Emergence of passive voice in Central Borneo
Alexander D. Smith&

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine

National University of Singapore

University of Helsinki / National University of Singaporesmith.alexander.david@gmail.com

mitcho@mitcho.com

SLE 57 workshop on passivization, August 20241

1

Introduction
 Austronesian languages are well known for their verb-initiality and so-called “voice systems”: a
set of symmetrical/valency-neutral alternations, including multiple undergoer voices (UV; see e.g.
Himmelmann 2002, Erlewine, Levin & Van Urk 2017, Chen & McDonnell 2019).
• These properties hold of a well-studied subset of Austronesian languages — the “Philippine-type”:
in Taiwan, the Philippines, northern Borneo, and Madagascar — and are reconstructable to ProtoAustronesian (PAN) (see e.g. Wolff 1973, Ross 2002).
• Various changes have led to different types of grammars across the Austronesian family, which
diverge from this Philippine-type/PAN prototype.

Today: We study the innovation of analytic passives, accompanied by the loss of Philippine-type syntax,
in “Central Bornean-type” (CB) languages (Clayre 1996, Kroeger & Smith 2024, Sommerlot to appear).
(1) Kenyah (Lebo’ Vo’ variety):a. Active: “SAg (Aux) V OPat ”(Erlewine & Smith 2024)
b. Passive: “SPat (Aux) PASS (Ag) V (Ag)”kayu bioʔ inɨ ən(Kule) nəvəŋ(Kule)
tree big DEM PASS Kule cut.down Kule
‘The big tree was cut down (by Kule).’Kule nəvəŋkayu bioʔ inɨ.
Kule cut.down tree big DEM‘Kule cut down the big tree.’ Based on the study of passive marker forms and word orders, we identify multiple diachronicsources for these passive patterns.
• Regional contact (Borneo-internal and potentially with Mainland SEA) led to mutually reinforcement of patterns, especially the noteworthy preverbal agent passive (“PASS Ag V” word order).

1

For helpful comments and suggestions, we thank audiences at the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 33 and NUS. 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 Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies.

1

2

A first look(2) Three western Austronesian prototypes:• Borneo is the third largest islandin the world, situated between thePhilippines and the rest of the Malayarchipelago (Nusantara).
• Austronesian peoples migrated fromthe Philippines to Borneo and thenfurther south and west.
• Philippine-type grammars are stillobserved in northeastern Borneo.
Many southern languages exhibit“Indonesian-type” grammars. Clayre(1996, 2014) describes many inbetween as “Central Bornean-type.”

Also synthesizing refinements in Kroeger &Smith 2024 and Sommerlot to appear:(4) CB analytic passives and their passive markers:(3) Central Bornean-type (CB):a. rigid word order, often subject
clause-initial: “S(Aux)VO”;
b. two voices: active vs passive,with active default;c. loss of case marking (except
possibly genitive pronouns);d. Philippine-type voice aﬀixes
often lost, with frequent use ofnovel analytic passives.
(Some retain morphologicalUV, often -Vn-/n-; see §3.3.)
Some CB analytic passives allow passive agents to be preverbal or postverbal (see Kenyah Lebo’ Vo’ in(1)), while others require one word order or the other:(5) Kelai (Kayanic): “PASS V (Ag)”(6) Kayan (Uma Nyaving variety): “PASS (Ag) V”

a. sɛʔ bəwp koy
3sg hit1sg‘He hit me.’a. asoʔ anih maʔət akuy
dog PROX bite
1sg
‘This dog bit me.’b. koy en(*sɛʔ) bəwp (sɛʔ)
1sg PASS
hit
3sg‘I was hit (by him).’b. akuy an(asoʔ anih) maʔət (*asoʔ anih)
1sg PASS dog PROX bite
‘I was bitten (by this dog).’(Smith 2017 notes)(Smith, Erlewine & Sommerlot 2024)2

Given the frequent and often rigid subject-initial (“S(Aux)VO”) word order in CB languages, we assume that CB languages conventionalized this clause-initial position for subjects early on, reflecting an
extension of the optional subject topicalization in Philippine languages:(7) Cebuano Patient Voice (PV) pivot topicalization:a. (Aux) V-initial:(Bell 1976: p. 162)

b. S (Aux) V...:Gi-luto’ sa babaye ang bukas. →PV-cook GEN woman NOM rice
‘The rice was cooked by the woman.’Ang bukas gi-luto’ sa babaye.
NOM rice
PV-cook GEN woman• Conventionalization of this word order also supports/facilitates the loss of case markers.
 The possibility of postverbal agent passives in CB is then not so surprising.
On the other hand, preverbal agent passives deserve special attention.
• We note that analytic passives with “PASS (Ag) V” word order are common in Mainland Southeast
Asia (and East Asia), as with Khmer trəw, Thai thùuk, Vietnamese bị, and Mandarin Chinese bèi(see e.g. Prasithrathsint 2004, 2006). Although converging anthropological, genetic, and lexical
evidence indicates a history of Mainland Southeast Asia (i.e. Austroasiatic) contact and influence
in Borneo (see e.g. Blench 2010, Simanjuntak 2017, Hoh, Deng & Xu 2022, Blevins & Kaufman2023), no CB languages to our knowledge suggest MSEA sources for CB passive marker forms.
 The question of the historical source of these passives in Borneo remains unanswered.
Summary and questions:
Central Bornean passives thus exhibit one or both of the basic word orders in (8):(8)

a. Subject/Patient PASS

Verb (Agent) ... (BY Agent) ...

b. Subject/Patient PASS (Agent) Verb...

We are interested in two related questions:
Q1: What is the source of these passive marker forms (PASS)?
Q2: What is the source for these passive word orders, especially with preverbal agents (8b)?

3

Pathways to preverbal agent passives

A closer look at the inventory of passive marker forms motivates multiple innovation pathways:§3.1 Reanalysis of constructions with ‘do/make’ verbs as passives§3.2 Reanalysis of object focus constructions (pseudoclefts) as passives§3.3 Retained undergoer voice aﬀix + pattern copying(App. Fronting of postverbal agent by-phrases)

3

3.1

Light verb → passive marker

In many Dayic (North Sarawak) languages, analytic passives with “S PASS Ag Verb” order arose througha reanalysis of complex constructions involving a higher undergoer voice ‘do/make’ verb embedding a(morphologically) active verb (Clayre 1996, 2014, Hemmings 2015, Mortensen 2021).
Kelabitic languages and the fate of ‘focus’(9) Reanalysis of UV ‘do/make’ verb into analytic passive marker:

45

SPat Indo/make.UV
Ag.GEN[AV-V...] → Lg
SPat
PASS P.Ag.GEN...
some Lun Baa’
dialects(for example,
Midang,Mering, AV-V
Sembudud)
the suffix
appears to have been lost altogether, and undergoer voice is signalled by the verb root

Lun Bawang(Dayic)maintainsa morphological
AV vs
wellKerayan
as some dialects
case distinctionsberé,
as illustratedin (71)from P. Mering.
InPV
thedistinction,
central and as
upper
of
P.
Kurid,
P.
Tera
and
P.
Sing
not
only
has
the
suffix
been
lost,
but
also
the
first
syllableof(10), but it also developed a periphrastic passive construction with a ‘do/make’ verb (11):(10)

the verb root, producing ré as illustrated in (72) from P. Sing. In the dialects of Lg Padi,
Lg Bawang
Mutan, Lg
P. Sia,P. Kaber and Sa’ban the final vowel is realised(Mortensen
as /ay/, whichis p. 98)
Lun
AV/PV
distinction:
2021:
closer to the PKLD form *meray.

a. {uih} m-[b]ukut neneh{uih}b. {ieh} bekut-in =kuh
{ieh}
(71)
Bekad
neh beréwih
ki=ieh.
1sg AV-punch
1sg
3sg punch-PV 1sg.GEN 3sg
PIV.shirt 3sg.OBL
that give:(UV) (GEN)1S NPNA=3S‘I hit him.’‘I will give that shirt to him.’‘I hit him.’ / ‘He was hit by me.’
(72)

Bekad

nih ré

wih wan keh.
(p. 114–115)
1S for
2S
this shirtm-[b]ukut
to you.’a. iko ru-en‘I will give=nehb. * iko ru-en=nehbukut-en
2sg
do/make-PVconstruction,
3sg.GEN AV-punch
2sg do/make-PV
punch-PVA periphrastic
similar to that described
for Sa’ban 3sg.GEN(§2.2.1.2),
wasproducedforundergoervoiceimperfective
constructions
in
many
of
the
Kerayandialects.
‘You are punched by him.’(lexical verb must be AV)
In some dialects (Binuang, Lg Padi, P. Padi, P. Sing, and P. Tera), both morphological andperiphrastic constructions were offered, as indicated in Table 11, for the verb beré ‘give’.
Otherpassives with
UV ‘do/make’sourcesin North
Sarawakgroup): form of the
The periphrastic
construction
consistsof the(allundergoervoice(imperfective)(t)aru‘to do/make’followed(NP) andthepp.
mainverb.2002:
The p. 60)
a.verbSa’ban(Dayic):aru’ / uen[ʌn] by the non-pivot actor(Clayre1996:
77–78,
dialectal variations in the undergoer voice form of the verb (t)aru are listed in Table 12b.together
Kelabitwith(Dayic):tu’en/en ‘do/put’(Hemmings
2016: pp.
215–216)a diagrammatic
representation of this periphrastic
construction.
In thisany voicemarkings
on themain verb
are cancelled
followingc.construction
Similar forms
in related
Karayandialects(Dayic)from Clayre
2005: (t)aru
p. 45: .

(11) Lun Bawang periphrastic
passive:
PIV.shirt this give:(UV)(12)

Table 12: The dialectal forms of the verb (t)aru in the periphrastic
undergoer construction in Karayan dialects
Dialect
Lun Dayeh
Kelabit
Sembudud, P. Mering,
P. Padi, P. Kaber
Lg Padi, Lg Mutan
P. Tera, Lg Sing
B. Liku, Binuang, P. Kurid(t)aru
ruen
tuen
uen

+NP actor+NP actor+NP actor+NP actor+{AV}:verb+{AV}:verb+{AV}:verb+{AV}:verb

ngen
nen
en

+NP actor+NP actor+NP actor+{AV}:verb+{AV}:verb+{AV}:verb

Example(73) shows
thatu’an/’anthis type of construction is also known in(Clynes
Lun Dayeh,d. Belait(LowerBaram):
2005:although
pp. 448–449)
it is not so commonly used as it is in Kerayan dialects. Example (74) is from Bario

e.Kelabit,
Penan and(Kenyah):na-nəwʔ
‘PV-make’2017 notes)(75) is fromP. Kurid.
Here the main verb is not the actor voice (Smith
imperfective
form meré, but a reduced form, ré. Example (76) illustrating the periphrastic form from

Summary:Binuang may be contrasted with (69), the morphological construction from Binuang.
(73)

Ruen

mu

ebha

manak

luk

rupen

Q1: What is the sourceof these passive
formswater(PASS)?REL drink:UV.IMPF
GEN.2S.marker{AV}:boil
do:UV.IMPF‘Do you boil the water that you drink?

A: Undergoer voice ‘do/make’ verbs, embedding AV lexical verbs

4

mu.
GEN.2SQ2: What is the source for preverbal agent passive (“PASS Ag V”) word order?
A: The agent is the postverbal (genitive) agent of the higher, UV ‘do/make’ verb.
• This provides a potential source for passive markers of the form Vn common in Kayanic (reconstructed as *in in Smith, Erlewine & Sommerlot 2024), through attested reduction of UV ‘do/make’verbs into Vn-like forms (see e.g. Clynes 2005: p. 449, Hemmings 2016: p. 216).
• It’s not clear what the semantics of the source construction is. (Possibly a causative? See e.g. Haspelmath 1990, Yap & Iwasaki 2003.)

3.2

Pseudocleft → passive

Another possible source for preverbal agent passives is from reanalysis of object focus constructions;specifically, null copula pseudoclefts:(13) Reanalysis of patient focus constructions (pseudoclefts):
XFoc [ REL SAg V‘X is [what SAg V...]’

... ]

→

SPat PASS Ag V...

In the Punan subgroup (Central Sarawak), the Beketan passive marker ɲe appears to be cognate withsome attested relative complementizers, such as Punan Aput ɲa or Seputan ne.
(Smith 2017 notes)(14) Beketan passive:(15) Punan Aput pseudocleft:

hok ɲehen ɲərotiʔ
1sg PASS 3sg hit‘I was hit by him.’he [RC ɲa kaman kun ku]
who
REL eatfood 1SG.GEN‘Who is the one who ate my food?’

Ida’an Begak (Northeast Sabah) noŋ introduces many patient relatives2 and also appears as a temporal/modal auxiliary which yields analytic passive word order.
(16) Uses of noŋ in Ida’an Begak:(Goudswaard 2005: pp. 191–192)

a. Introducing patient relatives:
pasod [NP ulan
[RC noŋ
ku m-uppuʔ
]]
many
clothes
AUX/REL 1sg DEP.UV-launder‘The clothes that I wash are many.’b. Forming preverbal agent passives:
suku a-ssak no noŋkəmmi m-iaŋall
NV-ripe DEM AUX/PASS 1pl.ex DEP.UV-separate‘All the ripe (rice) has to be/is usually separated by us.’
The verb appears in the “dependent” form: “Begak does not have an AV-equivalent for the Dependent”(p. 186), hence enforcing the association of noŋ with patient relatives (16a) and analytic passives (16b).
2

Goudswaard (2005) describes nong in both cases here as an auxiliary, treating (16a) as a contact relative, but then notes that
“This auxiliary is obligatory in certain constructions such as relative clauses and questions with interrogative pronoun” (p. 190).

5

Boutin (1996) identifies the analytic passive markers in Bonggi (also Northeast Sabah) as derived fromthe stem anu, which is a placeholder, i.e. ‘whachamacallit/what’s-her-name’:(17) Uses of anu in Bonggi:(Boutin 1996)

a. As a placeholder:
Bas kum-ori
anu...
peranggiʔ
PAST 1sg.GEN ACT-give whachamacallit pineapple‘I already gave whachamacallit, pineapple.’b. As a passive marker, inflected:
Sia bas na
in-anuku
m-ori
3sg PAST already PFV-PASS 1sg.GEN ACT-give‘He already has been given it by me.’• Placeholders make natural, light heads for relative clauses.
• A complication here is that the passive marker anu gets inflected, reflecting in- (perfective) > inanu, -an (imperfective UV) > nu-an, or -aʔ (imperative) > nu-aʔ.
Summary:
Q1: What is the source of these passive marker forms (PASS)?
A: Relative complementizers (or other functional material) introducing patient relatives
Q2: What is the source for preverbal agent passive (“PASS Ag V”) word order?
A: Null copula pseudoclefts: “XFoc [REL SAg V ...]”

3.3

Retained undergoer voice aﬀix + pattern copying

Q: Could analytic passive markers reflect retentions of earlier undergoer voice (UV) morphology?
– In many CB languages which have retained voice/aspect aﬀixes, UV is indicated by a -Vninfix, inserted after the first consonant.3– Could reanalysis of Vn as a prefix, and subsequent degrammaticalization, explain the prevalence of Vn analytic passive markers (as in Kayanic)?
A1: This is very unlikely as a source for Vn analytic passive markers. In many CB languages with UV
infix -Vn-, where the stem does not support -Vn- infixation (for instance, vowel-initial), it surfaces
instead as initial n-: see e.g. k<en>alot ‘PASS.PFV-mix.together’ vs n-abit ‘PASS.PFV-hold’ in Kiput(North Sarawak > Lower Baram; Blust 2003: p. 11).
3

-Vn- is a reflex of the Proto-Austronesian perfective marker *-in-. But in various Philippine-type languages (as also observed incontemporary Tagalog), Patient Voice is null in perfective contexts, supporting an interpretation of reflexes of *-in- as encoding
both UV and perfective aspect. See discussion in e.g. Wolff 1973, Ross 2004.

6

A2: A prefixal variant allomorph related to UV -Vn- could be the source for the marker di in Kendayan(Malayic) preverbal analytic passives... albeit indirectly.
– The passive morpheme across Malayic (both in Borneo and beyond) is di-. In all of Malayic
except for the Kendayan group (which we discuss in a moment), di- is a verbal prefix, only
allowing postverbal agents.
(18)

Van den Berg’s (2004) hypothesis for Malayic di-:Proto-Austronesian *-in- > Old Malay4 ni- >Malayic di(perfective/UV; see note 3)(passive prefix)

prefixation
with metathesis5(passive prefix)

idiosyncratic
denasalization(Note that Van den Berg’s hypothesis for Malayic di- is controversial. See discussion in e.g. Ross
2004 and Adelaar 2005a and the Appendix.)
There are CB preverbal agent passives with the form di, but only in the Kendayan subgroup of Malayic
in western Borneo; see e.g. Adelaar 2005b,c, Sommerlot 2024.
(19) Bangape (Malayic > Kendayan):(Sommerlot 2024)

Babi nya diayutn-ku m-[b]unuh
pig DEM PASS friend-1sg N-kill‘This pig was killed by my friend.’ Kendayan is adjacent to many Land Dayak languages, where preverbal
agent passives are well attested. We propose that Kendayan preverbal
agent passives reflect pattern copying from Land Dayak influence:(20) Kendayan (Malayic) preverbal agent passives via pattern copying:
general Malayic “di-V” −→ Kendayan “di (Ag) V”→(Land Dayak “PASS (Ag) V”)(Cf Ross (2004: p. 104), who suggests that the Kendayan preverbal agent passives are a retention.)
Summary:
Q1: What is the source of these passive marker forms (PASS)?
A: Malayic di comes from a ni- prefix variant of the perfective/UV infix *-in-.
Q2: What is the source for preverbal agent passive (“PASS Ag V”) word order?
A: Pattern borrowing from neighboring languages with preverbal agent passives.
45

Old Malay refers to a variety found on stone and copper inscriptions from the 7th to 10th century AD.
Reflexes of the UV/perfective (see note 3) appearing as an infix -in- or as a prefix ni- depending on the stem is observed insome varieties of Balantak (Sulawesi; Busenitz 1994, van den Berg 2004: pp. 538–539, 2012), Pendau (Sulawesi; Quick 2007:
p. 93), Pangasinan (Philippines; Benton 1971: p. 92) and, further afield, Bola (Oceanic; van den Berg 2019) and Chamorro(Klein 2005). See also discussion in Halle 2001.

7

4

Conclusion“Central Bornean-type” languages stand apart from the nearby and much better studied Philippine-type
and Indonesian-type languages, in the existence of preverbal agent passives (“SPat PASS (Ag) V”).
 We propose that multiple innovation pathways underly these CB preverbal agent passives, as determined by their passive marker forms and possible derivations for their word order.
• The prevalence of preverbal agent passives reflects convergence under contact: for example, bypattern copying (as in Land Dayak → Kendayan Malayic; §3.3) and through mutual reinforcement
between CB languages (and possibly Mainland Southeast Asian languages) that independently
innovated this word order.
• Surface similarities which suggest cohesive typologies are not necessarily motivated by sharedsource constructions.

References

Boutin, Michael E. 1996. A tale of two passives in Bonggi. Presented
at the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Borneo Research Council.
Busenitz, Robert L. 1994. Marking focus in Balantak. In Studies in
Sulawesi linguistics, vol. 3.
Chen, Victoria & Bradley McDonnell. 2019. Western Austronesianvoice. Annual Review of Linguistics 5. 173–195.
Clayre, Beatrice. 1996. The changing face of focus in the languagesof Borneo. In Hein Steinhauer (ed.), Papers in Austronesian linguistics, 3, 51–88. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Clayre, Beatrice. 2002. Observations on Lundayeh auxiliaries and thecase of aru’. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Robert Blust (eds.), Between worlds: linguistic papers in memory of David John Prentice, 49–63. Pacific Linguistics.
Clayre, Beatrice. 2005. Kelabitic languages and the fate of ‘focus’:
evidence from the Kerayan. In I Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross
(eds.), The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: some new
empirical studies, 17–58. 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.
Clynes, Adrian. 2005. Belait. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus
P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia andMadagascar, 429–. Routledge.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin & Coppe Van Urk.
2017. Ergativity and Austronesian-type voice systems. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 373–396. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.
013.16.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka & Alexander D. Smith. 2024. On the syntax of the analytic passive in Kenyah. Presented at the First International Sympsium on Bornean Linguistics (ISBL1).
Goudswaard, Nellke. 2005. The begak (ida’an) language of Sabah.
Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschaap (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).

Adelaar, K. Alexander. 2005a. Much ado about di-. Bijdragen tot deTaal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 161. 127–142.
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 2005b. Structural diversity in the Malayic subgroup. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann(eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar,
202–226. Routledge.
Adelaar, K. Alexander & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.). 2005. The
Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. Routledge.
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 2005c. Salako or Badamea: sketch grammar,
text and lexicon of a Kanayatn dialect in West Borneo. Vol. 2(Frankfurter Forschungen zu Südostasien). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. vii+328.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical functionchanging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bell, Sarah Johanna. 1976. Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Benton, Richard A. 1971. Pangasinan reference grammar. Retypeset
in 2019. University of Hawai‘i Press. https://hdl.handle.
net/10125/62898.
van den Berg, René. 2004. Some notes on the origin of Malay di. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 160(4). 532–554.
van den Berg, René. 2019. Passive ni and three other ni’s in Bola
(Oceanic): synchrony, diachrony, and homonymy. Handout.
van den Berg, René & Robert L. Busenitz. 2012. A grammar of Balantak: a language of eastern Sulawesi. SIL International.
Blench, Roger. 2010. Was there an Austroasiatic presence in Island
Southeast Asia prior to the Austronesian expansion? Bulletin of
the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 30. 133–144.
Blevins, Juliette & Daniel Kaufman. 2023. Lexical evidence in Austronesian for an Austroasiatic presence in Borneo. Oceanic Linguistics 62(2). 366–413.
Blust, Robert. 2003. A short morphology, phonology and vocabularyof kiput, sarawak. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Blust, Robert. 2015. The case-markers of Proto-Austronesian. Oceanic
Linguistics 54(2). 436–491. https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.
2015.0024.

8

(eds.), The history and typology of western Austronesian voicesystems, 17–62. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Ross, Malcolm. 2004. Notes on the prehistory and internal subgrouping of Malayic. In John Bowden & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann(eds.), Papers in Austronesian subgrouping and dialectology,
97–109. Pacific Linguistics.
Simanjuntak, Truman. 2017. The western route migration: a second
probable neolithic diffusion to Indonesia. In Philip J. Piper, Hirofumi Matsumura & David Bulbeck (eds.), New persepectives
in Southeast Asian and Pacific prehistory, 201–212. Australian
National University Press.
Smith, Alexander D. 2017. Unpublished field notes from research in
Borneo, 2014–2017.
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. 2024. Morphosyntactic variation in the
Kendayan-Salako branch. Presented at the 27th International
Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL 27) andfirst International Symposium on Bornean Linguistics (ISBL 1).
Sommerlot, Carly J. to appear. Voice in Land Dayak languages.
Oceanic Linguistics.
Soriente, Antonia. 2013. Undergoer voice in Borneo Penan, Punan,
Kenyah, and Kayan languages. In K. Alexander Adelaar (ed.),
Voice variation in Austronesian languages: linguistic studies ofIndonesian and other languages in Indonesia, 175–203. NUSA
54.
Wolff, John. 1973. Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In Andrew
B. Gonzales (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: essays in honor of
Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday, 71–91. Quezon City:
Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Wouk, Fay & Malcolm Ross (eds.). 2002. The history and typology ofwestern Austronesian voice systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Wu, Jiang. 2023. Malayic varieties of Kelantan and Terengganu: description and linguistic history. Center for Linguistics: Universiteit Leiden dissertation.
Yap, Foong Ha & Shoichi Iwasaki. 2003. From causatives to passives:a passage in some East and Southeast Asian languages. In Eugene H. Casad & Gary B. Palmer (eds.), Cognitive linguistics
and non-Indo-European languages. Mouton de Gruyter.

Halle, Morris. 2001. Infixation versus onset metathesis in Tagalog,
Chamorro, and Toba Batak. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken
Hale: a life in language. MIT Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14.
Hemmings, Charlotte. 2015. Kelabit voice: Philippine-type,Indonesian-type or something a bit different. Transactions of
the Philological Society 113. 383–405.
Hemmings, Charlotte. 2016. The Kelabit language: Austronesianvoice and syntactic typology. SOAS University of London dissertation.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: An
update. In Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, 7–16. Canberra:
Pacific Linguistics.
Hoh, Boon-Peng, Lian Deng & Shuhua Xu. 2022. The peopling andmigration history of the natives in peninsular Malaysia and Borneo: a glimpse on the studies over the past 100 years. Frontiersin Genetics 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.
767018. https : / / www . frontiersin . org / journals /genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.767018.
Klein, Thomas B. 2005. Infixation and segmental constraint effects:
UM and IN in Tagalog, Chamorro, and Toba Batak. Lingua 115.
959–995.
Kroeger, Paul & Alexander D. Smith. 2024. Non-Malayic languages of
Borneo. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper (eds.),
The Oxford guide to the Malayo-Polynesian languages of Southeast Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mortensen, Christian. 2021. The Kemaloh Lun Bawang language ofBorneo. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa dissertation.
Prasithrathsint, Amara. 2004. The adversative passive marker as aprominent areal feature of Southeast Asian languages. In Proceedings of SEALS 11, 583–598.
Prasithrathsint, Amara. 2006. Development of the thùuk passive
marker in Thai. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisi o (eds.), Passivization and typology: form and function, vol. 68 (TypologicalStudies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Quick, Phil. 2007. A grammar of the Pendau language of central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Pacific Linguistics.
Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice marking. In Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross

Appendices
Preverbal agent passive from postverbal agent fronting
Adelaar (2005a) (and citations there) suggest that Malayic di derives from the locative preposition di,which is reconstructed to Proto-Austronesian (see e.g. Blust 2015: pp. 458–460).
(21) Reanalysis of agent case markers/prepositions into passive markers:
SPat V [CM/Pby Ag] → SPat [CM/Pby Agent] V ... → SPat PASS (Agent) V ...
passive agent (by-phrase) fronting

reanalysis

Note that some Malayic languages also use di for introducing postverbal agents (‘by’):9

(22) Coastal Terengganu Malay bare passive with di agent phrase:(Wu 2023: p. 237)taʔdimakaŋ [ di kuciŋ ]abih ikaŋ hɔʔ bəli p=pasɔfinish fish REL buy LOC=market just.now eat
AGT cat‘The fish that (I) bought at the market was eaten by the cat.’ Fronting of such a by-phrase to immediately preverbal position would yield “di Ag V” word order.6• The main challenge for this approach is that there is no productive process of PP / passive agent
fronting to immediately preverbal position, in synchronic languages of the region.
• In addition, this would suggest that preverbal di started with “di Ag V” word order, even though
this is unattested across Malayic except in the Kendayan group.
• Alternatively, Adelaar’s own description suggests the agent-introducing di preposition itself directly cliticizing to the verb (perhaps as a form of preposition-incorporation; Baker 1988) but
there is no evidence for such a process in languages of the region as well.

Form copying from Malayic to Land DayakLand Dayak languages exhibit some diversity amongst its analytic passive
markers. Among these, Ribun (and Sanggau) are alone in having leʔ/le(h)form. But notice too that postverbal agents can be introduced by leʔ as well.

(23) Ribun leʔ passives(Sommerlot to appear)a. onyo han leʔ kosu mitak
person that PASS dog bite‘That person was bit by a dog.’b. oko leʔ mise [ leʔ odiʔ ]AGT 3sg
1sg PASS call
‘I was called by him/her.’• Reflexes of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *l are r in Land Dayak. This suggests that Ribun/Sanggau
leʔ/le(h) reflect relatively recent borrowings, likely from Malayic oleh, the passive agent-introducing
preposition ‘by’ in Standard Malay/Indonesian and various other Malayic languages.
 We propose that leʔ was first used for postverbal agent marking (‘by’), then form copying led to thepassive marker being leʔ as well. This exemplifies yet another process that obscure the historicalsources of passive constructions.

6

Soriente (2013) suggests a similar connection in Punan Malinau (Central Sarawak), where the passive marker is in: “The particle
in is also used occasionally as a preposition indicating causality or purpose” (p. 197).

10