Learning the organization of the verbal phasein Philippine-type and Indonesian-type languages
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, mitcho@nus.edu.sg
National University of Singapore
ISMIL 26, May 20231

1

Introduction: Subjecthood on the verbal phase

A long-standing intuition in generative syntax is that structure is built in “chunks.”
 Chomsky (2000, 2001) introduced the notion of a “phase”:(1) Phase-Impenetrability Condition:(Chomsky, 2000: 108)

For phase head H, “the [complement] of H is not accessible to operations outside HP;
only H and its edge [= specifiers and adjuncts] are accessible to such operations.”– Certain categories are phases, including DPs (noun phrases) and CPs (full clauses)...
– and the verbal phase: roughly corresponding to the structure of the verbal predicate,within which all arguments are generated.
Why is this important for the analysis of Austronesian languages?
• Many western Austronesian languages are well known for their “voice systems” (seee.g. Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, 2020 and Chen and McDonnell 2019):(2) Austronesian-type voice systems:
a. Each clause has one privileged argument (“subject”)2;
b. voice morphology on the verb varies with the choice of subject;c.

¯A-extraction(wh-movement, relativization, etc.) is limited to the subject.

⇒ Extraction facts suggest that the subject must always be in the “edge” of the verbal phase.
1 For comments and discussion that informed this work, I especially thank Hiroki Nomoto, Alex Smith, Carly
Sommerlot. This work is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Education and the National University ofSingapore under grants A-8000132-00-00 and A-8001136-00-00. Errors are mine.
2 Often also called the “pivot.”1

In much phase-based work including Chomsky (2000, 2001), a single head — “little v” —introduces the external argument (agent/actor) and also serves as the phase edge, allowing
lower arguments to be accessible to operations from above:(3) The verbal phase with one head: va.

b.

Actor Voice (AV):Non-Actor Voices (NAV):
vP

vP

DP

DP

v

DP

ag/subj

...

×

v

subj
ag

... t ...

• Precisely this geometry for the verbal phase has been adopted in Minimalist analyses for
Philippine-type languages (e.g. Aldridge, 2004; Rackowski and Richards, 2005; Erlewine
and Levin, 2021; Erlewine and Lim, to appear) and also for Indonesian-type languages(e.g. Aldridge, 2008; Sato, 2012; Erlewine et al., 2020).

An alternative approach would be to ascribe these two functions to two different heads:• v introduces the agent;• Voice (above v) serves as the phase head.
(See e.g. Collins 2005; Gallego 2008; Richards 2010; Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger 2014.)(4) The verbal phase with two heads: Voice and v
a.

Actor Voice (AV):b.

Non-Actor Voices (NAV):

VoiceP

VoiceP

DP

DP
vP

Voice
ag/subj

t

vP

Voice
subj

DP
v

v
ag

...

... t ...

Specifically, suppose that Voice always hosts exactly one nominal specifier: the subject.

2

TodayI discuss two major subtypes of western Austronesian languages (see e.g. Wolff, 1996; Himmelmann, 2005; Blust, 2013; Chen and McDonnell, 2019):
 Philippine-type languages instantiate the one-head theory (3), whereas Indonesiantype languages instantiate the two-head theory (4).

– A range of different morphological and syntactic features of these languages lead
learners to these organizations of the verbal phase.

2

Philippine-type languages

2.1

Evidence from clitics

Philippine-type languages commonly have second-position clitics:(5) Second-position clitic pronouns in Tagalog:
a. Tu~tulung-an =mo
fut-help-lv

b. Hindi =mo=ako.

gen.2sg nom.1sg

neg‘You will help me.’=ako

tu~tulung-an.

gen.2sg nom.1sg fut-help-lv‘You won’t help me.’

As discussed in Erlewine and Levin 2021, the following holds in all Philippine-type languages:(6) Generalization:(Erlewine and Levin, 2021: 412)

“In transitive clauses, second-position clitic pronouns in Philippine-type languages
are limited to pivot [= subject] arguments and non-pivot [= non-subject] agents.”
This generalization is not explained simply by proposing that pronouns in certain cases (e.g. “accusative” for non-subject themes) lack clitic forms. (Henrison Hsieh, p.c. in ibid.: 411–412.)(7) Demonstrative pronouns can be clitics or non-clitics:
Ang lalaki ang hindi {X =nito}
nom boy

nom neg

na-kitagen.prox pv.pfv-see{X nito}.
gen.prox‘It’s the boy that this one didn’t see.’(genitive non-subject agent)(8) Non-subject theme genitive must be a non-clitic:
Ang lalaki ang hindi {*=nito}
nom boy

nom negnaka-kita {X nito}.

gen.prox av.pfv-see‘It’s the boy that didn’t see this one.’3

gen.prox(genitive non-subject theme) Erlewine and Levin 2021: The generalization in (6) is immediately explained by the
one-head theory of the verbal phase (3).

– Clitic pronouns can clearly be outside of the verbal phase (e.g. hosted on negation).
– Assuming that clitic pronouns reflect the movement of (or agreement with) pronouns
in argument positions, clitic pronouns are only possible for arguments at the edgeof the verbal phase: only the agent subject in Actor Voice (3a), and only the subject
and non-subject agent in Non-Actor Voices (3b).
• In turn, the existence of clitic pronouns with this distribution provides direct evidence
for the learner for the one-head theory of the verbal phase as in (3).

2.2

Evidence from extraction¯• A-extraction(wh-movement, relativization, topicalization, etc.) in many Philippine-type
languages has been traditionally described as limited to the subject.

¯ However, certain A-constructions
in certain languages also allow the movement of nonsubject agents, as well as subjects.

Topicalization of non-subject agents is in fact well attested across many Philippine languages,
whereas topicalization of non-subject themes is ungrammatical or unattested. (Topics in such
constructions appear in nominative, despite corresponding to a postverbal genitive position.)(9) Tagalog (De Guzman, 1995: 57):3
a. Ang nanay, lulutu-in (=niya) ang isda sa
nom mother cook-pv

kusina.

gen.3sg nom fish dat kitchen‘The mother, (she) will cook the fish in the kitche.’b. * Ang isda, mag-lulutu ang nanay
nom fishav-cooksa kusina.

nom mother

Intended: ‘The fish, mother will cook (it).’• See also similar examples in Hiligaynon (Mithun, 2019: 159), Limos Kalinga (Ferreirinho,
1993: 68–71), Kapampangan (Mirikitani, 1972: 154; Rowsell, 1983: 57–58), Pangasinan(Benton, 1971: 154), and Western Subanon (Blake, 2020). Reid (1978: 36) also presents
parallel examples of this form from Bontok, Ilokano, Ivatan, and Tagalog.
 See especially Erlewine and Lim to appear, which establishes that topicalization involves

movement in Bikol, targeting subjects and non-subject agents but not non-subject themes.

3 Latrouite (2011: 69) reports a variant of example (9b) with a post-verbal genitive demonstrative pronoun nito withthe judgment mark ??. Richards (2005) observes the same contrast with ay-topicalization.

4

Relativization of non-subject agents is also attested, counter to conventional wisdom (the¯subject-only A-extraction
restriction).
(10) Relativization from Tagalog Locative Voice clause:a. X damit=ng [ni-labh-an

ng bata(Hsieh, to appear)

NOM ]clothes=lk pfv-launder-lv gen child‘clothes that the child washed’
b. ? bata=ng [ni-labh-an

GENchild=lk pfv-launder-lv

ang damit]
nom clothes‘child who washed the clothes’• For Tagalog, see Tanaka et al. (2016), Pizarro-Guevara and Wagers (2018), and Hsieh (2020,
to appear). Bondoc (2020) reports that non-subject agent relativization is also possible in
Akeanon and Cebuano, but not non-pivot theme relativization.

2.3

Summary• Non-subject agents in Philippine(-type) languages participate in a range of constructions
that involve their movement (or agreement) out of the verbal phase:– second-position clitic pronouns (extremely common)– topicalization (well attested)– relativization (marked / only in some languages)

 Non-subject agents should be in the edge of the verbal phase, but not non-subject
themes ⇒ the one-head theory (3).

3Indonesian-type languages
 I propose that (many) Indonesian-type languages utilize the two-head theory for theverbal phase, as in (4).

– Voice ↔ me-, di-, (ber-, ter-, ...)– v ↔ N• Central to this hypothesis is the idea of decomposing meN-, following Gil 2002, Benjamin2009, and citations there. Again, I hypothesize that the morphology and syntax ofIndonesian-type languages provide evidence that guides learners to the two-head theory.
• To my knowledge, no prior work has explored the two-head theory for Indonesian-type
languages except Sommerlot 2020.

5

3.1

Evidence from morphology

Nominalizations in Standard Malay and Standard Indonesian (SM/SI) may involve peN- or pe-,largely corresponding to verbal predicates with meN- vs ber-, respectively. (See e.g. Denistia
2020 and citations there.)(11)

a. mengajar ‘teach’ ~ pengajar ‘teacher’(Nomoto, 2017)b. belajar ‘learn’ ~ pelajar ‘student’(12)

a. pengasih ‘one who is loving’(Hassan 1974, in Benjamin 2009: 304)

b. pekasih ‘one who is loved’ Such correspondences support parsing N- as a shared agent-related morpheme in bothmeN- and peN-. (See Benjamin 2009: 303–304 for a suggestion along these lines.)

Verbal reduplication of active verbs in SM/SI includes the nasal N- when it undergoes coalescence with stem-initial consonant, but does not include me- (see e.g. Lapoliwa 1981).
(13)

active menulis ‘write’ > active menulis-nulis ‘write repeatedly’(SM/SI)(cf *menulis-tulis, *menulis-menulis) As Benjamin (2009: 298) notes (crediting Hendon (1966: 46–47) for the idea), the analysis

of such reduplication is simplified if such forms are actually an active prefix me- on areduplicated stem nulis-nulis, prenasalized in the context of active voice.

The analysis above is complicated by the fact that, for stems where coalescence does not occur,
both N and the stem-initial consonant remain, with reduplication applying only to the stem:(14) baca ‘read’ > active membaca-baca ‘read repeatedly’(SM/SI)(cf *membaca-mbaca)
However, these facts are different in many regional and colloquial Malay/Indonesian varieties,
often inviting more straightforward parses between the two heads:• In Riau Indonesian (Gil, 2002: 258–259), the “active prefix” may be me- alone or N- alone,phonologically conditioned. N- is included in reduplication but me- is not:(15)

a. minjam ‘borrow’ > minjam-minjam ‘borrow repeatedly’b. lempar ‘throw’ > melempar-lempar ‘throw repeatedly’

6(cf *minjam-pinjam)(cf *melempar-melempar)• In colloquial Johor Malay (Onn, 1976: 178), where coalescence does not occur, the N partis optionally included in reduplication:(16)

a. gali ‘dig’ > menggali-(ng)gali ‘dig continuously’b. tari ‘dance’ > menari-nari ‘dance repeatedly’

This reflects the SM/SI analysis above, but with optionality in N- as part of Voice or v
where coalescence does not occur.
Association of me- and N- with distinct functions is evident in various regional and colloquialvarieties of Malay/Indonesian and other Malayic languages, as discussed in Gil 2002, Benjamin2009, and others. This even leads to the possibility in some varieties of di-N-V forms:(17)

a. potong ‘cut’ > di-motong-nya(Riau Indonesian; Gil 2002: 265)b. pinjam ‘borrow’ > di-minjam(18)

a. bunuh ‘kill’ > di-munuh(Salako Kendayan (Malayic; W. Borneo))b. rumput ‘weed’ > di-nga-rumput(Adelaar, 2005: 218–219)

 Such forms directly motivate the segmentation of meN- into me- and N-, with me- occupying the same position as di-.

3.2

Evidence from the position of agents

The position of agents in Indonesian-type languages also supports the two-head theory:¯• To my knowledge, A-extraction(e.g. relativization, clefting) non-subject agents is neverallowed in any Indonesian-type language, unlike in the Philippine-type languages above.
• On the other hand, non-subject agents can appear before the verb, i.e. in the “bare passive.”¯• How can agents be preverbal but still inaccessible for A-extraction?
⇒ Agents must have a position before (above) the verb but not at the phase edge, suggesting the two-head theory.

7

Low agents (below auxiliaries, immediately preverbal), as in the bare passive, generally cannot
cooccur with any voice prefix. But there are some exceptions:• Suak Mansi Desa (Malayic, West Kalimantan; Sommerlot 2020) active verbs may appear
with meN- or N- in free variation. However:(19) Only N- is possible in object extractions:
Buku toyang opa’-ku

book dem C{boli / moli

father-1sg buy/ *memoli}.

N-buy

meN-buy‘This is the book that my father bought.’(20) Agents are low in object extractions:
Opai yang {*inya} nda’ {inya} milau?
what Cneg

3sg

N-look.for‘What isn’t s/he looking for?’• Salako Kendayan (Malayic, West Borneo; Adelaar 2005) and Matéq (Land Dayak/Bidayuh,West Kalimantan; Connell 2013) allow for “di/ni agent (N-)V” patterns:(21) Salako Kendayan “di agent N-V-red”:(Adelaar, 2005: 218)Aŋkoà-lah tuàkŋ kaleŋ di=kau matàh-matàh aŋkoà.
dist-emphbone catfish di=2sg N-break-red dist‘That’s the catfish-bone you’ve broken into many pieces.’(22) Two ni passives in Matéq:
a. balorua karék(Connell, 2013: 118)

ni koq mpulua matéq-éh.

quant seed rubber ni 1sg gather

just.before‘I gathered some rubber seeds earlier.’b. balorua karék

ni-mpulua koq matéq.

quant seed rubber ni-gather

1sg soon‘I’ll gather some rubber seeds later.’ Such evidence (where available) further motivate an organization where low agents follow
me/di- and precede N-, not at the edge of the phase:(me-/di-/...)[(phase edge)

Voice
8

agent
[

(N-)V
v+V

...

3.3

Summary• A range of morphological evidence lead learners of Malay(ic) languages to decompose
meN- as me- + N- (as per Gil, 2002; Benjamin, 2009).
• Combined with the complete absence of non-subject agent movement and the position of
low agents, these facts lead learners to posit the two-head model of the verbal phase.

4

Conclusion• Austronesian languages are known for their “voice systems,” including the restriction of¯
A-movement
to the subject.
• The verbal phase offers a framework for understanding what makes subjects special.
 Features of Philippine-type versus Indonesian-type grammars may be cues for the learnerto respectively adopt the one-head theory versus two-head theory for the verbal phase.

Terima kasih!

References
Adelaar, Alexander. 2005. Structural diversity in the Malayic subgroup. In Adelaar and
Himmelmann (2005), 202–226.
Adelaar, Alexander, and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, ed. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia
and Madagascar. Routledge.
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 118:1440–1469.
Benjamin, Geoffrey. 2009. Affixes, Austronesian and iconicity in Malay. Bĳdragen tot de Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde 165:291–323.
Benton, Richard A. 1971. Pangasinan reference grammar. University of Hawai‘i Press. URL
https://hdl.handle.net/10125/62898, retypeset in 2019.
Blake, A. L. 2020. Left-dislocation in Western Subanon. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 51:30–54.
Blust, Robert. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Asia-Pacific Linguistics, revised edition.
Bondoc, Ivan Paul M. 2020. Relativization asymmetries in Philippine-type languages: A preliminary investigation. The Archive: A Journal Dedicated to the Study of Philippine Languages andDialects 1:1–34.

9

Chen, Victoria, and Bradley McDonnell. 2019. Western Austronesian voice. Annual Review ofLinguistics 5:173–195.
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.
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8:81–120.
Connell, Timothy M. 2013. A sketch grammar of Matéq: A Land Dayak language of West
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Master’s thesis, University of Canterbury.
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.
De Guzman, Videa P. 1995. Experiencer verbs in Tagalog. In Grammatical relations: Theoretical
approaches to empirical questions, ed. Clifford S. Burgess, Katarzyna Dziwirek, and Donna B.
Gerdts, 45–62. CSLI Publications.
Denistia, Karlina. 2020. Quantitative studies on the Indonesian prefixes pe- and pen-. Doctoral
Dissertation, Universität Tübingen.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Theodore Levin. 2021. Philippine clitic pronouns and thelower phase edge. Linguistic Inquiry 52:408–425.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. 2017. Ergativity andAustronesian-type voice systems. In Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, ed. Jessica Coon, Diane
Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis, 373–396. Oxford University Press.
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 Cheryl Lim. to appear. Bikol clefts and topics and theAustronesian extraction restriction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory .
Ferreirinho, Naomi. 1993. Selected topics in the grammar of Limos Kalinga, the Philippines. Pacific
Linguistics.
Gallego, Ángel. 2008. Four reasons to push down the external argument. Manuscript, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
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.
Hassan, Abdullah. 1974. The morphology of Malay. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

10

Hendon, Rufus S. 1966. The phonology and morphology of Ulu Muar Malay (Kuala Pilah District, Negri Sembilan, Malaya). Number 70 in Yale University Publications in Anthropology.
Department of Anthropology, Yale University.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In Adelaar and Himmelmann (2005), 110–181.
¯
Hsieh, Henrison. 2020. Beyond nominative: A broader view of A-dependencies
in Tagalog.
Doctoral Dissertation, McGill University.
Hsieh, Henrison. to appear. Locality in exceptional Tagalog A’-extraction. Linguistic Inquiry .
Lapoliwa, Hans. 1981. A generative approach to the phonology of bahasa indonesia. Doctoral
Dissertation.
Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Voice and case in Tagalog: The coding of prominence and orientation.
Doctoral Dissertation, Heinrich-Heine Universität.
Mirikitani, Leatrice T. 1972. Kapampangan syntax. University of Hawaii Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 2019. Grammatical relations in Hiligaynon. In Argument selectors: A new
perspective on grammatical relations, ed. Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthazar Bickel,
131–184. John Benjamins.
Nomoto, Hiroki. 2017. Sintaksis nominalisasi bahasa Melayu [the syntax of Malay nominalization]. In Aspek teori sintaksis bahasa melayu. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Onn, Farid. 1976. Aspects of Malay phonology and morphology: a generative approach.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Pizarro-Guevara, Jed, and Matt Wagers. 2018. Agent extraction under patient voice in Tagalog
is acceptable: Evidence from acceptability ratings in various A’-dependencies. Presented at
AFLA 25.
Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog casestudy. Linguistic Inquiry 36:565–599.
Reid, Lawrence A. 1978. Problems in the reconstruction of Proto-Philippine construction
markers. In Proceedings of ICAL 2, volume 1, 33–66. Pacific Linguistics.
Richards, Norvin. 2005. Person-case effects in Tagalog and the nature of long-distance extraction. In Proceedings of AFLA 12, ed. Jeffrey Heinz and Dimitrios Ntelitheos, 383–394.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. MIT Press.
Rowsell, Lorna V. 1983. An ergative analysis of Kapampangan. Master’s thesis, University ofCalgary.
Sato, Yosuke. 2012. Successive cyclicity at the syntax-morphology interface: Evidence fromStandard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese. Studia Linguistica 66:32–57.
Sommerlot, Carly J. 2020. A reanalysis of the Austronesian nasal prefix: Evidence from Desa,11

a Malayic language of West Kalimantan. Presented at WCCFL 38.
Tanaka, Nozomi, William O’Grady, Kamil Deen, Chae-Eun Kim, Ryoko Hattori, Ivan Paul M.
Bondoc, and Jennifer U. Soriano. 2016. An agent advantage in Tagalog relative clause comprehension. In Proceedings of AFLA 22, ed. Henrison Hsieh, 191–201.
Wolff, John U. 1996. The development of the passive verb with pronominal prefix in western
Austronesian languages. In Reconstruction, classification, description: Festschrift in honor of
Isidore Dyen, ed. Bernd Nothofer, 15–40. Abera.

12