1

Topics in Austronesian Syntax 2015 LSA Linguistics Institute

University of Chicago Instructor: Edith Aldridge

Alignment and Word Order in Austronesian Languages

1. “Voice” and DP Extraction

Tagalog is an ergative language with different verbal inflections for transitivity and two different

applicative morphemes.

Tagalog

(1) a. D<um>ating ang babae.

<INTR.PRV>arrive NOM woman

‘The woman arrived.’

b. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda.

<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman NOM fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

c. B<in>ilh-an ng babae ng isda ang tindahan=ko.

<TR.PRV>buy-APPL GEN woman GEN fish NOM store=1.SG.GEN

‘The woman bought a/the fish at my store.’

d. I-b<in>ili ng babae ng isda ang lalaki.

APPL-<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman GEN fish NOM man

‘The woman bought the fish for the man.’

(2) Tagalog Actor Theme Location Circumstance

<um>V V-in V-an i-V

The R&R (2005) case agreement analyzes Tagalog as having a “voice system” in which the verb

agrees with the case feature of the ANG (nominative) DP.

NOM agr: Nominative subject (1a)

ACC agr: Nominative direct object (1b)

DAT agr: Nominative goal or location (1c)

OBL agr: Nominative beneficiary, instrument, transported theme (1d)

Unmotivated stipulations in the case agreement approach

1) Accusative case is always assigned to theme/patient arguments.

2) Applicative heads assign inherent case to the objects they select.

3) Applied objects must have ANG status.

In other languages with differential object marking:

=> Object shift generally correlates with BOTH interpretation and structural case.

2

Turkish (Runner 1993:23)

(3) a. Ben dun aksam [VP [cok guzel bir biftek] yedim].

I yesterday evening very nice a steak ate

‘Yesterday evening, I ate a very nice steak.’

b. Ben bifteg-i dun aksam [VP tObj yedim].

I steak-ACC yesterday evening ate

‘I ate the steak yesterday evening.’

One more stipulation:

=> Must be made to apply only to Tagalog and not other closely related languages.

(4) Cebuano voice affixes: (Wolff 1972:xvi; cited in Himmelmann 2005:167-169)

Realis Irrealis

AV mu- mu-

PV -un -a

LV -an -i

CV i- i-

(5) a. Bantay-an ninyu ang prisu. (Cebuano; Wolff 1972:38)

watch-LV 2.PL.GEN NOM prisoner

‘You will watch the prisoner.’

b. Bantay-i una siya ha? (Cebuano; Wolff 1966:440)

watch-LV then 3.SG.NOM okay

‘Take good care of him/her, will you?

I see no motivation for claiming that “accusative agreement” or “dative agreement” take

different forms in different moods.

2. Direct Approach

Tagalog alignment is taken at face value NG and ANG are spell-outs of cases valued in the

syntax.

Aldridge (2004, 2008): EPP and case features are concentrated on transitive v.

=> Transitivity drives the derivation (true for realis and irrealis mood).

(6) Mixed ABS Ergativity

vTr: Inherent ergative (genitive) case, [uɸ], [EPP]

vIntr: No [uɸ], no [EPP]

CFin: Optional [uɸ] and [EPP]

3

(7) Verbal morphology and transitivity (Tagalog)

mag-/<um> Intransitive/Antipassive

-in Basic transitive, non-perfective

-an Locative applicative

i- Instrumental/benefactive applicative

<in> Transitive perfective

(8) Realis Irrealis (Cebuano)

mu- mu- Intransitive/Antipassive

-un -a Basic transitive, non-perfective

-an -i Locative applicative

i- i- Instrumental/benefactive applicative

Transitive clause

(9) a. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda.

<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman NOM fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

b. AspP

V+v+Asp vP

DP[NOM] v’

DP[GEN] v’

tV+v[uɸ, EPP] VP

tV <DP[NOM]>

No need for stipulation 1: Structural licensing for object only in transitive clauses.

Antipassive

(10) a. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda.

<INTR.PRV>buy NOM woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a fish.’

4

b. CP

C[uɸ] AspP

V+v+Asp vP

DP[NOM] v’

tV+v VP

tV DP[GEN]

No need for stipulations 2 and 3: The applied object is selected by an Appl head but not assigned case by it.

v must be transitive. Otherwise, the applied object would not be licensed.

Since the applied object is closest to the probe on v, it will value case and move to the vP edge.

Applicatives attach to transitive (and never intransitive verbs)

(11) a. B<in>ilh-an ng babae ng isda ang tindahan=ko.

EA: <TR.PRV>buy-APPL GEN woman GEN fish NOM store=1.SG.GEN

CA: <PRV>buy-DAT CS woman CS fish ANG store=1.SG.GEN

‘The woman bought a/the fish at my store.’

b. I-b<in>ili ng babae ng isda ang lalaki.

EA: APPL-<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman GEN fish NOM man

CA: OBL-<PRV>buy CS woman CS fish ANG man

‘The woman bought the fish for the man.’

c. AspP (Applied object is licensed by v and moves to edge of vP.)

Asp vP

lalaki[NOM]

babae[GEN]

v[uɸ, EPP] ApplP

< lalaki[NOM]> Appl’

i- VP

V isda[GEN]

In some ways, the R&R and Aldridge approaches are similar, but Aldridge is more streamlined.

If all else is equal, choose the simpler analysis.

5

3. Historical Considerations

3.1. Transitivity and Alignment Change

Accusative systems are less marked and produced directly through mechanisms of UG.

=> NOM assigned uniformly to highest DP.

(12) Accusative language

vTr: [uɸ] (licenses OBJ)

vIntr: No [uɸ]

TFin: [uɸ] (licenses SUBJ)

(13) a. She[NOM] sees him[ACC].

b. She[NOM] runs.

c. TP

T[NOM] vP

DP[NOM] v’

v[ACC] VP

V DP[ACC]

Ergative Case-marking Pattern:

=> NOM not uniformly assigned to highest DP

Seediq

(14) a. Wada kudurjak ka qedin=na.

PAST flee NOM wife=3S.GEN

‘His wife ran away.’

b. Wada bube-un na Pihu ka dangi=na.

PAST hit-TR GEN Pihu NOM friend=3S.GEN

‘Pihu hit his friend.’

(15) a. Ergative language

vTr: Inherent case, no[uɸ]

vIntr: No [uɸ]

TFin: [uɸ]

6

b. TP

T[NOM] vP

DP[INH] v’

v VP

V DP[NOM]

How does an ergative system arise?

(16) 1. Unavailability of structural licensing for internal argument in transitive clause

2. Non-structural licensing for external argument

3. Licensing of internal argument by T

Starosta et al. (1981, 1982), Ross (2009), Aldridge (to appear):

=> Ergative clauses in Austronesian languages like Tagalog < Nominalized clauses in copula

constructions.

Ross (2009)

Nominalization > ergative clause type as Proto-Nuclear An innovation

(17) Proto-Austronesian

Rukai Tsou Puyuma Nuclear An

Extra Nuclear An

1. Tagalog verbal affixes <in> (perfective) and -an (low applicative) are used only in

nominalizations in Extra Nuclear-An languages.

2. In nominalized clause, the subject is genitive and the object has oblique case.

=> No structural nominative or accusative.

Puyuma (Extra-Nuclear Austronesian, spoken in Taiwan; Teng 2008:142)

(18) k<em>adru [ku=k<in>a-sagar-an dra suan]

<INTR>there 1.SG.GEN=<PRV>KA-like-NMLZ OBL dog

‘My loving of dogs is like that.’

3.2. Comparative Reconstruction

But Puyuma has ergative alignment that does not come from nominalizations.

Puyuma realis (Teng 2008:147)

(19) a. tr<em>akaw dra paisu i isaw (AP)

<INTR>steal INDEF.OBL money SG.NOM Isaw

‘Isaw stole money.’

7

b. tu=trakaw-aw na paisu kan isaw (TRANS)

3.GEN=steal-TR DEF.NOM money SG.OBL Isaw

‘Isaw stole the money.’

c. tu=trakaw- ay=ku dra paisu kan isaw (APPLL)

3.GEN=steal-APPL=1SG.NOM INDEF.OBL money SG.OBL Isaw

‘Isaw stole money from me.’

d. tu=trakaw-anay i tinataw dra paisu (APPLH)

3.GEN=steal-APPL 3.SG.NOM his.mother INDEF.OBL money

‘He stole money for his mother.’

Puyuma uses different but strikingly similar affixes in realis and irrealis contexts.

(20) Puyuma INTR/AP TRANS APPLL APPLH (from Ross 2009)

Realis M-V V-aw V-ay V-anay

Hortative M-V-a V-aw V-ay V-anay

Imperative V V-u V-i V-an

Negative M-V V-i V-i V-an

Future RED-V RED-V-i RED-V-i RED-V-an

Puyuma realis ergative suffixes: -a + -u or -i

(21) Puyuma TRANS APPLL APPLH

Realis V-aw < -a + -u V-ay < -a + -i V-anay < -an + -a + -i

=> Puyuma realis suffixes are derived from irrealis

Tsou has a similar paradigm, but this occurs only on nonfinite verbs. Finite auxiliaries show only

INTR (< *M-) or TR (no reflex of *M) distinction.

(22) Tsou INTR/AP TRANS APPLL APPLH

Nonfinite M-V V-a V-i V-(n)eni

Tsou (Chang 2011:285; based on Zeitoun 2000:93-4)

(23) a. mo mo-si ta pangka to emi ‘o amo (AP)

INTR.3SG INTR-put OBL table OBL wine NOM father

‘Father put wine on the table.’

b. i-si si-a ta pangka to amo ‘o emi (TRANS)

TR-3SG put-TR OBL table ERG father NOM wine

‘Father put the wine on the table.’

c. i-si si-i ta amo ta emi ‘e pangka (APPLL)

TR-3SG put-APPL ERG father OBL wine NOM table

‘Father put wine on the table.’

d. i-si si-eni ta emi ta amo na a’o (APPLH)

TR-3SG put-APPL OBL wine ERG father NOM 1SG

‘Father put wine on the table for me.’

8

<m> generally disappears in irrealis mood.

Seediq

(24) a. Wada m-ari patis ka Ape.

PAST <INTR>buy book NOM Ape

‘Ape bought a book.’

b. Wada ini bari patis ka Ape.

PAST NEG buy book NOM Ape

‘Ape didn’t buy any books.’

=> Tsou embedded TR paradigm also has an irrealis source, evidenced by the lack of *M- on the

auxiliary.

Rukai is an accusative language:

=> Nominative case for verbal subjects in both transitive and intransitive clauses

Tanan Rukai

(25) a. uduri=aku sa bɨlbɨl

plant=1SG.NOM INDEF banana

‘I plant bananas.’

b. labuwal=aku kɨla

walk=1SG.NOM come

‘I come walking.’

Summary: 1) Puyuma transitive realis < irrealis

2) Tsou transitive realis < irrealis

3) Rukai is accusative.

Applying the comparative method, ergative alignment (“voice system”) must be reconstructed in

irrealis but not realis mood.

(26) PEAn ACC TRANSERG APPLL-ERG APPLH-ERG

Realis *M-V --- --- ---

Subjunctive *M-V-a *V-a *V-a-i *V-an-a-i

Imperative *V *V-u *V-i *V-an-i

Negative *V *V-i *V-i *V-an-i

Imperfective *RED-V *RED-V-i *RED-V-i *RED-V-an-i

3.3. Natural Change

1. PAn is reconstructed as accusative.

2. Accusative alignment is preserved in Rukai.

3. Origin of ergative alignment: Irrealis clauses in Proto-Ergative Austronesian

9

(27) Austronesian

Rukai Ergative An (Irrealis > ergative)

Tsou Puyuma Nuclear An (Nominalization > ergative)

(28) PAn VERB TRANS APPLL APPLH

Realis *M-V --- --- ---

Subjunctive *M-V-a --- --- ---

Imperative *V=Su --- --- ---

Negative *V --- --- ---

Future *RED-V --- --- ---

Irrealis also can provide the requisite context for the emergence of ergative alignment.

=> v lacks structural licensing capability.1

Possible results: 1. Object gets inherent case. T licenses the subject.

2. Subject gets inherent case. T licenses the object.

Result 1: Occurs when inherent case is available for the object; alignment is accusative.

(29) TP

T[NOM] vP

DP[NOM] v’

v[IRR] VP

V DP[INH]

Detransitivization (loss of licensing features on transitive v) in negated clauses in Slavic and

Finnic languages:

Russian (Harves 2002:97)

(30) Anna ne kupila knig.

Anna.NOM NEG bought books.GEN

‘Anna did not buy any books.’

Result 2: Occurs when inherent case is unavailable for the object; alignment is ergative.

Partitive case marks objects in atelic events in Finnic languages.

1 Hopper and Thompson (1980) also show that irrealis is less transitive than realis and propose this as one of their

transitivity parameters.

10

Estonian (Hiietam 2004)

(31) a. Poiss luges raamatut.

boy.NOM read.PAST.3.SG book.PART

‘The boy was reading a/the book.’

b. Poiss luges raamatu läbi.

boy.NOM read.PAST.3.SG book.ACC through

‘The boy read the book through.’

In imperatives, accusative is unavailable, so the object must value nominative case with T in telic

events.

Estonian (Hiietam 2004)

(32) a. Söö võileiba!

eat.2.SG.IMP sandwich.PART

‘Eat some sandwich!/ i.e. Do some sandwich eating!’

b. Söö võileib ära!

eat.2.SG.IMP sandwich.NOM up

‘Eat the sandwich up!’

c. TP

T[NOM] vP

DP[INH] v’

v[IRR] VP

V DP[NOM]

3.4. PAn > PEAn

The primary “voice” affixes are *-u (imperative) and *-i (general transitive).

2SG.NOM clitic form = *Su (Ross 2006):

=> *V=Su > *V-Su > *V-u

(33) a. Santapav-u i qinaljan! (Southern Paiwan)

build-IMP P village

‘Build it in the village!’

b. Bigy-an=mo=siya ng kape. (Tagalog)

give-APPL=2SG.GEN=3SG.NOM GEN coffee

‘Give him some coffee!’

Reanalysis:

(34) [TP V-2SG/IMP T[uɸ] [vP v [VP tV DP[NOM] ]]] (PEAn)

11

*i reflected as locative preposition:

Northern Paiwan

(35) na-t<em>alem azua tsaotsao tua velevel i gadu

PRV-<INTR>plant NOM.DEM person OBL banana in mountain

‘That person plants bananas in the mountains.’

Origin: Irrealis objects as PPs; P licenses object2

PAn: Irrealis v lacked accusative case licensing capability. Indefinite objects received inherent

case; definite objects were marked with a preposition *i.

(36) TP (PAn irrealis clause with oblique object)

T[NOM] vP

DP[NOM] v’

vIRR VP

V PP

i DP

P incorporates to V; DP needs structural case; Inherent case must be assigned to subject.

(37) TP (PEAn irrealis clause with nominative object)

T[NOM] vP

DP[INH] v’

vIRR VP

V-i DP[NOM]

Seediq (Nuclear An, Atayalic; spoken in Taiwan)

(38) Wada ini burig-i na Ape ka patis na Awi.

PAST NEG buy-IRR GEN Ape NOM book GEN Awi

‘Ape did not buy Awi’s book.’

2 See also Starosta et al. (1981, 1982) for a proposal that *-i was an applicative reanalyzed from the preposition *i.

12

3.5. Subsequent Developments

Puyuma: Realis < subjunctive (via loss of subjunctive-introducing auxiliary)

Tsou: Retains embedded irrealis, which spread to realis

Nuclear An: Retains irrealis of PEAn; Realis < nominalization

4. Irrealis and Nominalization down the Family Tree

Formosan and Philippine languages preserve the realis (<nominalization) and irrealis dichotomy.

(39) Realis Irrealis (Cebuano)

mu- mu- Intransitive/Antipassive

-un -a Basic transitive, non-perfective

-an -i Locative applicative

i- i- Instrumental/benefactive applicative

Indonesian languages do not use erstwhile nominalizations as root clauses.

=> meN-V, di-V, objective voice < irrealis verbs

4.1. Modality and Extraction in Palauan

Extraction tied to realis (for subject) or irrealis (for object) mood

(40) Palauan subject agreement (realis) (Georgopoulos 1991:26)

SG PL

EXCL INCL

1 ak- aki- kede-

2 ke- kom-

3 ng- te-

(41) Palauan subject (irrealis) (Georgopoulos 1991:27)

SG PL

EXCL INCL

1 ku- kimo- do-

2 (‘o)m(o)-

3 l(e)-

(42) Direct object agreement (Georgopoulos 1985:62)

SG PL

EXCL INCL

1 -ak -emam -id

2 -au -emiu

3 -ii -terir

13

Realis vs. irrealis mood:

Palauan

(43) a. ak-mo er a katsudo

1.SG.REAL-go P movie

‘I am going to the movies.’ (Georgopoulos 1991:26)

b. ng-diak ku-nguiu er a hong

NEG 1.SG.IRR-read P book

‘I am not reading the book.’ (Georgopoulos 1991:27)

Palauan (Georgopoulos 1991:28)

(44) a. (ak-) me- ng- ‘uiu

1.SG.REAL- VM- IMPV- read

‘I am reading.’ (realis)

b. ku- ng- ‘uiu

1.SG.IRR- IMPV- read

‘I am reading.’ (irrealis)

Basic word order: VOS

Palauan (Georgopoulos 1985:64)

(45) ng-ulemengʔ er a ʔoʔ-il a bilis

3.SG.IMPRV-bite P foot-3.SG dog

‘The dog was biting its own foot.’

The verb is inflected for realis mood when the subject is extracted.

Palauan

(46) a. a sensei a omes er a rengalek

teacher REAL.IMPV.look P children

‘The teacher is looking at the children.’ (Georgopoulos 1991:84)

b. ng-te’a a kileld-ii a sub?

CL-who REAL.PRV.heat-3.SG soup

‘Who heated up the soup?’ (Georgopoulos 1991:88)

The verb is inflected for irrealis mood when a VP-internal DP is extracted.

Palauan

(47) a. a blaia le-silseb-ii a se’el-ik

house IRR-3.PRV.burn-3.SG friend-1.SG

‘My friend burned down the house.’ (Georgopoulos 1991:87)

b. ng-te’a a l-ulekod-ir a rubak

CL-who IRR-3.Perf.kill-3.SG old.man

‘Who did the old man kill?’ (Georgopoulos 1991:88)

14

Point: This is NOT WH-agreement with a case feature.

=> Palauan irrealis preserves the transitivity of PEAn irrealis.

Subject in realis clauses are nominative; they value case with C and can be attracted by the EPP

feature there.

(48) CP (Realis)

C[uϕ] vP

DP[NOM] v’

v VP

V DP

External arguments in irrealis clauses are not nominative (agreement < genitive paradigm).

Internal arguments undergo Agree with C.

(49) CP (Irrealis)

C[uϕ] vP

DP[INH] v’

v VP

V DP[NOM]

4.2. Extraction in Chamorro

Zobel (2002:411)

15

Realis transitive verbs in declarative clauses show agreement for number and person with the

subject.

Chamorro

(50) a. Ha-atan i taotao mansu i guaga’-na.

3SG.A-watch the man tame the fish.basket-Agr[3SG.GEN]

‘The tame man looked (in) his basket.’ (Chung 1998:21)

b. Hu-li’e’ i lepblo.

1SG.A-see ART book

‘I saw the book.’ (Zobel 2002:412-3)

Objects can be extracted directly in realis clauses.

=> Chung (1998) claims that this is “accusative agreement”, but it actually is just direct

extraction of the nominative object, equivalent to Indonesian “objective voice” and Palauan

irrealis.

(51) a. Hafa un-kakannu’ t ?

what 2SG.A-eat.PROG

‘What are you eating?’ (Chung 1998:239)

b. [i lepblu [Op ni ha-na’i hit si Juan t ]]

the book COMP 3SG.A-give us DET Juan

‘the book that Juan gave us’ (Chung 1998:239)

Alternatively, a nominalization can be used to extract an object.

=> Chung (1998) claims that this is a second type of “accusative agreement”, but actually this is

just extraction of an object over a genitive subject, equivalent to object extraction in a transitive

clause in Tagalog.

Chamorro

(52) a. Hafa k<in>annono’-mu t ?

what <IN>eat.PROG-1SG.GEN

‘What are you eating?’ (Chung 1998:237)

b. [[Op t<in>aitai-mu t ] na lepblu]

<IN>read-2SG.GEN LK book

‘the book that you read’ (Chung 1998:237)

External argument extraction requires <um>.

=> Chung (1998) claims that this is “nominative agreement”, but actually it is just subject

agreement with [uϕ] on C.

Chamorro

(53) a. Hayi f<um>a’gasi t i kareta?

who <UM>wash the car

‘Who washed the car?’ (Chung 1998:236)

16

b. [i taotao [Op ni f<um>a’gasi t i kareta-hu]]

the person C <UM>wash the car-1SG.GEN]

‘the man who washed my car’ (Chung 1998:236)

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation,

Cornell University.

Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative Approaches to Ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass:

Syntax and Morphology 2.5:966-995.

Aldridge, Edith. To appear. Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. Language

and Linguistics 17.1.

Aldridge, Edith. In press. A Minimalist Approach to the Emergence of Ergativity in

Austronesian Languages. Linguistics Vanguard.

Chang, Henry Y. 2011. Triadic encoding in Tsou. Language and Linguistics 12.4:799-843.

Chung, Sandra. 1998. The Design of Agreement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Georgopoulos, Carol. 1985. Variables in Palauan Syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory 3:59-94.

Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic Variables. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Harves, Stephanie (2002). ‘Genitive of Negation and the Syntax of Scope’, in M. van Koppen, E.

Thrift, E.J. van der Torre, M. Zimmerman (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE, 96-110.

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/hil/sole/

Hiietam, Katrin. 2004. Case Marking in Estonian Grammatical Relations. In Leeds Working

Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics. Vol. 10. University of Leeds

(http://www.leeds.ac.uk/linguistics/WPL/WPL.html)

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar:

Typological characteristics. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. by

Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110-181. New York: Routledge.

Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase Edge and Extraction: A Tagalog Case

Study. Linguistic Inquiry 36.4:565-599.

Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian Verbal Morphology: A reappraisal. In Alexander

Adelaar and Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History:

A festschrift for Robert Blust, 295-326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid (1981). ‘The Evolution of Focus in

Austronesian’, Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Austronesian

Linguistics, Bali.

Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The Evolution of Focus in

Austronesian. In Amram Halim, Lois Carrington, and S. A. Wurm (eds.), Third International

Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 145-170. Pacific Linguistics, C-75.

Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Puyuma. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Wolff, John U. 1966. Beginning Cebuano, part 1. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

Wolff, John U. 1972. A Dictionary of Cebuano Visayan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Southeast Asia

Program.

Zobel, Erik. 2002. The position of Chamorro and Palauan in the Austronesian family tree:

Evidence from verb morphosyntax. In Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The History and

Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, 405-434. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.