On the syntax of the analytic passive in Kenyah
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine & Alexander D. Smith1
First International Symposium on Bornean Linguistics, May 2024

1

Introduction

Many languages of Central Borneo have analytic passives, with agents optionally between the passive
marker and the verb (PASS-Ag-V) or immediately following the verb (PASS-V-Ag) (see e.g. Clayre 1996,
2014, Soriente 2010, 2013, Smith, Erlewine & Sommerlot 2024, Sommerlot to appear). The ən passivein Lebo’ Vo’ Kenyah allows for both agent positions:(1) Three Kenyah ən passives: agentless, preverbal agent, and postverbal agent
kayu bioʔ inɨ ən(Kule) nəvəŋ(Kule) .
tree big DEM PASS Kule cut.down Kule
‘The big tree was cut down (by Kule).’Today we offer a detailed description of these ən passives in Lebo’ Vo’ Kenyah (hereafter: Kenyah).
 The three varieties of ən passives exhibit strikingly different profiles of subject choice. In particular,
the agent-ful ən passives can be long-distance and involve non-case-driven (Ā) movement.

2

Kenyah basics

Kenyah has no case marking2 and dominant SVO word order. Some intransitive subjects — especially,
it seems, of unaccusatives — can be postverbal; see (3). Subjects are bold here.
(2) SVO:(3) VS:

Kule nəkaw alot (inɨ) .
Kule stealboat DEMlaɓoʔkayu inɨ .
fall.down tree DEM‘Kule stole (that) boat’‘The tree fell down.’(4) *VSO:(5) *VOS:* nəkaw alot Kule .
steal boat Kule
(but ok as ‘pro stole Kule’s boat’)* nəkaw Kule alot (inɨ) .
steal
Kule boat DEM

Subjects may precede or follow preverbal auxiliaries (e.g. NEG, TAM). With pronominal subjects, AuxSVO
is often preferred. Otherwise, SAuxVO is most common.
1

mitcho@nus.edu.sg, smithad@nus.edu.sg . We thank our primary consultant Roland Ngau Raymond and others in the Kenyah
community for their patience and generosity. This work is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Education and the National
University of Singapore under grants A-8000132-00-00 and A-8001136-00-00, and a fellowship to Erlewine at the HelsinkiCollegium for Advanced Studies.
2With one exception, in Appendix A.

1

(6) {Kule} ɲeʔ {Kule} nəkaw alot nɨ
.
Kule
NEG Kule
stealboat DEM‘Kule didn’t steal that boat’
Against this background, we observe that the ən construction consistently involves “promotion” of a
non-agent to subject position.
(7) ən promotes an argument to become the subject:a. kayu bioʔ inɨ ɲeʔ ən(irɨ) nəvəŋtaop ray .
tree big DEM NEG PASS 3pl cut.down yesterday‘The big tree was not cut down (by them).’b. kayu bioʔ inɨi , ɲeʔ nɨi ənnəvəŋ!
tree big DEM NEG DEM PASS cut.down‘This tree, don’t cut it down!’ (passive imperative; literally: this tree, it isn’t cut down)

ən also makes the agent (canonical subject) optional, and consistently involves the overt morphology ən.
This satisfies (most of) the criteria for “canonical passives” (see e.g. Siewierska 2013, Zúñiga & Kittilä
2019, Legate 2021), so we refer to the ən construction as a “passive.” (Where agents are present, we will
see reason below to think of these as “non-canonical passives” in these terms.)

3

Passive agents

As noted above, there are three types of ən passives, which we think of as follows:(8) Varieties of ən passives:
agentless (ən-V)

preverbal agent (ən-Ag-V)

agent-ful
postverbal agent (ən-V-Ag)
The implicit agents of agentless passives may be interpreted as existential/indefinite (∃) or as ‘you’ (addressee) in what we call passive imperatives.

2

Imperatives are expressed using agentless ən passives.3 Their subjects may be postverbal (9b). Imperatives are incompatible with the perfective-like auxiliary ləpah (10) or past time reference.
(9) Passive imperatives:a. kayu bioʔ ənnəvəŋ!
tree big PASS cut.down

b. ən
nəvəŋ
kayu bioʔ !
PASS cut.down tree big‘Cut the big tree!’‘Cut the big tree!’(10) kayu bioʔ ləpah ən
nəvəŋ
(!)
tree big ASP PASS cut.down‘The big tree has already been cut.’ / *‘Cut the big tree (already)!’
There is a difference in interpretational range between preverbal and postverbal passive agents: nonvolitional initiators cannot be postverbal.4(11) Non-volitional initiator cannot be postverbal passive “agent”:
a. baloy (kasah) nuɓaŋkayu nɨ.
wind heavy N-fall.over tree DEM(<N-tuɓaŋ)‘The (heavy) wind made the tree fall over.’b. kayu inɨ ən{baloy (kasah)} nuɓaŋ{*baloy (kasah)} .
tree DEM PASS wind heavy
N-fall.over
wind heavy‘The tree was made to fall over by the (heavy) wind.’
But otherwise, there is no difference between preverbal and postverbal agents in simple examples.

4

Passive subject choice

As we have seen, in simple examples with monotransitive verbs, all three ən passives behave equivalently,
promoting the one undergoer argument to subject:(12) Same undergoer subject with agentless, preverbal agent, and postverbal agent passives:
kayu bioʔ inɨ ən(Kule) nəvəŋ(Kule) .
tree big DEM PASS Kule cut.down Kule
‘The big tree was cut down (by Kule).’ =(1) However, when we turn to more complex predicates, the different passive types diverge in theirrange of subject choice.
3

See also examples of analytic passive morphosyntax used in imperatives in Kayan (Smith, Erlewine & Sommerlot 2024) andBeaye (Land Dayak) (Sommerlot to appear), two other Central Bornean type languages.
4
There is also a subtle difference in pronominal form between these two positions; see Appendix A. In addition, at some points
in time, the preverbal position has been preferred for pronominal agents and conjoined NPs, but these seem to be preferences
rather than categorical restrictions.

3(13) Goal–theme ditransitive with naʔ ‘give’:
Kule naʔ [akeʔ]goal [boop]theme .
Kule give 1sg
book‘Kule gave me a book.’(14) Ditransitive theme passive requires an agent:a.

boop inɨ ənKule naʔ akeʔbook DEM PASS Kule give 1sg

theme

taop ray .
yesterday‘The book was given to me by Kule yesterday.’b.

* boop inɨ ənnaʔ akeʔbook DEM PASS give 1sg

theme

taop ray .
yesterday

Intended: ‘The book was given to me [by someone] yesterday.’c.

boop inɨ ənnaʔ akeʔbook DEM PASS give 1sg

theme

agentless (you!)(15) Ditransitive goal cannot be passivized:goal

boop .
book

Intended: ‘I was given a book (by Kule).’(16) Summary: Passives from naʔ ‘give’ ditransitive
goal

theme

preverbal agent*

ok

postverbal agent——

agentless (∃)**

agentless (imperative)*okagentless (∃)!

‘Give me the book!’ (*declarative)* akeʔ ən(Kule) naʔ
1sg PASS Kule give

preverbal(no data yet)

 There is a covert (second-person) agent pronoun in imperatives.
(17) Causative with ʄok ‘ask’:inaʔ ʄok [akeʔ]causee nəvəŋ[kayu nɨ]object
mom ask 1sg
cut.down tree DEM‘Mom asked me to cut the tree.’(18) Causee can be passivized, agentless or with preverbal agent:akeʔ ən(inaʔ) ʄok(*inaʔ) kayu bioʔ (*inaʔ) .
causee nəvəŋ1sg PASS mom ask
cut.down
tree big‘I was asked (by mom) to cut the big tree’4(19) Embedded object passive requires preverbal agent:a.

kayu bioʔ (ləpah) əninaʔ ʄok akeʔ nəvəŋtree big ASPPASS mom ask 1sg cut.down

obj≈ ‘The big tree was (already) asked by mom for me to cut.’b.

* kayu bioʔ ləpah ənʄok akeʔ nəvəŋtree big ASP PASS ask 1sg cut.down

obj≈ ‘The big tree was already asked [by someone] for me to cut.’c.

kayu bioʔ ənʄok akeʔ nəvəŋtree big PASS ask 1sg cut.down

obj

preverbal

agentless (∃)!

‘Ask me to cut the big tree!’ (*declarative)

agentless (you!)(20) Summary: Passives from ʄok ‘ask’ causativecauseeobjectpreverbal agentok

ok

postverbal agent*—

agentless (∃)

ok*agentless (imperative)

[ok]

ok

 The three types of ən passives differ in their possible subjects:– Agentless (∃) and postverbal agent passives are more restricted than preverbal agent passives... a trend that will continue below.
– Imperative passives, although superficially agentless, pattern with preverbal agent passives.

5Long-distance passives ən passives can also target the argument of an embedded clause for subject promotion. We’ll callthese long-distance passives.

All data here will use the clause embedding verb ŋioʔ ‘think’:(21) pulis ŋioʔ [ Kule nəkaw yapnɨ] .
police think
Kule steal chicken DEM‘The police think that Kule stole the chicken.’5

(22) Passive of embedded subject:
a.

b.

c.

Kule ənnəkaw yap
pulis ŋioʔ [nɨ] .
Kule PASS police thinksteal chicken DEM≈ ‘Kulex is thought, by the police, that hex stole the chicken.’preverbal

Kule ənŋioʔ pulis [nəkaw yapnɨ
] .
Kule PASS think police
steal chicken DEM≈ ‘Kulex is thought, by the police, that hex stole the chicken.’postverbal* Kule ənŋioʔ [
nəkaw yapnɨ
] .
Kule PASS thinksteal chicken DEM
Intended: ≈ ‘Kulex is thought that hex stole the chicken.’agentless(23) Passive of embedded object:
a.

b.

c.

yap
nɨ
ən
pulis ŋioʔ [ Kule nekau] .
chicken DEM PASS police think
Kule steal≈ ‘The chickenx is thought, by the police, that Kule stole itx .’preverbal

* yap
nɨ
ən
ŋioʔ pulis [ Kule nekau] .
chicken DEM PASS think police
Kule steal
Intended: ≈ ‘The chickenx is thought, by the police, that Kule stole itx .’postverbal

* yap
nɨ
ən
ŋioʔ [ Kule nekau] .
chicken DEM PASS think
Kule steal
Intended: ≈ ‘The chickenx was thought that Kule stole itx .’agentless(24) Summary: Long-distance passives with ŋioʔ ‘think’subject

objectpreverbal agentok

ok

postverbal agent

ok*

agentless** There is again a three-way difference in the range of subject choice, with postverbal agent andagentless passives more restricted than preverbal agent passives.
(Something important we do not know yet: Are all of these embedded clauses fully finite? Aresome nonfinite/reduced? Here, we will assume the embedded clauses of ŋioʔ ‘think’ are all finite.)6

6Proposal

We account for the three types of passives in terms of differences in case licensing and subject movement(probe specification).

6.1

Agentless passives

 Agentless passives are similar to familiar, canonical passives in other languages.
(25)

Burzio’s Generalization:(Burzio 1986: p. 178)

“All and only the verbs that can assign θ-role to the subject [agent] can assign (accusative)
Case to an object.”
Because no agent is projected in agentless passives (setting aside the imperatives), no accusativeis assigned. The theme/undergoer which then lacks case licensing must become the subject.

6.2

Agent-ful passives

Let us suppose that the preverbal and postverbal passive agents are projected as agent/initiator arguments.
 In accordance with Burzio’s Generalization, agent-ful passives assign accusative case.
(Here, we take inspiration from Chen 2023 on the Mandarin bèi passives with and without agents.)
This leads to two consequences:
1. We predict subject promotion in agent-ful passives is not case-driven. It is Ā-movement.
(See Patrianto & Chen 2023 for a similar claim regarding Javanese non-active voices.)
2. Case assignment facilitates long-distance passivization (Rackowski & Richards 2005).
1. Subject promotion in agent-ful passives is Ā-movement:(26) Condition C baselines:(27) Local passive reconstructs for Cond. C:

a. yɨi/*j makan [asu Kulej ] .
dog Kule
3sg feed5a. [asu Kulej ] ənyɨi/*j makan
dog Kule PASS 3sg feed.

‘Kulej ’s dog was fed by him/heri/*j .’‘He/shei/*j feeds Kulej ’s dog.’b. [asu Kulej ] ŋasay yɨi/j .
dog Kule bite 3sg

b. [asu Kulej ] ənmakan yɨi/*j
dog Kule PASS 3sg
feed‘Kulej ’s dog bites him/heri/j .’.

‘Kulej ’s dog was fed by him/heri/*j .’ It is not possible to c-command a coreferential name, forcing disjoint interpretation in (26a) (Condition C). Passive subjects in (27) behave as if they are in their gap positions for Condition C
purposes; this is a hallmark of so-called Ā-movement.
5

Don’t worry: ‘eat’ is kuman.

7

(28) Long-distance passive reconstructs for Condition C:
a. [ asu Kulej ] ənyɨi/*j ŋioʔ [dog Kule
PASS 3sg thinksaket ] .
sick

≈ ‘Kulej ’s dogx is thought, by him/heri/*j , that x is sick.’b. [ asu Kulej ] ənpulis ŋioʔ [ yɨi/*j makan
dog Kule
PASS police think
3sg feed] .

≈ ‘Kulej ’s dogx is thought, by the police, that he/shei/*j fed x.’
2. Case assignment facilitates long-distance passivization
Recall that agentless passives cannot promote an embedded clause argument, as in (22c). Note that there
are no closer, competing candidates for promotion to subject here.
(22c)* Kule ənŋioʔ [
nəkaw yapnɨ
] .
Kule PASS thinksteal chicken DEM
Intended: ≈ ‘Kulex is thought that hex stole the chicken.’ Agent-ful passives, but not agentless passives, license accusative case. Although embedded clauses
do not need case licensing, a case-assigning probe can interact with the embedded clause. Whenit does, it “unlocks” it for further extraction (Rackowski & Richards 2005, Van Urk & Richards
2015, Halpert 2019). Without such unlocking, the contents of embedded clauses are inaccessible.

6.3

Preverbal vs postverbal agent passives

 In addition, preverbal and postverbal agent passives differ in their subject probe specifications:– Preverbal agent passives Ā-attract any nominal.6– Postverbal agent passives Ā-attract the closest nominal (see Branan & Erlewine 2024).
(29) Summary of passivization strategies:
subject movement

accusative

agentlessA (case-driven)nopreverbal agent

Ā (any DP)

yes

postverbal agent

Ā (closest DP)

yes⇒ embedded clause unlocked

Here we leave various details open for future work:• the precise positions of preverbal vs postverbal agents;• the mechanism(s) that relate(s) agent position and differences in probing, in (29);• the inability of passivizing ditransitive goals (16);• the unavailability of postverbal agent passives with the ʄok causative (20)6We assume that even when the subject position is filled via Ā-movement, it is restricted to hosting a nominal (cf Patrianto &Chen 2023 on PP pivots in Javanese).

87Conclusion

Today we presented a description of the ən passive in (Lebo’ Vo’) Kenyah, informed by the theoretical
literature on movement types.
 The differences between agentless and agent-ful ən passives can be fruitfully understood in relation
to Burzio’s Generalization (see also Chen 2023):– Agent-ful passives have no agent demotion (they are “non-canonical passives”; see Legate2021) and therefore also license accusative case. Therefore:– Agent-ful passives trigger Ā-movement;– agent-ful passives can be long-distance (promote embedded clause arguments).
• Passive imperatives formally behave as preverbal agent passives, supporting an analysis with acovert second-person pronoun.
• The behavior of postverbal agent passives constitutes evidence for the idea that Ā-movement canbe limited to targeting the closest nominal (Branan & Erlewine 2024).
As further evidence for the non-canonical nature of agent-ful passives, we note that embedded passivization can feed higher passivization. As predicted by our account, this is not possible if the higher passive
is agentless (30c).
(30) Long-distance passive fed by embedded passive:
a.

yap
nɨ
ən
pulis ŋioʔ [ən(Kule) nekau] .
chicken DEM PASS police think
PASS Kule steal≈ ‘The chickenx is thought, by the police, that itx was stolen (by Kule).’nɨənŋioʔ pulis [ənKule nekau] .
chicken DEM PASS think police
PASS Kule steal≈ ‘The chickenx is thought, by the police, that itx was stolen by Kule.’

b.

? yap

c.

* yap
nɨ
ən
ŋioʔ [
ənKule nekau] .
chicken DEM PASS think
PASS Kule steal
Intended: ≈ ‘The chickenx is thought, that itx was stolen by Kule.’

9References
Branan, Kenyon & Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. 2024. Ā-probing for the closest DP. Linguistic Inquiry
55(2). 375–401.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: a Government-Binding approach. Springer.
Chen, Fulang. 2023. Obscured universality in Mandarin. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Clayre, Beatrice. 1996. The changing face of focus in the languages of Borneo. In Hein Steinhauer (ed.),Papers in Austronesian linguistics, 3, 51–88. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Clayre, Beatrice. 2014. A preliminary typology of the languages of middle Borneo. In Peter Sercombe,
Michael Boutin & Adrian Clynes (eds.), Advances in research on linguistic and cultural practices in
Borneo (Monograph series 14). Phillips, Maine: Borneo Research Council.
Halpert, Claire. 2019. Raising, unphased. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(1). 123–165.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2021. Noncanonical passives: a typology of voices in an impoverished universal
grammar. Annual Review of Linguistics 7. 157–176.
Patrianto, Hero & Victoria Chen. 2023. Two sides of the same coin: reappraising Indonesian-type ‘pasive’and object voice in Javanese. In Proceedings of AFLA 29, 59–74.
Rackowski, Andrea & Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic
Inquiry 36(4). 565–599.
Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Passive constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The
world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Smith, Alexander D., Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine & Carly J. Sommerlot. 2024. Voice and pronominal
forms in Kayan (Uma Nyaving). Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 17(1). 81–104.
https://doi.org/10524/52527.
Sommerlot, Carly J. to appear. Voice in Land Dayak languages. Oceanic Linguistics.
Soriente, Antonia. 2010. Voice and focus system in Penan and Kenyah languages of East Kalimantan. In
Proceedings of the workshop on indonesian-type voice system. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Soriente, Antonia. 2013. Undergoer Voice in Borneo: Penan, Kenyah, and Kayan languages. NUSA:
Linguistic studies of languages in and around Indonesia 54. 175–203.
Van Urk, Coppe & Norvin Richards. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: successive
cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46(1). 113–155.
Zúñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä. 2019. Grammatical voice. Cambridge University Press.

10Appendix A: Third-singular yɨ vs nɨ
There are two forms for the third-singular pronoun, for animate/human referents: yɨ and nɨ. Third-singularanimate subjects (and objects) must be yɨ, not nɨ (31a), but both are possible for possessors (31b).
(31)

a. inutasap {? yɨ/*nɨ}ləpah {yɨ/*nɨ} mana ?
which dish3sg/3sg.GEN ASP
heat‘Which dish did he/she heat?’subjectb. inaʔ ʄok Kule makan [ asu {yɨ/nɨ}] .
mom ask Kule feeddog 3sg/3sg.GEN‘Mom asks Kule to feed his/her dog.’

possessor

Note however that there is also a use of nɨ as a reduced form of the demonstrative inɨ, either as a postnominal demonstrative or as a stand-alone pro-form for an inanimate referent. So we concentrate on
human/animate referents here.7
Against this background, it is interesting to note that preverbal passive agents can be nɨ, but postverbal
passive agents cannot:(32) kayu bioʔ inɨ ən{yɨ/nɨ}nəvəŋ{yɨ/*nɨ} .
tree big DEM PASS 3sg/3sg.GEN cut.down‘The big tree was cut down by him/her.’passive agent

Appendix B: Island sensitivity
 Preverbal agent passives can generally target embedded clause arguments in an unrestricted manner(24), but are subject to relative clause island effects.
(33) From a subject-pivot relative clause:a.

pulis ləpah nakəp laki [RC yaʔpolice ASP catch man
REL

rel

nəkaw alot nɨ] .
steal boat DEM‘The police caught the man that stole the boat.’b.

7baseline* alot itu ənpulis nakəp laki [RC yaʔ
pass ] .
rel nəkaw
steal
boat DEM police ASP catch man
REL
Intended: ≈ ‘This boatx is: caught by the police, the man that stole itx .’ LD obj passive

We report a similar interaction in third-singular forms — where the genitive animate form overlaps with a general inanimate
form — in Kayan (Uma Nyaving), in Smith, Erlewine & Sommerlot 2024: pp. 89–90. There too, a pronominal series we call“genitive” is available for possessors and preverbal passive agents.

11(34) From an object-pivot relative clause:a.

akeʔ bəli boop [RC yaʔ Aping ɲurat
1sg buy book
REL Aping write

rel

] .

‘I bought the book that Aping wrote.’b.

baseline* laki itu ənpulis jupaʔ alot [RC yaʔ
/yɨpass nəkaw
man DEM PASS police find boat
REL
steal
Intended: ≈ ‘This manx is: found by police, the boat that hex stole.’(35) Aside: wh-in-situ is not island sensitivea.

ikoʔ bəli boop [RC yaʔ aeʔ ɲurat
2sg buy book
REL who write

rel

] ?

‘Whox did you buy the book that he/shex wrote?’(no declarative use: *‘You bought the book that someone wrote.’)b.

* aeʔ yaʔ ikoʔ bəli boop [RC yaʔ
/yɨcleft ɲurat
who REL 2sg buy book
REL
write
Intended: ‘Whox did you buy the book that he/shex wrote?’

12

rel

] ?

rel ]

.

LD subj passive