLWDWKHPHUHODWLYHFODXVHDVLOOXVWUDWHGLQ  
EDEDL >5&ƾ ELQ!XaEXKDWQDƾ ODODNH BB@
JLUO /1.
7)!,3)9aFDUU\)2& ER\

µWKHJLUOZKRWKHER\LVFDUU\LQJ¶5HVXOWV:HDQDO\]HGUHVSRQVHVIURPDGXOWV IURPWKHDJHQWIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHFRQGLWLRQIURPWKHWKHPHIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHFRQGLWLRQ DQGUHVSRQVHVIURP FKLOGUHQ  IURP WKH DJHQW IRFXV UHODWLYH FODXVH FRQGLWLRQ  IURP WKHWKHPHIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHFRQGLWLRQ )LJXUHVXPPDUL]HVRXUILQGLQJV$V FDQ EH VHHQ LQ )LJXUH  DGXOW SDUWLFLSDQWV SHUIRUPHG DW FHLOLQJ LQ
ERWK FRQGLWLRQV KRZHYHU UHVXOWV IURP FKLOGUHQ VKRZHG D VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHUVXFFHVVUDWHRQDJHQWIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHVRYHUWKHPHIRFXVUHODWLYHFODXVHV ȕ    p   7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW FKLOGUHQ ILQG DJHQW IRFXV UHODWLYHFODXVHVHDVLHUWRSURGXFHWKDQWKHLUWKHPHIRFXVFRXQWHUSDUWV²DUHVXOWWKDWUXQVFRXQWHUWRWKHVWURQJSUHIHUHQFHIRUWKHPHIRFXVREVHUYHGLQGHFODUDWLYHFODXVHV
, UHSRUW IL[HG HIIHFW FRHIILFLHQWV ȕ IURP PL[HG HIIHFWV ORJLVWLF UHJUHVVLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHVSDUWLFLSDQWVDQGLWHPVDVUDQGRPHIIHFWV7KHHVWLPDWHVRIWKHWZRUDQGRPHIIHFWVZHUHFORVHWR]HUR LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI WDUJHWHG UHVSRQVHV GRHV QRW GHSHQG RQ LQGLYLGXDOSDUWLFLSDQWVRULWHPV

285

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
100%

93.8%

93.9%

Agentfocusrelativeclauses
Themefocusrelativeclauses
80.0%

80%
60%
39.1%

40%
20%
0%
AdultsChildren)LJXUH5DWHRIWDUJHWUHVSRQVHVLQERWKUHODWLYHFODXVHW\SHV*HQHUDOGLVFXVVLRQ,Q VXP RXU UHVXOWV UHYHDO D P\VWHU\ RI VRUWV 2Q WKH RQH KDQG ZH KDYH EHHQ
DEOHWRH[SHULPHQWDOO\FRQILUPDVWDQGDUGJHQHUDOL]DWLRQDERXW7DJDORJWKHPH
IRFXVLVSUHIHUUHGWRDJHQWIRFXV0RUHRYHUWKLVVHHPVWREHWUXHIRUFKLOGUHQDOPRVWWRWKHVDPHRYHUZKHOPLQJGHJUHHDVLWLVIRUDGXOWV  2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG PDWWHUV DUH YHU\ GLIIHUHQW LQ WKH FDVH RI UHODWLYHFODXVHV ZKHUH FKLOGUHQ IDYRU DJHQW IRFXV SDWWHUQV RYHU WKHLU WKHPH IRFXVFRXQWHUSDUWV E\ D ODUJH DQG VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW PDUJLQ ,Q WKLV UHJDUG WKHFKLOGUHQ¶V SHUIRUPDQFH UHIOHFWV D PXFK EURDGHU FURVVOLQJXLVWLF WHQGHQF\ IRUOHDUQHUVDQGVSHDNHUVWRIDYRUUHODWLYL]DWLRQRIDYHUE¶VH[WHUQDODUJXPHQWRYHU
LQWHUQDODUJXPHQWVDQGREOLTXHVDVUHSRUWHGIRU&K¶RO &OHPHQVHWDOWRDSSHDU 'XWFK )UD]LHU   (QJOLVK 'LHVVHO DQG 7RPDVHOOR   )UHQFK +ROPHV
DQG 2¶5HJDQ   *HUPDQ 6FKULHIHUV )ULHGHULFL DQG .KQ   *UHHN6WDYUDNDNL   +HEUHZ )ULHGPDQQ %HOOHWWL DQG 5L]]L   +XQJDULDQ
0DF:KLQQH\DQG3OpK -DSDQHVH .DZDVKLPD .DTFKLNHO +HDWRQ  .RUHDQ &KR   0DQGDULQ &KLQHVH +VX +HUPRQ DQG =XNRZVNL
 3HUVLDQ 5DKPDQ\0DUHIDWDQG.LGG 4¶DQMRE¶DO &OHPHQVHWDO
WRDSSHDU DQG6ZHGLVK +nNDQVVRQDQG+DQVVRQ   2XU ILQGLQJV WKXV UDLVH D VHULHV RI QHZ TXHVWLRQV DERXW 7DJDORJSHUWDLQLQJWRWKHQDWXUHRIIRFXVWKHSUHIHUHQFHVWKDWDUHPDQLIHVWHGLQGLIIHUHQWFRQVWUXFWLRQVDQGWKHPDQQHULQZKLFKWKRVHSUHIHUHQFHVHPHUJHLQWKHFRXUVH
RI ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ 7KHVH TXHVWLRQV DUH DW WKH IRUHIURQW RI DGGLWLRQDOUHVHDUFKWKDWZHDUHFXUUHQWO\FRQGXFWLQJRQ7DJDORJ
286

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
5HIHUHQFHV$OGULGJH (GLWK  ,QWHUQDOO\ KHDGHG UHODWLYH FODXVHV LQ $XVWURQHVLDQODQJXDJHVLanguage and Linguistics±$OGULGJH(GLWK$QWLSDVVLYHDQGHUJDWLYLW\LQ7DJDORJLingua±&KR 6RRNHXQ  7KH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI UHODWLYH FODXVHV ([SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHVRQ.RUHDQ'RFWRUDOGLVVHUWDWLRQ8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDLµLDW0ƗQRD&OHPHQV/DXUHQ(E\-HVVLFD&RRQ3HGUR0DWHR3HGUR$GDP0LOWRQ0RUJDQ0DULD 3ROLQVN\ *DEULHOOH 7DQGHW DQG 0DWWKHZ :DJHUV 7R DSSHDU(UJDWLYLW\ DQG WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI H[WUDFWLRQ $ YLHZ IURP 0D\DQ
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
'LHVVHO+ROJHUDQG0LFKDHO7RPDVHOOR$QHZORRNDWWKHDFTXLVLWLRQRIUHODWLYHFODXVHVLanguage±)UD]LHU /\Q  6\QWDFWLF SURFHVVLQJ (YLGHQFH IURP 'XWFK Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory ±
)ULHGPDQQ 1DDPD $GULDQD %HOOHWWL DQG /XLJL 5L]]L  5HODWLYL]HGUHODWLYHV7\SHVRILQWHUYHQWLRQLQWKHDFTXLVLWLRQRI$EDUGHSHQGHQFLHV
Lingua±+nNDQVVRQ*LVHODDQG.ULVWLQD+DQVVRQ&RPSUHKHQVLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQRI UHODWLYH FODXVHV $ FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ 6ZHGLVK LPSDLUHG DQGXQLPSDLUHGFKLOGUHQJournal of Child Language±+HDWRQ 5DLQD  7KH VWDWXV RI V\QWDFWLF HUJDWLYLW\ LQ .DTFKLNHO 3DSHU
SUHVHQWHG DW WKH 6RFLHW\ IRU WKH 6WXG\ RI WKH ,QGLJHQRXV /DQJXDJHV RI
WKH$PHULFDV 66,/$ $QQXDO0HHWLQJ3RUWODQG2UHJRQ+ROPHV 9 0 DQG - . 2¶5HJDQ  (\H IL[DWLRQ SDWWHUQV GXULQJ WKHUHDGLQJ RI UHODWLYHFODXVH VHQWHQFHV Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior±
+VX &KXQ&KLHK 1DWDOLH *DEULHOOD +HUPRQ DQG $QGUHD =XNRZVNL 
<RXQJ FKLOGUHQ¶V SURGXFWLRQ RI KHDGILQDO UHODWLYH FODXVHV (OLFLWHG
SURGXFWLRQGDWDIURP&KLQHVHFKLOGUHQJournal of East Asian Linguistics±.DZDVKLPD 0LFKLNR  7KH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI -DSDQHVH UHODWLYH FODXVHV
0DVWHU¶VWKHVLV8QLYHUVLW\RI$OEHUWD
0DF:KLQQH\ %ULDQ DQG &DVDED 3OpK  7KH SURFHVVLQJ RI UHVWULFWLYHUHODWLYHFODXVHVLQ+XQJDULDQCognition ±
5DKPDQ\ 5DPLQ +DPLGHK 0DUHIDW DQG (YDQ .LGG  3HUVLDQ VSHDNLQJFKLOGUHQ¶V DFTXLVLWLRQ RI UHODWLYH FODXVHV European Journal of
Developmental Psychology ±
5HLG /DZUHQFH $ DQG +VLX&KXDQ /LDR  $ EULHI V\QWDFWLF W\SRORJ\ RI
3KLOLSSLQHODQJXDJHVLanguage and Linguistics±
6FKULHIHUV+HUEHUW$QJHOD')ULHGHULFLDQG.DWMD.KQ7KHSURFHVVLQJ
RIORFDOO\DPELJXRXVUHODWLYHFODXVHVLQ*HUPDQJournal of Memory andLanguage±


287

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
6HJDORZLW]1RUPDQ6DQG5RVLWD**DODQJ$JHQWSDWLHQWZRUGRUGHUSUHIHUHQFH LQ WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI 7DJDORJ Journal of child language±
6WDYUDNDNL 6WDYURXOD  &RPSUHKHQVLRQ RI UHYHUVLEOH UHODWLYH FODXVHV LQ
VSHFLILFDOO\ODQJXDJHLPSDLUHGDQGQRUPDOO\GHYHORSLQJ*UHHNFKLOGUHQBrain and Language±
7XFNHU * 5LFKDUG  )RFXV DFTXLVLWLRQ E\ )LOLSLQR FKLOGUHQ Philippine
Journal of Psychology±


288



The Proceedings of AFLA 21

DIAGNOSTICS FOR ALREADY VS. PERFECT ASPECT:A CASE STUDY OF JAVANESE WIS *Jozina Vander Klok
University of British Columbia
jozina.vander@ubc.ca

Lisa Matthewson
University of British Columbia
lisa.matthewson@ubc.ca

Already and the perfect aspect are both acceptable in many of the sameenvironments: both can express the recent past, a result, or an experiential
reading. In this paper we develop a set of cross-linguistic diagnostics todistinguish already from the perfect aspect, using the auxiliary wis in Javanese
as a case study. Wis has been characterized as already, a (present) perfect, apast tense, or a perfective. We argue that Javanese wis is a focus operator
which presupposes that the focus is a maximal element among a set of orderedalternatives, following Krifka’s (2000) analysis of English already.

1.

Introduction

Already and the perfect aspect are acceptable in many of the sameenvironments, since both refer to an event prior to the utterance time without
relying on a specific past reference time. Our main goal in this paper is toestablish a set of cross-linguistically applicable diagnostics to distinguishalready from the perfect. The auxiliary wis in Javanese (Western MalayoPolynesian) presents an ideal case study, as it has been variously characterized
as already (Robson 2002; Robson and Wibisono 2002; Ewing 2005; Cole, Hara,
and Yap 2008; Conners 2008), a (present) perfect (Horne 1961; Dahl 1985), a
perfective (Conners 2008; Hoogervorst 2010; Vander Klok 2012), and a pasttense marker (Favre 1866; Robson and Wibisono 2002). The varying
characterizations highlight how easy it is to conflate distinctions which, while
similar, can be proven to be distinct in their semantics.
This paper is the first targeted investigation of the semantics of wis inJavanese. We present new data on this auxiliary from primary fieldwork on aJavanese dialect spoken in Paciran, East Java, Indonesia.1 We investigate thetwo potential hypotheses that wis expresses perfect aspect or that it expresses
already. We argue that based on our set of diagnostics, wis can only have the*We are deeply grateful to our Javanese language consultants: matur suwon sing akeh to mbak

Titis, mbak Fina, mbak Ulum, mbak Nunung, mbak Rohmah, mbak Haris, Mas Nasrul, Mas
Faiz, Pak Farihi, Pak Khoim, and Pak Khoiq. Thank you to the AFLA 21 audience forcomments, especially James Collins, Vera Hohaus, and Ed Keenan.
1
Paciran is part of the Pesisir continuum along the northern coast of Java (Hoogervorst 2010).
The data from Paciran Javanese are primarily in Ngoko ‘Low  Javanese’,  the  everyday  speech  of  the villagers. In this paper, we adopt the Standard Javanese form in the text (wis), but use wes inthe examples from Paciran Javanese to reflect their preferred spelling.

289

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
semantics of already. We provide an analysis of it broadly following thesemantics that Krifka (2000) proposes for English already.2
2.

Similarities between already and the perfect aspect

In this section, we first focus on similarities between the perfect and already toshow how these two hypotheses can easily be conflated. First, already and theperfect both refer to an event prior to the speech time without a specific pastreference time, as suggested by the translations in (1).
(1)

Context: Bu Z. talking to Bu S. about K.’s  background.
Wesbel-ajarnek Jogja nem ulan.
already INTR-study at
Jogja six month‘She  has studied / already studied in  Jogja  for  six  months.’  In English, perfect aspect can express the recent past, a result, or an experiential
reading (e.g., Comrie 1976; Smith 1997). Already can express these exact same
readings (cf. Mittwoch 1988; Michaelis 1992:324), as illustrated in (2).
(2) a. Jordan {has (just) / already} left.
(RECENT PAST)b. Andrea {has / already} arrived in London.
(RESULT)c. Bethany {has / already} visited Edinburgh (before). (EXPERIENTIAL)
Because of these similarities, there is a risk of misanalyzing elements whichmeet this temporal configuration. The possibility for misdiagnosis is reinforced
in questionnaires for cross-linguistic semantic use such as that of Dahl (1985).
Many of the questions that are classified by Dahl as hallmark examples ofperfect aspect could equally target already, cf. (2). Consider the examples in (3)from  Dahl’s  questionnaire  (Dahl’s  #64, 42, 53 respectively).
(3) a. Child: Can I go now?
Mother: You BRUSH your teeth?
(RECENT PAST)b. A:
Is the King still alive?
B:(No,) he DIE.
(RESULT)c. You MEET my brother (at any time in your life until now)?
(EXPERIENTIAL)
In each of these examples for English, the uninflected verb (in capital letters) isequally compatible with three different conjugations: the (present) perfect, thesimple past, or the simple past with the adverb already. This shows how
misdiagnosis of a marker is easily possible.
2

For reasons of space, we omit here the proof that wis cannot be a past tense marker (Favre
1866; Robson and Wibisono 2002) or a perfective marker (Conners 2008; Hoogervorst 2010;
Vander Klok 2012).

290

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Dahl (1985) reports that based on his questionnaire, Javanese wis
expresses perfect aspect because it occurs in all of his prototypical examples forthe perfect. We reran this questionnaire with two speakers of Paciran Javanese,and   found   similar   results   to   Dahl’s.   Specifically,   the questions which haverecent past or resultative readings were translated with the auxiliary wis, as
shown in (4) (corresponding to Dahl’s  #64, 42, 39).3(4) a. Child:
Mother:b. A:
B:c. Context:‘Can I go now?’
Opo awakmu wes
sikat-an?
(RECENT PAST)Q
2SGalready brush-AN‘You BRUSH your teeth?’‘Is the King still alive?’
Ora, rojo wes
mangkat(RESULT)NEG king already pass.away‘(No,) he DIE.’‘Do  you  know  my  brother?’(EXPERIENTIAL)
Yo, aku wes
ke-temu dulur-mu
sepisanYes, 1SG already KE-meet sibling-your once
pirang-pirang taun kepungkor
RED-some
year ago‘(Yes,)  I  MEET  him  (once)  several  years  ago.’

Without further evidence, the results of this questionnaire for Javanese would
lead us to conclude that wis is a perfect, as wis is acceptable in recent past,
resultative, and experiential contexts. This is what Dahl (1985) concludes.
However, as shown above in (2) for English, already is equally compatible ineach of these environments. This fact renders Dahl’s   questionnaire resultsinconclusive. What is lacking, then, are diagnostics that differentiate the perfectfrom already.
3.

Diagnostics to distinguish already from the perfect

We identify the following diagnostics to distinguish already from the perfect:4(i) morphological transparency and truth-conditional equivalency in interactions
3

Dahl (1985) argues that a separate lexical item, tau, expresses experiential perfect aspect (4c).
Our fieldwork on Paciran Javanese confirms that tau is used for experiential readings, but wis
also allows experiential readings as shown in (4c).
4We do not discuss the incompatibility of already with downward-entailing quantifiers (e.g.,
only, less than) as a possible diagnostic. (See Soh and Gao 2008 on English already, Soh andGao 2008; Soh 2008, 2009 on sentence-final Mandarin –le, Soh 2012 on post-verbal Colloquial
Malay dah, Olsson 2013 on other South East Asian languages.) We leave this potential
diagnostic for future research due to a number of factors that ameliorate the acceptability ofEnglish already with downward-entailing quantifiers. These include (i) the scope of already, (ii)the use of prosody in indicating corrective or contrastive focus, and (iii) the use of different
types of predicates.

291

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
with negation (duality of already) (König 1977, 1991; Löbner 1989, 1999;
Krifka 2000); (ii) an ‘earliness’ implication (Löbner 1989; Mittwoch 1993;
Michaelis 1992, 1996; Krifka 2000); (iii) inchoative interpretation with stative
predicates; (iv) (in)compatibility with adverbs specifying a past time interval(Giorgi and Pianesi 1997; Portner 2003); and (v) ‘Extended Now’  interpretation  (McCoard 1978).
A marker which expresses already could involve (i) duality, (ii) an‘earliness’   implication, and (iii) an inchoative interpretation with statives; but
disallow (v) an ‘Extended Now’ interpretation. Evidence that a marker
expresses the perfect could involve (iv) incompatibility with past-time adverbs
and (v)   an   ‘Extended Now’   interpretation.   Further,   we   expect   that   a   perfect  aspect will not have (i) duality or (ii)  an  ‘earliness’  implication. We apply these
diagnostics to Javanese wis, arguing that wis can only express already.
3.1.

Duality of alreadyA first diagnostic that differentiates already from the perfect aspect is theinteraction with negation. Already can be grouped with still, not yet, and nolonger/not anymore based on (i) possible morphological transparency with these
related items; and (ii) equivalent truth-conditions in interaction with negation(König 1991; Löbner 1989, 1999; Krifka 2000; among others). Importantly,
these properties are not upheld with the perfect.
Morphological transparency is illustrated with Hebrew in (5). Kvar
‘already’ and ‘adayin  ‘still’  are  related  by  duality,  in that the inner negation of
one is equivalent to the outer negation of the other (cf. Löbner 1989, 1999). The
external negation of the kvar ‘already’  sentence in (5a) is lexically expressed by
the inner negation of ‘adayin  ‘still’, as in (5b). Similarly, the external negationof the ‘adayin ‘still’   sentence in (5c) is expressed by the internal negation ofkvar ‘already’   in   (5d). In other words, already means   ‘not   still   not’   and stillmeans  ‘not already not’.
(5) a.
c.

kvar yored geshem.
b. ‘adayin lo yored geshem.
already rain is
still
not rain is‘It  is  already  raining.’‘It  is  not  yet  raining.’‘adayin yored geshem.
d. kvarlo yored geshem.
still
rain
is
already not rain is‘It  is  still  raining.’‘It  is  not  raining  anymore.’(Krifka 2000:401, Hebrew, glosses and translation added)

This system has been noticed in other languages as well, such as Dutch, French,
English (Löbner 1989:170), Spanish, and Czech (Krifka 2000). Not all
languages have morphologically transparent systems: English already and still
have suppletive forms that are negative polarity items, yet and anymore/longer
respectively (Krifka 2000:401).
292

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Turning to Javanese, we can examine whether forms related to wis aremorphologically transparent with markers that express still, not yet, no longer.
First, we observe that the outer negation of isek ‘still’  is  expressed  by  the inner
negation of wis. 5 This morphological transparency is parallel to the forms in
Hebrew in (5c-d), and can only be understood under the hypothesis that these
forms are duals.
(6)

Mas Mawon wes
gak ndandan-i
jareng-e.
Mr. Mawon already NEG AV.fix-APPL fishing.net-DEF‘Mawon  is  no  longer  fixing  the  fishing  net.’

For the external negation of Javanese wis, speakers invariably offer sentenceswith a suppletive form durung ‘not   yet’   (Robson   and   Wibisono   2002:203).  
While this relation is not morphologically transparent, speakers comment that
durung ‘not  yet’  is  like  ora wis ‘NEG already’ (the external negation of wis, butwhich is non-existent).
(7)

Mas Mawon durung ndandan-i
jareng-e.
Mr. Mawon not.yet AV.fix-APPL fishing.net-DEF‘Mawon  didn’t  fix  the  fishing  net  yet.’  With respect to equivalent truth-conditions based on interaction with negation,
Löbner (1989, 1999) presents evidence that German schon ‘already’   and   noch‘still’ as well as English already and still are duals based on their truthconditional interaction with respect to negation. This relation parallels theinteraction with negation seen with duality in quantifiers (e.g. , ). For
instance, the internal negation of the universal quantifier  is x[P(x)], which
is truth-conditionally equivalent to the external negation of the existential
quantifier : x[P(x)]. Thus, Every light is off is equivalent to It is not the casethat some light is on. Conversely, Not every light is off is equivalent to Somelight is on.
This equivalency is observed in English with already. In (8a,b), theexternal negation of already (¬already [p]) is truth-conditionally equivalent to
the internal negation of still (still [¬p]). Similarly, in (8c,d), the external
negation of still (¬still [p]) is truth-conditionally equivalent to the internal
negation of already (already [¬p]).6(8) a.

already [p]It is not yet [raining].

= b. still [p]
It is still [not raining].

5

Inner negation of wis with ora ‘NEG’ is also possible. Ora and gak are interchangeable in mostenvironments in Paciran Javanese.
6van   der   Auwera   (1993:616)   gives   additional   equivalency   tests   such   as   ‘Peter   is   already   in  Madrid’  =  It  is  no  longer  the  case that Peter is not in Madrid’  / ‘It  is  not  the  case  that  Peter  is  not  yet  in  Madrid.’ These examples proved too difficult to properly elicit in Javanese.

293

The Proceedings of AFLA 21c.

still [p]It is not [raining] anymore.

= d. already [p]
It is already [not raining].

Turning to Javanese, if wis expresses already, then we expect to find truthconditional equivalencies with negation with an item that expresses still. We
expect that the external negation of wis (¬wis [p]) is truth-conditionallyequivalent to the internal negation of isek ‘still’   (isek [¬p]). This prediction isborne out, as shown by the equivalencies in (9).
(9) a.

wis [p]durung [udan].
not.yet rain
‘It is not yet raining.’= b. isek [p]isek [gak udan].
still NEG rain
‘It is still not raining.’

And vice versa, we predict that the external negation of isek ‘still’  (¬isek [p]) is
truth-conditionally equivalent to the internal negation of wis ‘already’   (wis[¬p]). However, we cannot test this in Javanese since external negation of isek
‘still’ is not grammatically possible (*gak isek udan ‘it  is  no  longer  raining’).
In this section, we have discussed two properties which pertain to theduality diagnostic distinguishing already from the perfect aspect: (i) possible
morphological transparency with these related items; and (ii) equivalent truthconditions based on interaction with negation. We showed that Javanese hasboth these properties, providing evidence that wis expresses already.
3.2.

‘Earliness’  of  already

Another property that distinguishes already from perfect aspect relates to an
implicature   of   ‘earliness’ (Mittwoch 1993; Löbner 1989, 1999; Krifka 2000).
This earliness factor is illustrated in (10) with German schon ‘already’.
(10) a. Es ist schon zwei – nicht erst eins.
‘It  is  already  two  – not  (still)  one.’b. Sie kommt schon um zwei – nicht erst um drei.
‘She  is  already  coming  at  two  – not  at  three.’  (Löbner 1989:193)

Löbner (1989:194)  points  out  that  “the  event  or  state  under  consideration  occurs  earlier  than  in  the  contrasting  case” in both examples above: in (10a) time has
passed by earlier than the speaker expects and in (10b) the arrival occurs earlier
than expected. Earliness equally holds for English already. In (11), already“serves  to  assert  that  the  state  of  inebriation  has  come  about  at  a  point  prior  to  the time at which  it  might  be  expected  to  eventuate”  (Michaelis  1992:326).

294

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(11)

When we arrived, before noon, Huey was already drunk.
(Michaelis 1992:326, citing Ken Kelley, ‘Huey  Newton’,  California Magazine 8/90)

In contrast, in (12), the perfect aspect asserts  that  Huey’s  drunkenness occurred
before the reference time of before noon, but does not express that the
inebriation is earlier than expected.
(12)

When we arrived, before noon, Huey had been drunk.

We now turn to Javanese wis. Wis expresses that the state obtained occurs
earlier than expected, behaving like already and not like a perfect aspect. An
example from a dialogue is given in (13), where Bu G. reports that she said thefollowing to her grandmother:
(13)

mbok
wes
jam setengah wolu ndak-an engko
grandmother already hour halfeight to-AN laterkari
reng pasar.
left.behind at
market‘Grandmother,   it’s   already   7:30a.m. so   there   won’t   be   anything at themarket  soon.’

In Indonesia, the morning market starts approximately at dawn (5:30a.m.) andends at 8a.m. at the latest. This example is similar to that with schon in (10a):
wis expresses that time has passed by earlier than the speaker expects, and she
now has to hurry before the market closes. This meaning would not be
expressed by the perfect ‘It has been 7:30a.m.’.
Consider also (14), which expresses that the baby can walk earlier than
expected.
(14)bayi-newes
isomelakubaby-DEF already CIRC.POS walk‘The  baby  can  already  walk.’

These examples with wis exhibit an earliness factor in comparison to somecontextually relevant point. If wis were to express the perfect aspect, theearliness component would not be captured.
3.3.

Inchoative interpretation with stative predicates

Our third diagnostic for distinguishing the perfect aspect from already involves
the interpretation when a marker combines with a stative predicate.7 Unlike a
7This diagnostic does not necessarily distinguish already from perfective aspect. Smith (1997)
argues that in some languages, the perfective also induces inchoativity with states (e.g.,295

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
sentence containing the present perfect, a stative sentence containing alreadyconveys a change into the state denoted by the predicate. This is illustrated in(15) and (16) for stage-level (temporary) and individual-level (permanent) states
respectively. In each case, the (b) examples with already seem to commit the
speaker to the claim that the subject did not previously possess the relevant
attribute.
(15) a. Paula has been tired / disappointed / pregnant.
b. Paula is already tired / disappointed / pregnant.
(16) a. The child has been tall / intelligent / fat.
b. The child is already tall / intelligent / fat.

STAGE-LEVEL STATESINDIVIDUAL-LEVEL STATESThe inchoative effect is particularly striking with the individual-level states,
since these inherently do not typically convey an initial change into the relevant
state.
As pointed out by Mittwoch (1993), the inchoative effect of already iscancelable in certain environments, such as in (17)-(18). Nevertheless, alreadydoes seem to at least imply a change-of-state meaning.
(17)Peter’s  eyes  were  already  brown when he was born. (Mittwoch 1993:76)(18)

A: I’ve  applied  for  American  citizenship.
B: Is your husband also applying?
A: He is already American, for he was born in America.
(Mittwoch 1993:74)

Applying this diagnostic to Javanese wis, we see a strong inchoative effect,
which is especially detectable with individual-level states. The data are given in(19)-(21).
(19)

Context:   I   haven’t   seen   Kana   in   one   year.   When   I   left   before,   she   was  still short.
Kana (sa’iki)   kok wes gedhe / dhuwur.
Kana now
PRT already big
tall‘Kana  is  already  big  now!’  Mandarin verb-final -le). This diagnostic is only valid in addition to (i) duality and (ii) the
earliness implicature of already which the perfective does not share.

296

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(20)

Pak Bambang wes
ngerti cara-ne ndandan-imontorMr. Bambang already AV.know way-DEF AV.repair-APPL car‘Pak  Bambang  already  knows  how  to  repair  cars.’
Consultant’s comments: Bolahe kursus. ‘Because [he took] a course.’
Sa’durunge  durung  ngerti. ‘Before, he did not understand yet.’(21)

Siti, mata-ne wesbiru
Siti eye-DEF already blue
‘Siti,  her  eyes  have  become  blue.’
Contexts offered by consultant: (i) Operasi, matane dadi biru. ‘She had
an operation, her eyes became blue.’; (ii) Dike’i   kontak   lens ‘She wasgiven contact lenses.’

Wis is actually infelicitous with an individual-level state in a non-inchoative
discourse situation, as in (22), in comparison to the inchoative discourse
situation in (19) above.
(22)

Context: Ever since birth, Miss Ulum has been big.
# Mbak Ulum wes
gedhe.
Miss Ulum already big

This infelicity is further illustrated with states that do not allow a ¬ p state
before the reference time, as in (23). These states are felicitous with the perfect,
as it has no such requirements.
(23) # She is already young.

(Löbner 1989:181)

This prediction is also borne out with Javanese wis, showing that wis isrestricted to events/states that satisfy that ¬ p is true at a time before thereference time.
(24) # dik
Tomo umur-e lima-ng taun.
yg.brother Tomo age-DEF five-LNK year

Tomo wes
enom.
Tomo already young

Finally, just like in English, the change-of-state effect is cancelable in Javanesein certain discourse contexts, as shown in (25).
(25)

srikoyoweslegi. Gak perlu namba gulo.
sugar.apple already sweet. NEG need AV.add sugar‘Sugar  apples  are  (already)  sweet.  [You]  don’t  need  to  add  sugar.’(25) seems to contrast with (22), where a non-inchoative discourse context led
to wis being judged as infelicitous. Interestingly, the cases where the noninchoative readings are licensed all seem to involve an expectation that the297

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
hearer assumes that the state does not hold. Thus, (17) contrasts the facts with apotential   situation   where   Peter’s   eyes   have   turned brown since his birth; (18)
involves   a   correction   of   B’s   assumption   that   the  husband   is   not   yet   American.
Similarly, in Javanese, (25) corrects the hearer in their apparent belief that sugar
apples are not sweet.8
3.4.

Compatibility with past time adverbials

Compatibility with past time adverbials is a fourth diagnostic for empiricallydistinguishing already from the present perfect aspect. In languages such as
English, the present perfect is unacceptable with adverbs expressing a definite
past time, as illustrated in (26) with yesterday.
(26) * I have written yesterday.

(McCoard 1978:123, citing Pickbourn 1789)

The present perfect contrasts with the past perfect or tenseless perfect forms in(27a, b) respectively, in which past time adverbials are acceptable (McCawley
1971). Past time adverbials are also compatible with already in English (Ialready wrote yesterday.).9(27) a. Mary had arrived the day before.
b. Having arrived yesterday, Mary can answer our questions.
(Portner 2003:465)
For languages like English or Mainland Scandinavian, specific past-timeadverbials distinguish the present perfect from already (Giorgi and Pianesi1997). However, Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) observe that in other languages like
Italian, German, Dutch, and Icelandic, such adverbials are acceptable with thepresent perfect. This is illustrated in (28) for Dutch.10(28)

Jan is om vier uur weggegaan.
‘John  left  at  four.’  (Lit. ‘John  has  left  at  four.’)    (Giorgi and Pianesi 1997:87)

Giorgi and Pianesi tie the absence of past-time adverbial effects in theselanguages to the different semantics of the present tense from English-type8

Some languages do have perfects which induce inchoativity effects; see e.g., Koontz-Garboden(2007) on Tongan, Matthewson et al. (2012) on Niuean. However, these effects differ from theinchoative feature of already: inchoative perfects also allow inchoative readings with activity
predicates, while already does not (and Javanese wis does not).
9
See Portner (2003) for a pragmatic approach to this distinction based on presuppositions of thepresent tense in the present perfect; see Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) for a syntactic approach.
10
The adverbial om vier ‘at   four’   can   refer   to   past,   present,   or   future   time.   A   better   example  would be one in which pastness is entailed by the adverbial itself (e.g. yesterday) (cf. Portner
2003:465).

298

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
languages. While the present tense is syntactically realized in Italian, German,
Dutch, and Icelandic, semantically it is vacuous, so that the present is simply theabsence of the past. It is therefore important to be able to recognize whether thepresent tense is syntactically and semantically realized in the language understudy for this diagnostic. If it is and the marker under question is incompatible
with past time adverbials with the present tense, this suggests that the marker isa perfect. If the marker is compatible with past time adverbials, this is evidence
that it expresses already. In a language where the present tense is notsyntactically or semantically realized, this diagnostic will not distinguishalready from the perfect: both could be compatible with past time adverbials.
In Javanese, wis is compatible with adverbs specifying a past timeinterval, as in (29) from a recorded conversation:(29)

Context: Two women, Bu Z. and Bu S., talking together:gek ngi
aku wes ngomong [...] sik pak Arif iku loh....
just yesterday 1SG already AV.speak
Mr. Mr. Arif DEM PRT‘Yesterday,   I   have  already  spoken  to   the  Mr.  Arif.’  (translation offeredby consultant)

However, we cannot conclude that wis expresses already because in Javanese,
there is no syntactically overt present tense form (e.g., Horne 1961; Robson
2002). There is also no semantic realization of present tense (that is absent in theovert syntax): any event or state can be interpreted in the present, past or future,depending on the context. Furthermore, predicates can be modified by adverbs
expressing future, present, or past reference time, as in (30), suggesting that thepredicate does not have any null tense specifications.
(30) sego pecel-e
bu Maula wingi  /  sa’iki  /  sesok
di-murah-no.
rice pecel-DEF Mrs. Maula yesterday / now / tomorrow PASS-cheap-APPL‘Bu  Maula's  pecel rice  was  made  cheaper  yesterday.’  ‘Bu  Maula’s  pecel rice  is  made  cheaper  now.’‘Bu  Maula’s  pecel rice  will  be  made  cheaper  tomorrow.’  Javanese differs in these respects from   St’át’imcets   (Lillooet   Salish),   for  instance, in which bare predicates cannot be interpreted as future and cannot cooccur with adverbs specifying future reference time (Matthewson 2006:677).
Matthewson argues on the basis of these data that there is a null tense morpheme
indicating non-past in   St’át’imcets.   Javanese,   on   the   other hand, has no nulltense specifications. There is therefore no semantic realization of present tense
in Javanese. Consequently, the fact that there is no restriction with past timeadverbials is inconclusive for distinguishing whether wis is best analyzed as aperfect or as already. Cross-linguistically, however, if a language has
syntactically and semantically realized present tense, this diagnostic can serve to299

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
distinguish already from the perfect: infelicity with an adverb specifying a pasttime reference would suggest the marker under study expresses perfect aspect.
3.5.

Extended Now of the perfect

Our fifth diagnostic to distinguish perfect aspect from already concerns‘Extended Now’   or   ‘lifetime’   effects,   which   relate   specifically   to   the   present  perfect. In (31a), the present perfect is infelicitous (despite the fact that theprinting press is still currently relevant). The (b) example with already,however, is felicitous, and does not incur a lifetime effect. The lifetime effects
also disappear with the past perfect (had discovered).
(31) a. ?? Gutenberg has discovered the art of printing.
(McCoard 1978, citing Dietrich 1955)
b. Gutenberg already discovered the art of printing (in the 15th century).
Portner (2003) argues that these effects fall out from the Extended Now
presupposition of the perfect, which derives from the temporal semantics of thepresent tense. More specifically, the Gutenberg example is odd because the“Extended   Now   [requirement   of   the present tense] would not include the past
event  of  Gutenberg’s  discovery  in  any  context”  (Portner  2003:506).  Turning toJavanese, Javanese counterparts to these types of sentences are felicitous, as
shown in (32).
(32)

Columbus wes
nemok-noAmerika (taun 1492).
Columbus already AV.find-APPL America year 1492
‘Columbus  already  discovered  America  (in  1492).’

Similarly, there is no lifetime effect in that the subject must be still living inorder for these sentences to be acceptable (cf. (31)); (33) is judged as perfectly
acceptable.
(33)

Context: Kartini (1879-1904)
Kartini wes nules
surat bongso kondisi
wong wedhok nok
Kartini already AV.write letter about
condition person woman in
Jawa.
Java.
‘Kartini  has  written  letters  about  women’s  conditions  in  Java.’  (offered)

However, the fact that lifetime effects only arise in the present perfect, alongwith the fact that Javanese is a tenseless language, raise the question whether theabove cases could be interpreted with past reference time, as a past perfect. This
would suggest that the data are compatible with wis expressing the perfectaspect.
300

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Some cross-linguistic evidence against this alternative proposal comesfrom other languages which also do not have obligatory overt marking for pastreference time, such as Niuean (Polynesian) and   St’át’imcets. If theacceptability of (32)-(33) derives from their proposed status as past perfects, wewould   predict   that   corresponding   examples   in   Niuean   and   St’át’imcets  containing a perfect aspect, but no marking for pastness, would be acceptable.
This is however not the case; Matthewson (2013) shows that both Niuean andSt’át’imcets  perfects  induce  lifetime  effects.   The  Niuean  and  St’át’imcets  facts
suggest that lifetime effects are not dependent on a   ‘real’   present   tense,   but  rather the Extended Now presupposition of the perfect. If Javanese wis were aperfect marker, despite the fact that Javanese is tenseless, we would still expect
lifetime effects to arise under the Extended Now presupposition of the perfect.
Since lifetime effects are non-existent in Javanese with wis, this leads to theconclusion that wis is best interpreted as already.
3.6.

Summary of diagnostics: Javanese wis as  ‘already’

We have shown that Javanese wis has the property of duality with isek/ijek‘still’,  an implication of earliness, and an inchoativity effect, but lacks lifetime
effects. These results strongly suggest that wis expresses already. The remaining
diagnostic, compatibility with a past temporal adverb, was inconclusive due toindependent features of the temporal system of Javanese; namely, that Javanese
does not semantically or syntactically realize present tense. In the next section
we sketch a semantic analysis of Javanese wis.
5.

Analysis

In this section, we sketch an analysis of wis, basing our discussion broadly on
Krifka (2000). Krifka’s core idea is that already is a focus-sensitive operator,
which places a restriction on the alternatives to the focus. His denotation foralready is given in (34):(34)

ALREADY(< B,  F,  ≤ A >) ⇔ < B,  F,  ≤ A >, presupposition: ∀ X∈ A[X≤A F](Krifka 2000:4)

Already applies to a proposition which consists of a Background (B) and a
Focus (F), and which relies on an ordering A (which may be temporal,
numerical, etc.). Already does not change the truth conditions of the proposition(it outputs the same < B,   F,   ≤A >); its only function is to introduce a
presupposition that the asserted Focus is the highest-ranked salient alternativeon the A-scale. We illustrate how this works for (35), where three is in focus,
following Krifka (2000).
301

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(35)

Lydia is already threeF months old.
alternatives considered: {Lydia is 1 month old, Lydia is 2 months old,
Lydia is 3 months old}alternative asserted:{Lydia is 3 months old} (Krifka 2000:5)(35) asserts that Lydia is three months old, and presupposes that three is thehighest-ranked   salient   alternative   number   of   months   for   Lydia’s   age.   In otherwords, Lydia is three months old, rather than the possible alternatives that could
have been asserted, namely one or two months. The  fact  that  Lydia’s  age  is  the  greatest  of  those  that  are  ‘considered  entertainable’  leads  to  the  implicature  that  her age is greater than one might have expected (because it is greater than the
average of her reasonably possible ages) (Krifka 2000:5). If (35) did not containalready, the set of alternatives would include also higher ages (Lydia is 4months old, etc.). The speaker would therefore assert that Lydia is 3 months oldrather than any of the other salient alternative possible ages of 1, 2, 4 or 5months.
This also captures the contribution of wis in Javanese. An example isgiven in (36).
(36)

Context: Bu G. reports that she said the following to her grandmother:mbok
wes
jam setengah wolu ndak-an engko
grandmother already hour halfeight to-AN laterkari
reng pasar.
left.behind at
market‘Grandmother,  it’s  already  7:30a.m.  so  there  won’t  be  anything  at  the  market  soon.’alternatives considered:alternative asserted:

PRESUPPOSITION:ASSERTION:IMPLICATURE:

5:30a.m., 6:30a.m., 7:30a.m.
7:30a.m.

7:30a.m. is the highest-ranked salient alternative among
the market times.
It is 7:30a.m.
7:30a.m. is later than the average of the reasonable
market times

Another example from Javanese overtly shows that the time has passed earlier
than expected. In the recorded conversation in (37), Bu Z. exclaims that time has
passed faster than she expected.

302

The Proceedings of AFLA 21(37)

Context: Ngelewat (Visiting a family to pay respects to the deceased.)
Bu Z:‘How  long  has  it  been  [since  she  passed  away]?’
Bu G: ‘It’s  (already)  seven  days  later,  Mrs.  Zum!’
Bu Z:
ya Allah... wes
pito-ngndino.... yo kok cepet loh.
ya Allah already seven.LNK N.day yes PRT fast
PRT
‘Ya  Allah,  it’s  already  been  seven  days.  Wow,  that’s  so  fast!’

With respect to the inchoative effects of already, Krifka observes (2000:7-8)
that  his  analysis  has  no  problem  with  the  ‘already  American’  cases  discussed  by  Mittwoch (1993) (see (17) and (18) above). This   is   because   Krifka’s   analysis  does not hardwire an inchoative semantics, unlike the analysis of Löbner (1989,
1999), which models the change-of-state semantics of German schon ‘already’  as a presupposition: schon Φ   presupposes   a   time   before   the   reference   time   for  which  ¬  Φ  is  true.  However, it seems that incorporating no inchoativity effect atall   would   also   be   a   mistake,   since   the   ‘already   American’   cases   do require avery specific type of discourse context to be felicitous.
It seems to us that under a broadly Krifka-type analysis, the inchoative
effect of already can be viewed as a conversational implicature which arises dueto the following reasoning: if the speaker conveys that the predicate holds at an
earlier time than was expected, then the speaker does not believe the predicate tobe timelessly true. On the contrary, the speaker is aware of a previous timeinterval during which the predicate did not hold. From this, the hearer concludes
that there was an immediately prior time interval at which the plain proposition
was false. This captures the fact that the   ‘already   American’   cases   require   a  specific type of discourse context to be felicitous where the speaker addresses
the fact that the hearer believes the plain proposition to be false. This is true inboth English (see (18)) and Javanese (see (25)).
6.

Conclusion

This paper puts forward five diagnostics that distinguish the perfect aspect fromalready: (i) duality of already, (ii) earliness implicature, (iii) inchoativity effects
with statives, (iv) compatibility with past temporal adverbials, and (v) Extended
Now/lifetime effects. We applied these diagnostics to Javanese wis, andestablished that wis is best analyzed as expressing already. We adopt thesemantic analysis of English already proposed by Krifka (2000) for Javanese
wis, whereby wis applies to a proposition containing a Background and a Focus
and asserts that same proposition and presupposes that the asserted proposition
has a faster development speed than other salient alternatives. This in turn leads
to implicatures of earliness and of inchoativity.
Our findings have implications for the cross-linguistic study of aspect inunder-studied languages. This study has the potential to be particularly usefulfor Austronesian languages. In Colloquial Malay, post-verbal/sentence-final dah
is argued to have the semantics of already (Soh 2012) instead of completive or
303

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
perfective aspect (Koh 1990:202). Similarly, sudah in Standard Formal Malay isargued to express already (Kader 1981:36) or completive or perfective aspect(Soh 1994 and references therein) and Indonesian sudah is noted to express bothproperties of already and the perfect aspect (Sneddon et al. 2010; Grangé 2010;
Kaswanti Purwo 1984, 2011; Olsson 2013). Our set of diagnostics can be used
to help distinguish the closely similar markers already and the perfect, which
could otherwise be left unnoticed or misanalyzed.
Referencesvan  der  Auwera,  Johan.  1993.  ‘Already’  and  ‘still’:  Beyond  duality.  Linguistics
and Philosophy 16:613-653.
Cole, Peter, Yurie Hara, and Ngee Thai Yap. 2008. Auxiliary fronting in
Peranakan Javanese. Linguistics 44:1-43.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conners, Thomas J. 2008. Tengger Javanese. Doctoral dissertation, Yale
University.
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford; New York: Blackwell.
Dietrich, Gerhard. 1955. Erweiterte Form, Präteritum und Perfektum im
Englischen. Eine Aspekt- und Tempusstudie. Munich: Max Hueber
Verlag.
Ewing, Michael C. 2005. Grammar and inference in conversation: Identifying
clause structure in spoken Javanese. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Favre, L'Abbé P. 1866. Grammaire javanaise. Paris: L'imprimerie Impériale.
Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics
to morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grangé, Philippe. 2010. Aspect and modality in Indonesian: The case of sudah,telah, pernah, and sempat. Wacana 12:243–268.
Hoogervorst, Tom Gunnar. 2010. Describing Surabaya’s linguistic ecology.
Master’s  thesis, Leiden University.
Horne, Elinor C. 1961. Beginning Javanese. Vol. 3: Yale Linguistic Series. New
Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Kader, Mashudi. 1981. The syntax of Malay interrogatives. Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang. 1984. Deiksis dalam Bahasa Indonesia [Deixis inIndonesian]. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang. 2011. Sudah in contemporary Indonesian. Paper
presented at 15th International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian
Linguistics. Malang, Indonesia.
Koh, Ann Sweesun. 1990. Topics in colloquial Malay. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Melbourne.
König, Ekkehard. 1977. Temporal and non-temporal uses of 'noch' and 'schon'in German. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:173-198.
304

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative
perspective. London, New York: Routledge.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2007. Aspectual coercion and the typology ofchange of state predicates. Journal of Linguistics 43(1):115-152.
Krifka, Manfred. 2000. Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of still
and already. Berkeley Linguistics Society 26, 401-412. Berkeley
Linguistics Society, Berkeley, Ca.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. German schon-erst-noch: An integrated analysis.
Linguistics and Philosophy 12:167-212.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1999. Why German schon and noch are still duals: A reply tovan der Auwera. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:45-107.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a supposedly tenselesslanguage. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:673-713.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2013. The building blocks of grammatical aspect: Evidence
from Austronesian and Salish perfects. Paper presented at the Workshop
on Semantic Variation. University of Chicago.
Matthewson, Lisa, Heidi Quinn, and Lynsey Talagi. 2012. Notes on the Niuean
perfect. In Theories of Everything: In Honor of Ed Keenan, ed. Thomas
Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi, and Jos Tellings. UCLA Working
Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 17, 222-233.
McCawley, James. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. Studies in
Linguistic Semantics, ed. Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence
Langendoen, 96–113. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
McCoard, Robert. 1978. The English perfect: Tense-choice and pragmatic
inference. North-Holland: Amsterdam.
Michaelis, Laura A. 1992. Aspect and the semantics-pragmatics interface: Thecase of already. Lingua 87:321-339.
Michaelis, Laura A. 1996. On the use and meaning of already. Linguistics andPhilosophy 19:477-502.
Mittwoch, Anita. 1993. The relationship between schon/already and noch/still:
A reply to Löbner. Natural Language Semantics 2:71-82.
Olsson, Bruno. 2013. Iamitives: Perfects in Southeast Asia and beyond. Master's
thesis, Stockholm University.
Pickbourn, James. 1789. A dissertation on the English verb: Principallyintended to ascertain the meaning of its tenses. Menston, England:
Scholar Press.
Portner, Paul. 2003. The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of theperfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26:459-510.
Robson, Stuart. 2002. Javanese grammar for students, 2nd ed. Glen Waverley:
Monash Papers on Southeast Asia.
Robson, Stuart, and Singgih Wibisono. 2002. Javanese-English Dictionary.
North Claredon: Tuttle Publishing.
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
305

The Proceedings of AFLA 21
Sneddon, James N., K. Alexander Adelaar, Dwi Noverini Djenar, and Michael
C. Ewing. 2010. Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar: Routledge
comprehensive grammars. London; New York: Routledge.
Soh, Hooi Ling. 1994. Aspect and the organization of argument structure andphrase structure: Evidence from Malay. Master's thesis, University ofCalgary.
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2008. The syntax and semantics of change/transition: Evidence
from Mandarin Chinese. Theoretical and cross-linguistic approaches tothe semantics of aspect, ed. Susan Rothstein, 387-419. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2009. Speaker presupposition and Mandarin sentence-final –le:A  unified  analysis  of  the  “change  of  state”  and  “contrary  to  expectation”  reading. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:623-657.
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2012. The aspectual marker ‘dah’ in colloquial Malay. Paper
presented at 19th Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association. Taipei,
Taiwan.
Soh, Hooi Ling, and Meijia Gao. 2008. Mandarin sentential –le, perfect andEnglish already. Event Structure in Linguistic Form and Interpretation,
eds. Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow, and Martin Schäfer.
Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Vander Klok, Jozina. 2012. Tense, aspect, and modality in Paciran Javanese.
Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.

306