The Malayic verbal phase and Cyclic Linearization1(3) Object extraction is possible across a verb without meN-:

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine2 and Carly J. Sommerlot3

baju-baju [RC yang Ali tidak { *mem-basuh / basuh }shirt-redC
Ali neg
act-wash
wash

NELS 54, January 2024

‘clothes that Ali isn’t washing’1

Introduction](SM; Keenan 1972: 183–184)• Ali precedes the negator tidak, so this isn’t extraction of the subject of a bare passive (2).

Standard Indonesian and Standard Malay (SI/SM) appear at first glance to exhibit a two-way

Instead, it looks like extraction of an object from an active clause (1a) with “meN-deletion”

active/passive voice alternation, with corresponding prefixes meN-4 and di-.

(Keenan 1972; Chung 1976; Soh 1998; Cole and Hermon 1998, 2000, 2005; a.o.).
• Prior analyses simply stipulate that object extraction triggers a null voice allomorph; see(1) Active/passive alternation:e.g. Aldridge 2008; Cole, Hermon, and Yanti 2008; Sato 2012.

a. Active:b. Passive:

Fera (tidak) men-ulis buku ini.
Fera neg act-write book dem

Buku ini (tidak) di-tulis (oleh Fera).
book dem neg pass-write by Fera

‘Fera {wrote / didn’t write} this book.’‘This book was (not) written by Fera.’Today§2 We offer a new proposal for the syntax of voice in Malayic languages, concentrating firston SI and SM but applicable to many related languages of the area.

In each case, the subject precedes auxiliaries and negation, if any.

§3 Together with the Cyclic Linearization theory of phasehood (Fox and Pesetsky 2005), we

There are, however, two wrinkles to this basic picture. First is the existence of a third clause

derive a new, explanatory account for the “meN-deletion” effect.

type, the “bare passive,”5 with the properties below:(2) Bare passive:§4 Our analysis productively extends to — and is further motivated by — observed variation

Surat itu (tidak) saya ∅-tulis.
letter dem neg 1sg
write

in voice and extraction interactions in related languages of the area.

‘I {wrote / didn’t write} the letter.’(SI; based on Sneddon 1996: xxiii)

2• No voice prefix (hence “bare”).
• The subject is an internal argument (hence “passive”), preceding aux and negation if any.
• Obligatory, immediately preverbal agent, with restrictions on nominal type; see Nomoto
2021 for an overview.

Proposal for Malayic VoiceP

We start with our proposal for the three basic clause types.
• We make use of the notion of the verbal phase (Chomsky 2000, 2001). Higher syntactic

The second wrinkle involves A’-extraction:

operations can only access the “phase edge” (more below).

 From each of the three clause types in (1–2), the only nominal that can be A’-extracted isthe subject, with one exception:

1 For comments and discussion that informed this work, we thank Kenyon Branan, Nick Huang, Hadas Kotek, Keely
New, Hiroki Nomoto, Zheng Shen, Alex Smith, Hooi Ling Soh, and audiences at WCCFL 38, AFLA 27 and 30.
2 University of Helsinki / National University of Singapore, mitcho@nus.edu.sg
3 National University of Singapore, cjsomms@nus.edu.sg
4 N is a homorganic nasal, which in some cases replaces the stem-initial consonant, as in (1a).
5 The bare passive has also been called “passive type 2,” “object(ive) voice,” a.o. in prior literature; see Nomoto 2006.

1• Previous Minimalist proposals for SI and SM (Aldridge 2008; Cole et al. 2008; Sato 2012;
Jeoung 2017, 2018a,b; Legate 2014) also make reference to the verbal phase. Following
Chomsky, these works assume a single head (called Voice or v) which both introduces
the external argument and serves as the phase head.

2

In contrast to these prior works on SI/SM, we propose to We adopt the view suggested by Gil (2002), Benjamin (2009), and Kaufman 2009 that active

VoiceP

split these two functions across two different heads:6

voice meN- reflects two prefixes, me- and N-.9

(phase)In particular, we propose that me- and N- realize Voice and v, respectively.

• v introduces the external argument (agent); VoiceDP

is the phase head. (vP is not a phase.)

Voice

subj

• VoiceP always hosts exactly one nominal specifier(normally the subject).

DP• The lexical verb head-moves to v and is pro-agent

nounced there. We discuss the morphology of• Voice and vACT are me- and N- iff they are linearly adjacent (written: *) to each other.

vP• Voice is di- if linearly adjacent to vPASS ; this ensures the complementary distribution of di-VPv

and the immediately preverbal agent in passives. vPASS is always null.
• Overt Voice affixes to v via Local Dislocation (Embick and Noyer 2001), requiring linear
adjacency.

Voice and v below.
(6)(4) Malayic active VoiceP:
VoiceP

Active clauses involve vACT .
• vACT licenses (assigns abstract Case to) aDPnominal that it c-commands, i.e. the object.

agent/subj• The

external

argument

moves

Voice

vP
t

Spec,VoiceP.7 T (above VoiceP) attracts aV

DP

Both types of passives involve vPASS :(5) Malayic passive VoiceP:

argument

moves

to

Spec,VoiceP; it is attracted to Spec,TPand licensed there.
• An external argument that stays in-situ in
Spec,vP can be licensed under linear adjacency with the verb in v (see e.g. LevinDP
theme/subj

a. vACT ↔ N- / Voice *b. vACT ↔ ∅ otherwise
c. vPASS ↔ ∅...

[VoiceP

Voicea.

Active:

DPag

Aux*

t

me-

b.

Di-passive:

DPth

Aux*

t

di-

c.

Bare passive:

DPth

Aux*

t

[vP

v+V
t

N-V

DPth

V

t

V

t

DPag

3 Object extraction and Cyclic Linearization

VoicePargument.
internal* vPASS

[TP

VP

theme

• An

b. Voice ↔ di- /(7)(8) TP clause structures for the three voice types in SI/SM:

vACT

nominal to Spec,TP and licenses it there.

nominal; it optionally projects an external* vACTc. Voice ↔ ∅ / elsewhereto• vPASS does not license any c-commanded

a. Voice ↔ me- /Our proposal for A’-extraction in Malayic languages relies on VoiceP (not vP) being a phase.
Voice

Phases delimit domains that are opaque for outside syntactic operations, except their “edge”

vP(i.e. specifiers), as per Chomsky’s (2000) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC).
(

DP
agent

) vPASS

VP
V If we were to assume Chomsky’s PIC, our proposal for VoiceP would entail that only thet2015; Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2020).8

subject nominal can be A’-extracted.

– VoiceP hosts exactly one nominal specifier: the subject, which moves to Spec,TP in
the derivations above.
– The PIC dictates that the contents of vP are inaccessible from outside the phase.

6 Parallel structures for the verbal phase have been proposed for some other languages — see Gallego 2008, Richards
2010, 2023, Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger 2014, Hsieh to appear, as well as Collins 2005 on passives — but notin previous work on Malayic languages (except Sommerlot 2020b). We are not attached to these particular labels.
7 This movement might appear to violate an anti-locality constraint. But note that the nominal in this derivation will
later receive licensing from T; this is an A-movement step. This may support the idea that Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality
applies specifically to A’-movement, as suggested in Erlewine 2016a, but contra e.g. Deal 2019.
8 “Licensing by adjacency” can impose restrictions on the size and shape of nominals (Levin 2015), subject to crosslinguistic variation. This may account for the fact that, in many languages with such bare passives, agents arelimited to particular types of nominals (Nomoto 2021). The inventory of nominal licensing mechanisms that we
propose here echo that in Aldridge 2008, who refers to (abstract) nominative, accusative, and ergative licensing, but
we choose to avoid these terms.

9 One argument comes from the behavior of peN- vs pe- nominalizations. (The surface realization of the nasal N in
peN- and meN- are the same (Sneddon 1996: 9–14).) Broadly speaking, peN- nominalizations are external-argumentoriented; compare pengasih ‘one who is loving’ and pekasih ‘one who is loved’ from the stem kasih ‘love.’ As Benjamin(2009: 303–304) notes (in different terms), this suggests treating N- as a shared external-argument-introducing
morpheme in both meN- and peN-. See Erlewine and Sommerlot 2023 for further arguments.

3

4(But we assume that VoiceP can host additional non-nominal specifiers, and thereby
correctly predict that non-nominals can A’-move through the phase edge.) But in object extractions (“meN-deletion” examples), two nominals move out of VoiceP!

(9) Object extraction in SI/SM has high agent and no voice prefix:
Buku ini Badu sudah { *mem-baca / baca }book this Badu asp
act-readread

If Voice were hypothetically pronounced, this derivation becomes ungrammatical:(13)

Ungrammatical object extraction with overt Voice in (9):* [CP DPA’ [TP DPag ... Aux ... [VoiceP tA’ Voice [vP tag vACT +V tA’.

‘This book, Badu has read.’buku ini(SI; Voskuil 2000: 199)

(requiring no voice prefix)

Our proposal — assuming the PIC — predicts this to be impossible, with or without meN-.
 We propose to adopt Fox and Pesetsky’s (2005) Cylic Linearization theory of phasehood,
After a phase is built, it undergoes Spell-Out, where its contents are linearized. Resulting

extracting a non-subject agent DP, from a bare passive:(14)

Ungrammatical bare passive agent A’-extraction:
a.

a.

✓

b.

* [phase B ... A ... [phase tA tB ...

B < A contradicts A < Bc.

* [phase A ... B ... [phase tA X tB ...

B < X contradicts X < B[phase A ... B ... [phase tA tB ...

We first build a VoiceP with vACT (to license the object) and then move the object to Spec,VoiceP.
(12) Deriving object extraction in (9):j?

Intended: ‘Who will the door be opened by?’b.

* [CP DPA’ C [TPDPthSiapa yang

pintu itu

(SI; based on Vamarasi 1999: 55)... Aux ... [VoiceP tth Voice [vP tA’ vACT +V tth
akan

∅-

∅-bukaWhile previous accounts simply stipulate that voice is null when a non-subject nominal A’moves,10 our proposal offers a deeper explanation for why the voice prefix must be null: The basic subject-only extraction restriction and its “meN-deletion exception” in SI/SM
are all consequences of the geometry of the verbal phase, and in particular the positions
of Voice and the external argument.
– A’-movement of a non-subject nominal from an active clause leaves the externalargument in Spec,vP at VoiceP Spell-Out, with “Voice < DPag ” order. If Voice is thena. Structure at VoiceP Spell-Out:pronounced, movement of DPag becomes impossible. (See also Appendix A on ber-.)

DPag vACT +V tA’
Badu

open

Interim summary

Cyclic Linearization predicts the grammaticality of object extraction, as well as its verb form.

buku ini ∅-i buka* Siapai yang pintu ituj akan
who C
door that fut

The two movements out of VoiceP are not order-preserving; see prediction (11b).

(11) A few predictions of Cyclic Linearization:[VoiceP DPA’ Voice [vP

m-bacaIn addition, our Cyclic Linearization account accurately predicts the impossibility of A’-

instead of the PIC. (We maintain our proposal for the structure of VoiceP, above.)relative ordering statements cannot be contradicted by later movement.

me-

sudah

Subject movement crosses Voice (me-), leading to an ordering contradiction: (11c).

The subject (here: Badu) moves to Spec,TP and a non-subject (buku ini) moves to Spec,CP.
(10) [CP DPA’ [TP DPag ... Aux* ... [VoiceP ...

Badu– There is not a problem with A’-extracting non-subject nominals per se!

∅-bacaVocabulary insertion occurs at phasal Spell-Out. At VoiceP, Voice and v are not Our proposal involves the idea that null terminals are ignored for the purposes of Cyclic

linearly adjacent — DPag intervenes, as in bare passives — so realize ∅ (6–7). Null

– See Davis 2020: 339–343 for evidence that null operators in English relative clauses

terminals are pruned (Embick 2003 a.o.) and are not included in ordering statements.
b. Structure at CP Spell-Out:[CP DPA’ [TP DPag ... Aux ... [VoiceP tA’ Voice [vP tag vACT +V tA’buku ini

Badu

sudah

∅-

∅-bacaThese movements are ok as DPA’ and DPag were leftmost in the VoiceP phase: (11a).
5

Linearization (as in Erlewine 2017), but null phrases are not ignored.
do count for Cyclic Linearization ordering statements.

– Malayic also provides evidence for Davis’s conclusion, from the behavior of null objects in Standard Malay, which arguably involve null operator topicalization (Nomoto
and Matsuura 2023). See Appendix B.
10 See proposals to this effect in Aldridge 2008: 1456, Cole et al. 2008: 1535, Sato 2012: 41–42, Georgi 2014: 151–156,
Erlewine 2016b: 304–305, Jeoung 2017: 31, 2018a: 95–96, 2018b: 25, and Keine and Zeĳlstra to appear.

6

4

Variation in voice and extraction

 vACT always realizes N-. Voice optionally realizes me- in the context of vACT .

We turn now from the well-studied standard languages (SI/SM) to non-standard languages
and dialects of the region.11

Desa also allows object extraction, but only with the short N- active prefix:(18)

 Our proposal above extends to other Malayic languages and dialects, as well as some

Desa object extraction requires N-:

nearby non-Malayic languages, productively explaining attested patterns in their voice

Opai yang tongah inya { m-ilau/ *mem-ilau}
what C
prog 3sg N-look.for meN-look.forand extraction behaviors.

‘What is s/he looking for?’? (N-pilau > milau)• The N- prefix reflects vACT ; this is not a bare passive.

4.1 di-N-V forms• Unlike object extraction in SI/SM (3, 9), the agent stays in-situ in Desa object extraction:

Some Malayic varieties of the region allow di- and N- to co-occur:(15) “di-N-V” in Riau Indonesian:inya ‘him/her’ must follow the auxiliary tongah in (18).
(Gil 2002: 265)

a. potong ‘cut’ > di-motong-nya The in-situ agent in Spec,vP blocks Voice from realizing me-, explaining the strict
unavailability of me- in this one environment.

b. pinjam ‘borrow’ > di-minjam(16) “di agent N-V” in Salako Kendayan (Malayic, West Kalimantan): (Adelaar 2005: 218)

4.3

Madurese register variationAŋkoà-lah tuàkŋ kaleŋ di=kau matàh-matàh aŋkoà.
dist-emph bone catfish di=2sg N-break-red dist

Although object extraction clauses are not bare passives (as emphasized in Soh 1998 and Cole‘That’s the catfish-bone you’ve broken into many pieces.’

cases because the external argument intervenes between Voice and v at VoiceP Spell-Out (12a).

 Our two-head proposal for the verbal phase can more easily account for such patterns.
– di- (and me-) realize Voice, whereas N- realizes the lower head v.

and Hermon 2005), on our approach for SI/SM, there is no verbal morphology in both of these
Madurese register variation (Jeoung 2017) provides support for this link:13• Familiar and polite Madurese differ in the voices/clause types available:– The “di agent N-V” order in (16) directly reflects the “Voice < DPag < v+V” structurefamiliar

politeActive✓✓Passive✓✓

Bare passive×✓

we propose.

4.2

Object extraction in Desa

Suak Mansi Desa (henceforth, Desa) is a previously undescribed Malayic language of West
Kalimantan, Borneo (Sommerlot 2020a,b).12 Its basic clausal syntax very closely follows that of
SI/SM, with the only difference being that active verbs bear N- or meN- in free variation:(17) Desa active voice:Aku (tongah) { ny-apah / meny-apah } kawan-ku. (N-sapah > nyapah)
1sg progN-callmeN-callfriend-1sg‘I {am calling / call} my friend.’

 Object extraction — with high (pre-auxiliary) subject and the absence of any voice prefix,
like in SI/SM — is possible in polite Madurese but not in familiar Madurese!

• The absence of a null allomorph for Voice in the familiar register — unlike in the polite
register — explains the lack of both bare passives and object extractions, even though thetwo clause types have distinct syntax.

11 Prior theoretical work in the “meN-deletion” literature has overwhelmingly concentrated on the behavior of thestandard languages (SI/SM), with very few exceptions (e.g. Cole, Hermon, and Tjung 2006; Cole, Hermon, andYanti 2008; Jeoung 2016, 2017).
12 This data was collected by the second author through original fieldwork over the course of three summers from 2017–2019. We thank the consultants and friends in the field without whom our discussion of Suak Mansi Desa would
not be possible: namely, Mama Luki, as well as her sister and husband, Ressy Sagita, Fera Gustiana Simanjuntak,
and Pak and Ibu Mardi.

13 Madurese is not Malayic (as determined by lexical and phonological innovations), but the relevant properties of its
voices parallel that of SI and SM, allowing us to apply and extend our proposal for Malayic clausal syntax.

7

8

5

Conclusion• We developed a new proposal for the clausal syntax of SI and SM, with a novel two-headorganization for the verbal phase.
• Adopting the Cyclic Linearization theory of phasehood (Fox and Pesetsky 2005), we derivea deeper explanation for the “meN-deletion” effect: Object extraction is possible if Voiceis null, so that subject movement does not trigger a word order contradiction.
• Our proposal productively extends to voice and extraction interactions in many related
languages and dialects of the region, which have been largely undiscussed in the formal
syntactic literature.

Terima kasih! Manuscript: lingbuzz.net/007614

References
Adelaar, Alexander. 2005. Structural diversity in the Malayic subgroup. In The Austronesianlanguages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 202–
226. Routledge.
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118:1440–1469.
Benjamin, Geoffrey. 2009. Affixes, Austronesian and iconicity in Malay. Bĳdragen tot de Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde 165:291–323.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist
syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–
156. MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael
Kenstowicz, 1–52. MIT Press.
Chung, Sandra. 1976. An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesia. Linguistic Inquiry 7:41–87.
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 1998. The typology of wh-movement: wh-questions in Malay.
Syntax 1:221–258.
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2000. Partial wh-movement: Evidence from Malay. In Whscope marking, ed. Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller, and Arnim von Stechow, 101–130. John Benjamins.
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2005. Subject and non-subject relativization in Indonesian.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14:59–88.
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and Yassir Tjung. 2006. Is there pasif semu in Jakarta Indonesian?
Oceanic Linguistics 45:64–90.
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and Yanti. 2008. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118:1500–
1553.
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8:81–120.
Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger. 2014. The role of case in A-bar
extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14:179–242.
9

Davis, Colin. 2020. The linear limitations of syntactic derivations. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2019. Raising to ergative: Remarks on applicatives of unaccusatives. Linguistic
Inquiry 50:388–415.
Embick, David. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological identity. Studia Linguistica 57:143–
169.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry
32:555–595.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016a. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34:429–479.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016b. Review of Minimalist Interfaces: Evidence from Indonesianand Javanese by Yosuke Sato. Oceanic Linguistics 55:298–306.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2017. Why the null complementizer is special in complementizertrace effects. In A pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky, ed. Claire Halpert, Hadas Kotek, andCoppe van Urk, 371–380. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. 2020. The typology of
nominal licensing in Austronesian voice system languages. In Proceedings of AFLA 26, ed.
Ileana Paul, 71–87.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Carly J. Sommerlot. 2023. Malayic active voice men-: One
prefix or two? Presented at the Linguistic Society of Japan and the Affixes symposium,
University of Turku.
Fortin, Catherine, and Hooi Ling Soh. 2014. Blocking effects and the verbal prefix ber- in Malay
and Indonesian. In Proceedings of AFLA 20.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical
Linguistics 31:1–45.
Gallego, Ángel. 2008. Four reasons to push down the external argument. Manuscript, UniversitatAutònoma de Barcelona.
Georgi, Doreen. 2014. Opaque interactions of Merge and Agree: On the nature and order of
elementary operations. Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Leipzig.
Gil, David. 2002. The prefixes di- and N- in Malay/Indonesian dialects. In The history andtypology of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 241–283.
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Hsieh, Henrison. to appear. Locality in exceptional Tagalog A’-extraction. Linguistic Inquiry .
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic
Inquiry 15:531–574.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1991. Remarks on the status of the null object. In Principles and parametersin comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 56–76. MIT Press.
Jeoung, Helen. 2016. Voice and register differences in Madurese. In Proceedings of AFLA 22, ed.
Henrison Hsieh, 49–65. Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
Jeoung, Helen. 2017. On the number of voices in Madurese. Journal of the Southeast Asian
Linguistics Society 10:16–35.
Jeoung, Helen. 2018a. Optional elements in Indonesian morphosyntax. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.
Jeoung, Helen. 2018b. Possessors move through the edge, too. Glossa 3:1–35.
10

Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. On *pa-, *pa<r>-, and *pa<ŋ>-. Presented at ICAL 11.
Keenan, Edward L. 1972. Relative clause formation in Malagasy. In The Chicago which hunt, ed.
Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, and Gloria C. Phares, 169–189. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Keine, Stefan, and Hedde Zeĳlstra. to appear. Clause-internal successive cyclicity: phasality or
DP intervention? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory .
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. MIT Press.
Levin, Theodore. 2015. Licensing without case. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology.
Nomoto, Hiroki. 2006. Voice in colloquial Malay relatives. In Gengojouhougaku kenkyuuhoukoku,
ed. Yoichiro Tsuruga, Nobuyuki Miyake, and Yuji Kawaguchi, 12, 97–116. Tokyo Universityof Foreign Studies.
Nomoto, Hiroki. 2021. Bare passive agent hierarchy. In Proceedings of AFLA 27, ed. Henrison
Hsieh and Keely New, 57–70.
Nomoto, Hiroki, and Ai Matsuura. 2023. Pro-drop in Standard Malay. Presented at ISMIL 26.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 2023. Two kinds of bans on ergative extraction. Manuscript, MIT.
Sato, Yosuke. 2012. Successive cyclicity at the syntax-morphology interface: Evidence fromStandard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese. Studia Linguistica 66:32–57.
Sneddon, James Neil. 1996. Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
Soh, Hooi Ling. 1998. Certain restrictions on A-bar movement in Malay. In Proceedings of the thirdand fourth meetings of Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA), ed. Matthew Pearson,
number 21 in UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 295–307. Los Angeles: Department ofLinguistics, UCLA.
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2013. Voice and aspect: Some notes on Malaysian Malay. NUSA 54:159–173.
Sommerlot, Carly J. 2020a. On the syntax of West Kalimantan: Asymmetries and A’-movementin Malayic and Land Dayak languages. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.
Sommerlot, Carly J. 2020b. A reanalysis of the Austronesian nasal prefix: Evidence from Desa,a Malayic language of West Kalimantan. Presented at WCCFL 38.
Stevens, Alan M. 1970. Pseudo-transitive verbs in Indonesian. Indonesia 9:67–72.
Vamarasi, Marit Kana. 1999. Grammatical relations in Bahasa Indonesia. Pacific Linguistics.
Voskuil, Jan E. 2000. Indonesian voice and A-bar movement. In Formal issues in Austronesian
linguistics, ed. Ileana Paul, Vivianne Phillips, and Lisa Travis, 195–213. Springer.

Appendix A: “ber-deletion” and prefixless psych verbs
Certain SI/SM transitive stems can bear an optional ber- (middle) prefix. Soh (1998, 2013) andFortin and Soh (2014) show that their objects can A’-move, but only if the ber- prefix is absent.
(19)

Extraction from ber- transitive clauses:(Soh 2013: 169, Fortin and Soh 2014)a. Dia (ber-)main permainan komputer sampai larut malam.
3sg mid-play gamecomputer until midnight‘S/he played computer games till midnight.’
b. Apa-kah yang dia { *ber-main / main }who-Q C3sg ber-playplaysampai larut malam?
until midnight‘What did s/he play till midnight?’
Subjects in such object extractions precede auxiliaries; i.e. they move to Spec,TP.
Similarly, certain psych verbs in SI/SM can appear without any voice prefix. Their objects canbe extracted, again with a high (pre-auxiliary) subject:(20)

Object extraction from psych verb with high subject:
Ini yang saya akan suka
this C
1sg fut like.

‘This is the one that I will like.’(SI; Stevens 1970: 71)

 The “meN- deletion” interaction is not specifically about verbs that bear meN-. It is about
Voice being null, so that the agent can move to Spec,TP.

Appendix B: Standard Malay object drop
Nomoto and Matsuura (2023) discuss the distribution and nature of null arguments in Standard
Malay. They argue that null pronouns (pro-drop) are only possible in subject position; apparent
null objects must be null topics that must move to the clause periphery (as in e.g. Huang 1984,1991). As evidence for this account, Nomoto and Matsuura observe that transitive verbs withapparent null objects cannot bear their voice prefix:(21)

Apparent object drop requires prefixless transitive verb:
Nadiah men-ulis surat kepada Siti dan Siti sudah { *men-erima / terima }.
Nadiah act-write letter to
Siti and Siti asp
act-receive receive‘Nadiah wrote a letter to Siti and Siti has already received it.’
(SM; Nomoto and Matsuura 2023)

 If null phrases did not participate in ordering statements, we would predict a null topic
object to be able to move freely to the clause periphery (in “one-fell-swoop”) and therefore
not affect voice morphology at the phase edge.
1112