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