The Proceedings of AFLA 23

MULTIPLE EXTRACTION AND VOICE IN TOBA BATAK∗
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore
mitcho@nus.edu.sg
I investigate A-extraction in Toba Batak. Contrary to the claims of previous workon the language (especially Cole and Hermon 2008), I show that multiple, simultaneous extractions to the left periphery is possible, though only in limited configurations. The pattern of possible and impossible multiple extractions motivates aparticular organization of the left periphery: specifically, features associated with C
and T begin on a single head, probing together, and then splitting if joint probing
yields no matching target. I model this using CT head-splitting (Martinović 2015).
The distribution of the optional particle na further supports this approach. Finally,
I discuss lessons for the analysis of Austronesian voice and the role of Case.

1.

Introduction

Work on comparative formal syntax has identified two positions in the clause periphery, traditionally labeled C and T,1 which are commonly associated with two very
different sets of properties (Chomsky 1986, a.o.). T is commonly associated withproperties of subjects, including φ-agreement and nominative case assignment, andoften requires a nominal specifier, satisfied through A-movement (the EPP property).
In contrast, the specifier of C is the landing site of A-movement and, accordingly, C
is the locus of A-probes which attract constituents with certain information-structural
status, which may or may not be nominal. This division of labor between C and T isremarkably common across language families of the world.
However, in the Austronesian language family, such a clear division of labor
between the canonical functions of C and T is not immediately apparent. Many
Austronesian languages exhibit a “voice” system where one particular argument isprivileged with a particular case form and A-extraction is limited to this argument,
combining properties traditionally associated with C and T (see Erlewine, Levin, andVan Urk 2015, to appear, for an overview). Some authors have in fact proposedthat this priviledged argument occupies Spec,TP (Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis 1992,a.o.) while others associate it with Spec,CP (Richards 2000; Pearson 2001, a.o.).
∗ This project would not be possible without my Batak teachers, Paris Lubis and Richard

Siburian. I also thank Hannah Choi, Mary Dalrymple, Hadas Kotek, Theodore Levin, Martina Martinović, David Pesetsky, Nora Samosir, Yosuke Sato, Coppe van Urk, Michelle Yuan,
and audiences at AFLA 23 and MIT. Errors are mine.
1 C refers to complementizer, associated with clause-typing semantics, and T refers to tense,
associated with finiteness and temporal interpretation. I simply refer to these heads as C and
T here and concentrate on their functions as heads associated with certain syntactic processes.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
In this paper, I investigate patterns of A-extraction in Toba Batak, spoken innorthern Sumatra. My work here is based primarily on elicitation with two speakers
currently living in Singapore. The patterns of A-extractions available in the language
motivate a particular architecture of C and T, which helps resolve the tension inherent
to Austronesian voice systems, summarized briefly above. In particular, I proposethat the traditional division of labor between C and T is extant in Toba Batak, but thisis not immediately visible due to these functions often being combined onto a single
head. This can be modeled through a range of feature inheritance theories (Chomsky
2008; Ouali 2008; Fortuny 2008; Legate 2011, a.o.), but is most naturally captured
under Martinović’s (2015) theory of CT head-splitting, wherein C and T begin thederivation as a single head, CT, which splits under certain circumstances.
2.

Toba Batak basics

2.1.

Voice and word orderToba Batak has a two-way “voice” system similar to that of neighboring Malayic
languages. Consider the examples in (1) below, which are two ways of saying ‘Poltak
read the book.’ The marker si precedes proper names (PN).
(1) a. Man-jahar buku si Poltak.
ACT -read book PN Poltak‘Poltak read the book.’b. Di-jahar si Poltak buku.
PASS -read PN Poltak book

The two sentences in (1) differ in the choice of pivot—the one argument that commands a privileged status, italicized here. The prefix on the verb (also italicized)
reflects the choice of pivot argument. Following previous literature (van der Tuuk1864/1971; Schachter 1984a; Cole and Hermon 2008), I refer to maN- (1a) as AC TIVE and di- (1b) as PASSIVE, though I should warn against conflation with IndoEuropean active/passive alternations. The non-pivot DPs—the ACTIVE theme bukuin (1a) and the PASSIVE agent si Poltak in (1b)—must be adjacent to the verb; I returnto this and related facts in section 6.
The canonical declarative order is verb-initial, but pivot-initial clauses as in(2) are common in elicitation. Cumming 1984 reports on a corpus study where one
third of declaratives were found to have such a fronted pivot. She describes thisfronting as associated with topichood and reports that such fronted topics are “overwhelmingly definite” or generic; I will therefore describe this as topicalization.
(2) a. Si Poltak [man-jahar buku
PN Poltak ACT -read book
‘Poltak read the book.’].

b. Buku [di-jahar si Poltak
book PASS-read PN Poltak].

If a single DP is A-extracted, it must be the pivot. This is true in the topicalization examples in (2) above and is also explicitly reflected in the wh-fronting
contrasts in (3–4) below:

The Proceedings of AFLA 23(3)(4)
Patient wh-question ⇒ PASS :Agent wh-question ⇒ ACT:
a.*Aha [man-uhor si Poltak]?
a. Ise [mang-allang pinahan-on ]?
who ACT-buy
PN Poltak
who ACT-eat
pork-thisX
b.* Ise [di-allang pinahan-on]?
b. Aha [di-tuhor si Poltak ]?
who PASS-eat pork-thiswho PASS-buy PN Poltak‘Who ate this pork?’‘What did Poltak buy?’X

As noted above, A-movement being restricted to the one designated pivot argument
is familiar from many other Austronesian languages.
Non-DP constituents do not participate in the voice alternation. In stark contrast to DPs, the fronting of non-DPs is independent of the choice of voice. The PP‘for who’ can be wh-fronted (5) out of both active and passive clauses, with corresponding changes in postverbal DP word order.
(5)

Extraction of non-DPs does not interact with voice:a. X[Tu ise] [man-uhor buku si Poltak]?
(maN-tuhor > manuhor)
DAT who ACT -buy book PN PoltakXb. [Tu ise] [di-tuhor si Poltak buku]?
DAT who PASS -buy PN Poltak book‘[For who] did Poltak buy the book?’

Examples (3–5) here are from my own elicitation work but these same patterns aredescribed in Clark 1984, 1985 and Cole and Hermon 2008. A-extraction of DPs islimited to the pivot argument, whose choice is cross-referenced by voice morphology,
whereas the extraction of non-DPs is independent of the choice of voice.
2.2.

Optionality of wh- and focus-fronting

I will take a moment here to show that wh-movement in Toba Batak is optional but
preferred, as is the fronting of exhaustive focus with ‘only.’ We have seen examples of wh-questions with fronting and this is the preferred strategy in elicitation.
However, Toba Batak also allows for wh-in-situ. The examples in (6) below show
embedded wh-questions with and without fronting.
(6)

Both wh-movement and wh-in-situ are grammatical:
a. Hu-boto[ise [mang-allang pinahan]].
PASS .1sg-know who ACT -eat
pork
b. Hu-boto[mang-allang pinahan ise].
PASS .1sg-know ACT -eatpork
whoc. Hu-boto[di-allang ise pinahan].
PASS .1sg-know PASS -eat who pork
‘I know [who ate the pork].’

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
The embedding in (6) provides evidence that the language truly allows wh-in-situ,
rather than allowing wh-in-situ only in matrix questions through specialized constructions such as echo questions or so-called “declarative syntax questions” (Bobaljik
and Wurmbrand 2015), both of which cannot be embedded.
The availability of both movement and in-situ wh-questions also extends to
non-DP, adjunct wh-words as well, as seen by the embedded ‘when’ questions in (7).
(Both linear positions of andigan ‘when’ in (7b) are grammatical.) The embedded
questions in (7) are all ACTIVE, but PASSIVE variants of (7a,b), with corresponding
changes in the order of postverbal DPs, are also all grammatical.
(7)

Wh-movement is optional for adjuncts too:a. Hu-boto[andigan [man-uhor buku ho]].
PASS .1sg-know when
ACT-buy book you
b. Hu-boto[man-uhor buku {andigan} ho {andigan}].
PASS .1sg-know ACT -buy book when
you when‘I know [when you bought the book].’Constituents with the exhaustive focus particle ‘only’ holan similarly preferto be fronted, but can also be in-situ:(8)

Focus-fronting preferred but both ok:a. [Holan si Poltak] [mang-allang indahan
only PN Poltak ACT-eat
rice
b. Mang-allang indahan [holan si Poltak].
ACT -eatrice
only PN Poltak‘Only POLTAK ate rice.’].

It’s worth stepping back here and noting that, at this point, we have no evidence for the existence of distinct processes of “wh- or focus-fronting” in Toba Batak.
Recall that the language independently allows for the fronting of topics (see e.g. (2)),
which I called topicalization above, following Cumming 1984. The facts presented
thus far are compatible with the language being wh/focus-in-situ at its core, together
with a general fronting process which can freely front pivots and non-DPs.
In the next section, I turn to patterns of multiple extraction in Toba Batak.
One lesson will be that we must ultimately recognize wh/focus-fronting as a distinct
process in the language, independent of the free fronting of pivots as in (2). For convenience, I will refer to both wh-phrases and constituents modified by holan ‘only’
as “formally focused,” formalized as [+FOC].

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
Multiple extractions in Toba Batak

3.

I now investigate the possibility of A-extracting multiple constituents simultaneously
to the left periphery in Toba Batak. Very little previous work has attempted to investigate such multiple simultaneous fronting. When it comes to DP arguments, thecharacterization given above and in all previous work on Toba Batak—that only thepivot DP can be fronted—immediately predicts that the fronting of multiple DPs
should be impossible. And at first glance, this appears to be correct:2(9)Wh agent, regular DP patient:(10) Wh patient, regular DP agent:a. Ise [mang-alang pinahan]?
a. Aha [di-tuhor si Poltak]?
who ACT-eat
porkwhat PASS-buy PN Poltak
b. Pinahan-on [di-allang ise]?
b. Si Poltak [ma-nuhor aha]?
pork-thisPASS-eat who
PN Poltak ACT -buy what
c.* Ise pinahan-on [mang/di-allang]?
c.*Aha si Poltak [maN/di-tuhor]?
who pork-thisACT / PASS -eat
what PN Poltak ACT / PASS-buy‘Who ate the pork?’‘What did Poltak buy?’

Examples (9a,b) are two grammatical forms of the matrix question ‘Who ate the
pork?’ As noted above, Toba Batak allows for fronting of the wh-word, which must
be the pivot (9a), and also allows wh-in-situ and free topicalization of definite pivot
DPs, resulting in (9b). This topicalization and wh-movement cannot cooccur to yielda wh DP followed by a topic DP, as observed in (9c).3 The contrast in (10) is completely parallel, but with a referential agent and wh patient. Cole and Hermon (2008,
p. 183) discuss data such as (9c, 10c) as further support for their view that non-pivot
DPs are frozen and cannot move, to be discussed in section 6.
This situation changes, however, if the two DPs in question are a wh DP anda DP with the exhaustive focus particle holan; in other words, if both are formally2 I do not indicate postverbal gap positions here.
3 The opposite order—a topic DP followed by a wh DP—is grammatical as a matrix wh-question (i). However, there are reasons to believe that (i) is a hanging topic construction thatshould be distinguished from a true multiple extraction. First, this topic requires a following
prosodic break, indicated by # in (i), unlike other preverbal constituents that are studied here.
Second, this word order is disallowed in embedded clauses (ii).
]?
Buku-i*(#) ise [man-jahar
book-that
who ACT-read≈ ‘That book, who read?’(ii) *Hu-boto[buku-i(#) ise [man-jahar
PASS.1sg-know book-that
who ACT-readIntended: ‘I know [who read that book].’

(i)

]].

In what follows, I will disregard such hanging topic constructions.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
focused. The examples in (11–12) below show that it is possible to front the wh DP
followed by the DP with ‘only’ (c), in addition to fronting just the wh-word (a) as
the pivot or just the DP with ‘only’ (b) as the pivot.4 Here too I italicize the pivot DP
on grammatical examples, as determined by the choice of voice morphology on the
verb.
(11)

Wh agent, ‘only’ patient:a. Ise [mang-allang holan indahan]?
who ACT-eat
only riceb. Holan pinahan [di-allang ise]?
only pork
PASS -eat who
c. Ise holan pinahan [{*mang/Xdi}-allang
who only pork{*ACT/XPASS}-eat‘Who ate only rice/pork?’(12) Wh patient, ‘only’ agent:a. Aha [di-allang holan si Poltak]?
what PASS-eat only PN Poltak
b. Holan si Poltak [mang-allang aha]?
only PN Poltak ACT-eat
what
X
c. Aha holan si Poltak [{ mang/*di}-allang
what only PN Poltak {XACT/*PASS}-eat‘What did only Poltak eat?’]?

]?

Examples of the form of (11–12) have never before been described. The
availability of these multiple extraction variants in (11c) and (12c) has a numberof implications for our understanding of Toba Batak syntax. First, contrary to all
previous descriptions of Toba Batak, we learn that it is possible to front multiple
constituents to the left periphery. Second, the contrast between examples (11–12)
where multiple extraction is possible and the earlier examples in (9–10) above shows
us that the grammar must distinguish wh/focus-fronting from the free fronting of
topical, referential constituents, e.g. topicalization as in (2) above.5 Third, when
multiple DPs are fronted, voice morphology tracks track the choice of DP fronted to
immediately preverbal position: PASSIVE in (11c) and ACTIVE in (12c). Fourth andfinally, non-pivot DPs can be moved, contrary to the explicit claims and predictionsof Cole and Hermon 2008, which will be discussed further in section 6.
4 The opposite order, with the only DP above the wh-phrase, is also ungrammatical, which I

take to be for reasons of semantic interpretation; see e.g. Beck 2006. I have thus far not beenable to elicit any multiple wh-questions.
5 In particular, this shows that approaches such as in the recent Aldridge to appear, where all
extraction is taken to be driven by a [uφ] probe (equivalent to [uD] here), are not rich enoughto capture the full pattern of Toba Batak extraction.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
The situation is different still with a DP and non-DP. The examples in (13) below show that the simultaneous extraction of a non-DP wh-phrase and a non-focused,referential DP, in that order, is grammatical.6(13)

Simultaneous fronting of non-DP wh and topic DP is grammatical:
a. Andigan buku-i[{*maN/Xdi}-tuhor si Poltak
]?
X
when
book-that {*ACT/ PASS}-buy PN Poltak
b. Andigan si Poltak [{XmaN/*di}-tuhor buku]?
when
PN Poltak {XACT/* PASS }-buy book
‘When did Poltak buy the book?’(maN-tuhor > manuhor)

The availability of the multiple extractions in (13) is perhaps unsurprising,
given that the fronting of non-DPs does not interact with voice, as we saw in (5).
However, it’s important to note that it is not simply the case that the simultaneous
extraction of any DP and non-DP is grammatical. Examples in (14) show that the
combination of a wh DP and a referential non-DP is ungrammatical in either order:(14)

Simultaneous fronting of wh DP and referential non-DP is ungrammatical:
a. Ise [man-angko buku [PP sian toko buku] ]?
who ACT-steal bookfrom store book
b.*Ise [PP sian toko buku] [man-angko buku]?
whofrom store book ACT-steal bookc.* [PP Sian toko buku] ise [man-angko buku]?
from store book who ACT-steal book
‘Who stole books from the book store?’

The evidence presented here shows that multiple extractions are possible in
Toba Batak but only in a particular, limited set of configurations, summarized in (15)below. The data here shows an interaction between being nominal or not ([±D]) andthe presence or absence of formal focus (wh or focus with ‘only,’ [±FOC]).
(15)a.* [+FOC, +D] [−FOC, +D] V...
b. X[+FOC, +D] [+FOC, +D] V...
c. X[+FOC, −D] [−FOC, +D] V...
d.* [+FOC, +D] [−FOC, −D] V...
e.* [−FOC, −D] [+FOC, +D] V...

(9–10)(11–12)
(13)
(14b)
(14c)

Specifically, we observe that wh/focus-fronting—a traditional function of C—and theattraction of nominals—traditionally a function of T, the EPP—interact in a nontrivial fashion in Toba Batak. In the next section, I present my proposal which derives
this distribution in (15) from a particular understanding of the C-T connection.
6 The opposite order is grammatical but involves a hanging topic; see footnote 3 above.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
4.

Proposal

The pattern of grammatical multiple extractions in Toba Batak prompts us to reconsider the relationship between C and T. I propose that the key to the Toba Batak
extraction patterns observed is to take the probes associated with C and T—[uFOC]
and [uD], respectively—and allow them to first probe jointly for a target that simultaneously satisfies both probes (featurally, [+FOC, +D]). If this probing fails to find atarget, the probes then probe separately. I assume that such joint probing presupposesthat the probes [uFOC] and [uD] originate on the same head.
My work here is not the first to propose that there is a nontrivial relationshipbetween the features and functions of C and T. Work on topics such as subject extraction asymmetries (Pesetsky and Torrego 2001, a.o.) and the morphosyntax of C
and T (see e.g. Fortuny 2008 for a review) have all converged on the idea that there
must be a tight connection between C and T. One prominent approach to the C-T
relationship is the feature inheritance hypothesis of Chomsky 2008 which proposesthat the features of T such as φ-agreement and Case-licensing probes all originate
on C and are passed down to T. See also Ouali 2008; Fortuny 2008; Legate 2011 foradditional discussion of feature inheritance.
Here I will adopt a recent, alternative conception of the C-T connection which
I think most naturally derives the Toba Batak facts. This is the CT head-splitting
hypothesis of Martinović 2015, which states that the traditional heads C and T start
their life as a single head, CT,7 but “splitting occurs in cases where a feature cannot
be checked” (Martinović 2015, p. 64). This approach is motivated by Martinović’s
study of Wolof clause structure and extraction asymmetries.
In order to concentrate here on the left periphery of Toba Batak, I will abstract
away from the details of the derivation of basic, verb-initial clauses in Toba Batak. I
will, however, assume that the pivot DP occupies a designated position—the specifierof VoiceP—with the Voice head tracking this choice of DP in Spec,VoiceP. I will,
however, briefly return to related questions of clause structure in section 6.
I begin by discussing the simple case where we will front a single wh or
focused DP pivot. The CT head probes jointly for [uFOC,uD] and finds a matchingtarget: the focused pivot DP at the edge of VoiceP. Attracting this DP to Spec,CTP
results in the fronting of a single DP, the formally focused pivot.
(16)

CTP
DP[FOC](pivot)CT[uFOC, uD]

VoicePt
Voice

7 Aldridge 2015 also discusses the application of a joint CT head for Austronesian languages.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
I note that unfronted pivot DPs in Spec,VoiceP are postverbal. The tree in (16) ismeant to simply illustrate that the pivot argument is hierarchically highest in VoiceP.
Having found a matching target for joint probing by [uFOC, uD] in (16), theCT head has no motivation to split. Following movement of the pivot, CT may probe
again for [uFOC, uD]. If it finds another [+FOC, +D] target past the pivot position,
it can move it.8 In such a case, I propose that CT remerges with its projection andreprojects (thick arrow in (17)),9 in order to host an additional specifier. I will present
evidence for this reprojection of the CT head in section 5.
(17)

CT reprojection for multiple extraction by [uFOC, uD] joint probing:CTP
DP[FOC](non-pivot) CT[uFOC, uD]

CTP

DP[FOC](pivot)CT[uFOC, uD]

VoicePt
Voice... t ...

This approach derives the fact that, when two formally focused DPs are fronted as in(11–12), the immediately preverbal DP will be the pivot. The pivot is highest in the
VoiceP and therefore will necessarily be the first target moved by CT.
Now consider a case where no DPs in the clause are formally focused. First,
CT will probe for [uFOC, uD], but will find no target. It will therefore split into C
and T with the traditional division of labor: C is the host of the [uFOC] probe and T
is the host of [uD]. This is illustrated in (18) below. Probing by [uD] on T allows forthe free fronting of the [−FOC] pivot DP to Spec,TP—what I called topicalization
above in (2). Probing by [uFOC] on C can front any [+FOC] constituent to Spec,CP,
which in this case will necessarily be a non-DP, as we are considering the case where
no DP in the clause is formally focused. This movement to Spec,CP alone yields thefronting of focused non-DPs as in (5).
8 I assume that all arguments are generated within VoiceP, with VoiceP properly containing

the traditional vP. Here I presume no Phase Impenetrability effects arising from the possible
phasehood of VoiceP or vP. See Cole, Hermon, and Yanti 2008 §9 for a similar conclusion.
9 See Iatridou and Kroch 1992, Watanabe 1992, Browning 1996, and references there on socalled CP-recursion. See also more general discussion of head-reprojection in Surányi 2005,
Georgi and Müller 2010, and references there.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23(18)

CT split into C and T:
CP
Non-DP[+FOC](non-pivot)
C[uFOC]
DP[−FOC](pivot)

TP

T
[uD]

VoicePt
Voice... t ...

Each of these movements can apply optionally and independently (optionality indicated by dashed arrows in (18)). When both apply simultaneously, we yield theconfiguration where a formally focused non-DP precedes a non-focused pivot DP asin (13), the second of our two10 grammatical multiple extraction configurations (15).
Finally, I consider the case where the pivot DP is [−FOC] but there is a lower[+FOC, +D] constituent in the clause. We begin with CT probing jointly for [uFOC,
uD]. Although a matching [+FOC, +D] target is present in the structure, the higher,intervening [+D] pivot will trigger defective intervention (originally Chomsky 2000),
causing joint probing by [uFOC, uD] on CT to fail. CT will then split, resulting inthe same configuration in (18) above.
There is one remaining problem with the approach just outlined. If a lower,
non-pivot DP is formally focused, the [uFOC] probe on the split C head (18) could
attract the focused DP. When combined with the optional fronting of the non-focused
pivot DP to Spec,TP, this alone would predict the multiple extraction of a focused
DP followed by a non-focused pivot DP to be grammatical, contrary to fact (9–10).
However, this fronting of a non-DP to Spec,CP will fail for principled reasons ofCase-licensing, as will be discussed in section 6.
The proposal here yields the correct pattern of grammatical and ungrammatical multiple extractions in Toba Batak, summarized in (15) above. This patternreflects a sensitivity to both the features [±FOC] and [±D], with [+FOC, +D] constituents having more extraction possibilities than those that bear [+FOC] or [+D]but not both. This proposal also hints at a new understanding of the relationship between Austronesian voice systems, where A-extraction is often limited to the pivot
DP, and more familiar systems with distinct C and T functions. In Toba Batak, we
see that the default is for CT to jointly probe and attract a formally focused pivot DP,
while the split C-T configuration reflects the traditional division of labor between theheads C and T, familiar from the syntax of many other language families.
10 Not counting those involving hanging topics; see footnote 3.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
5.

Evidence from the particle na11

One aspect of A-extractions in Toba Batak that I have not yet discussed is the optional
particle na. This particle often appears preverbally in examples with a single Aextraction as in (19a). In cases of long-distance extraction, na can appear by the final
landing site of movement as well as at the embedded clause edge (19b). This particle
na is generally included in translations but is never judged to be obligatory.12(19)

The particle na:
a. Ise (na) modom?
who NA sleep‘Who is sleeping?’
b. Aha (na) di-dok
si Uli [(na) di-allang si Poltak]?
who NA PASS-say PN Uli NA PASS-eat PN Poltak‘What did Uli say that Poltak ate?’(na...na ok too)

Both of my speakers agree on the availability of na in the cases of single whor focused DP extractions as in (19). However, there are other configurations where
judgments systematically diverge. The symbol % in (20) indicates grammaticality
for Speaker A but not Speaker B. There is no position where Speaker B accepts na
but Speaker A does not. Both speakers’ judgment patterns are robust across sessions.
(20)

Configurations with systematic variation:a. Andigan (%na) di-tuhor ho buku-i?
when
NA PASS-buy you book-that‘When did you buy that book?’b. Andigan (*na) buku-i(%na) di-tuhor ho?
when
NA book-that
NA PASS-buy you‘When did you buy that book?’

The consistent pattern of idiolectal variation here can be straightforwardly
captured under my proposal. I propose that Speaker A employs na as the realizationof the feature bundle [T] whereas Speaker B uses na to spell out the more specificfeature bundle [C, T]. As the unsplit CT head has the categorial features [C, T], bothspeakers allow na in the examples in (19) where the pivot is formally focused andthus CT remains unsplit. In the examples in (20), the pivot is [−FOC] so CT will
necessarily split; we then predict that Speaker B will use no na whereas Speaker A
will allow na in the position of the T head. Neither speaker allows for na in between
11 I thank Martina Martinović for a stimulating conversation which prompted me to revisit mynotes on the particle na, which led to the discovery presented in this section.
12 The particle na also introduces relative clauses, in which case its presence is obligatory.

Here I do not discuss relative clauses and leave their detailed investigation for future research.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
the wh non-DP and the unfocused DP in (20b) because this is the position of the split
C head, which matches neither [T] nor [C, T].
Now consider the case of the multiple extraction of two formally focusedDPs. Here both speakers allow for the pronunciation of na after each DP and inparticular allow na to be pronounced in both positions simultaneously:(21)

The particle na with two wh/focus-fronted DPs:Ise (Xna) holan pinahan (Xna) di-allang?
who NA only pork
NA PASS -eat
‘Who eats only pork?’(na...na ok too)This configuration is precisely where my proposal predicts that the CT head will reproject as in (17). The availability of the particle na in both positions simultaneouslyin (21) supports the CT reprojection view presented above, and is not predicted underalternative proposals such as the simple use of multiple specifiers on CTP.
6.

The role of Case in Toba Batak

Finally, I turn to the role of abstract Case in Toba Batak. Although nominals in Toba
Batak do not bear any case morphology, I argue that there is nonetheless a system of
nominal licensing (abstract Case) which plays a crucial role in governing Toba Batak
clause structure and word order.
The first motivation for a system of nominal licensing in Toba Batak comesfrom the following word order restriction. Although postverbal constituents can generally be in any order, the non-pivot DP in a transitive clause must be adjacent to theverb. Example (22) below is reproduced from Schachter 1984a, p. 125.13 We seethat the adverb nantoari ‘yesterday’ can be placed freely, with the exception of theposition between the verb and the non-pivot DP:(22)

Adding nantoari ‘yesterday’ to (1a,b):
a. {Nantoari} mang-ida {*nantoari} si Ria {nantoari} si Torus {nantoari}.
yesterday ACT-see
PN RiaPN Torusb. {Nantoari} di-ida{*nantoari} si Torus {nantoari} si Ria {nantoari}.
yesterday PASS-see
PN Torus
PN Ria‘Torus saw Ria yesterday.’Cole and Hermon 2008—the only contemporary syntactic analysis of Toba
Batak clause structure—derives this adjacency effect as follows. They propose that
all other arguments necessarily move out of the VoiceP constituent, followed by
fronting and freezing of the VoiceP. Their analysis is explicitly designed to yield
13 For what it’s worth, my speakers do not recognize the name Torus, suggesting instead thatthese sentences are about Sitorus, with the proper name marker si dropped; si Sitorus ispossible here.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
two effects. First, it explains the adjacency requirement observed in (22), assumingthat adjuncts such as nantoari are necessarily generated outside of VoiceP. Second, it
predicts that non-pivot DPs cannot be fronted. Cole and Hermon present data akin to(9–10) above, where a wh DP and a referential DP cannot be simultaneously fronted,
as support for the latter prediction: extraction of DPs is limited to the pivot, they say,and therefore multiple extraction of two DPs is predicted to be impossible.
I have however shown above that the simultaneous extraction of two coargument DPs is in fact possible, provided that both DPs are [+FOC]; see (11c) and(12c) above. This teaches us that it is false that non-pivot DPs cannot be fronted and
it is also false that non-pivot DPs must necessarily stay verb-adjacent. At the sametime, the rejection of the Cole and Hermon approach to Toba Batak syntax meansthat an alternative explanation for the adjacency facts in (22) must be proposed.
I take the adjacency effect in (22) to be a consequence of a need to Caselicense the non-pivot DP through adjacency with the verb. I follow Erlewine, Levin,and Van Urk (2015, to appear) in taking a core property of Austronesian voice systems to be that pivot DPs are Case-licensed by virtue of becoming the pivot. I propose
that, in Toba Batak, there is no Case-licensor for DPs internal to the VoiceP. DPs canbe licensed by Agreement with the [uD] probe of (C)T or under adjacency with theverb, which can be analyzed as a form of morphological merger or akin to pseudonoun-incorporation.14 Evidence for this licensing-by-adjacency comes from the factthat the postverbal non-pivot DP forms a phonological unit together with the verb forthe purposes of stress assignment, as observed and discussed in Emmorey 1984.
Recall that in the grammatical multiple extractions of DPs in (11c) and (12c),
CT never splits into the separate C and T heads. Both fronted DPs have therefore
been Agreed with by the [uD] probe on the CT head, in the process of joint probing
by [uFOC, uD]. This Agreement with [uD] Case-licenses both DPs. This explains
the grammaticality of the multiple extractions in (11c) and (12c), even though thenon-pivot DP is not adjacent to the verb.
In contrast, consider the ungrammatical multiple fronting of a formally focused DP followed by a referential pivot DP in (9c) and (10c). In these cases, I claimthat CT splits into the traditional C and T heads, with T attracting the referential pivot
DP with its [uD] probe and C attracting the non-pivot wh DP with its [uFOC] probe.
The problem is as follows. The non-pivot in (9c) and (10c) are not Case-licensed intheir base position—as they are not adjacent to the verb at PF—nor are they Agreed
with by a [uD] probe, as their fronting is due to the [uFOC] probe alone. In this case,the fronted non-pivot DP cannot be Case-licensed, leading to ungrammaticality.
To summarize, even though Toba Batak does not exhibit overt case alternations, nominals must be (abstract Case) licensed. This licensing helps explain theverb-adjacency of post-verbal non-pivot DPs, discussed in both Schachter 1984a andCole and Hermon 2008, while also allowing for the limited possibility of fronting
the non-pivot DP in multiple extractions. The proposal of Cole and Hermon 2008, in
contrast, predicts that non-pivot DP extractions can simply never occur.
14 See Levin 2015 and references there on licensing by adjacency.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
7.

Conclusion

At first glance, Toba Batak exhibits the familiar Austronesian extraction restriction,
where A-extraction is limited to the pivot DP, whose choice is cross-referenced on
the verb. A closer look shows that multiple extractions—and in particular the simultaneous fronting of two DPs—are possible in certain limited configurations. The
observed pattern motivates the view that (a) both [uFOC] and [uD] probes exist in
Toba Batak and are associated with C and T, respectively, as is common in many
non-Austronesian languages, but (b) these two probes prefer to probe jointly from asingle head. I model this interaction using the CT head-splitting hypothesis of Martinović 2015, together with head reprojection where necessary, and show that the
distribution of the particle na in two consistent idiolects offers overt morphologicalevidence for this proposal.
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2015. Origin of the extraction restriction. LSA 2015 summer institute lecture notes.
Aldridge, Edith. to appear. Φ-feature competition: A unified approach to the Austronesian extraction restriction. In Proceedings of CLS 52.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural
Language Semantics 14:1–56.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2015. Questions with declarativesyntax tell us what about selection? In 50 years later: Reflections on Chomsky’s aspects, 13–31. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Browning, Margaret A. 1996. CP recursion and that-t effects. Linguistic Inquiry
27:237–255.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. MIT Press.
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. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory:
Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero,and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. MIT Press.
Clark, Robin. 1984. The syntactic nature of Logical Form: Evidence from Toba
Batak. In Schachter (1984b), 9–16.
Clark, Robin. 1985. The syntactic nature of Logical Form: Evidence from Toba
Batak. Linguistic Inquiry 16:663–669.
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2008. VP raising in a VOS language. Syntax
11:144–197.
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and Yanti. 2008. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua
118:1500–1553.
Cumming, Susanna. 1984. The syntax and semantics of prepredicate word order in
Toba Batak. In Schachter (1984b), 17–36.

The Proceedings of AFLA 23
Emmorey, Karen. 1984. The intonation system of Toba Batak. In Schachter (1984b),
37–58.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. 2015. Whatmakes a voice system? On the relationship between voice marking and case.
In Proceedings of AFLA 21, ed. Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile,and Nozomi Tanaka, 51–68. Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. to appear. Ergativity and Austronesian-type voice systems. In Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, ed. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis.
Fortuny, Jordi. 2008. The emergence of order in syntax. John Benjamins.
Georgi, Doreen, and Gereon Müller. 2010. Noun-phrase structure by reprojection.
Syntax 13:1–36.
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.
Iatridou, Sabine, and Anthony Kroch. 1992. The licensing of CP-recursion andits relevance to the Germanic verb-second phenomenon. Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax 50.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2011. Under-inheritance. Presented at NELS 42.
Levin, Theodore. 2015. Licensing without case. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Martinović, Martina. 2015. Feature geometry and head-splitting: Evidence from themorphosyntax of the Wolof clausal periphery. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago.
Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T feature transfer: the nature of agreement and antiagreement in Berber. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D’Alessandro,
159–180. Mouton de Gruyter.
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 355–425.
MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal issues inAustronesian linguistics, ed. Ileana Paul, Vivianne Phillips, and Lisa Travis,
105–116. Springer.
Schachter, Paul. 1984a. Semantic-role-based syntax in Toba Batak. In Schachter(1984b), 122–149.
Schachter, Paul, ed. 1984b. Studies in the structure of Toba Batak. Number 5 in
UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics.
Surányi, Balázs. 2005. Head movement and reprojection. Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Sectio Linguistica
26:313–342.
van der Tuuk, Herman Neubronner. 1864/1971. A grammar of Toba Batak. Springer.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Wh-in-situ, subjacency, and chain formation. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2.