Symmetrical voice
Template:Short description Script error: No such module "Sidebar".
Symmetrical voice, also known as Austronesian alignment or the Austronesian focus system, is a typologically unusual kind of morphosyntactic alignment in which "one argument can be marked as having a special relationship to the verb".Template:Sfnp This special relationship manifests itself as a voice affix on the verb that corresponds to the syntactic role of a noun within the clause, that is either marked for a particular grammatical case or is found in a privileged structural position within the clause or both.
There are two alignment types of languages with symmetrical voice, the Philippine type which mostly retains the original system from Proto-Austronesian with four voices (or sometimes three), and the Indonesian type which reduced them into only two voices.[1]
The Philippine-type languages include languages of the Philippines, but is also found in Taiwan's Formosan languages, as well as in northern Borneo, northern Sulawesi, and Madagascar, and has been reconstructed for the ancestral Proto-Austronesian language. In the rest of the Malayo-Polynesian languages, including Proto-Oceanic, symmetrical voice was lost almost entirely.[2]
The number of voices differs from language to language. While the majority sampled have four voices, it is possible to have as few as two voices, and as many as six voices. In the examples below, the voice affix on the verb appears in red text, while the subject, which the affix selects, appears in underlined bold italics.
Terminology
The term Austronesian focus was widely used in early literature, but more scholars turn to the term voice recently because of the arguments against the term 'focus'.[3] On the other hand, Starosta argued that neither voice nor focus is correct and that it is a lexical derivation.[4]
Schachter (1987) proposed the word 'trigger', which has seen widespread use. As one source summarized, 'focus' and 'topic' do not mean what they mean in discourse (the essential piece of new information, and what is being talked about, respectively), but rather 'focus' is a kind of agreement, and the 'topic' is a noun phrase that agrees with the focus-marked verb. Thus using those terms for Austronesian/Philippine alignment is "misleading" and "it seems better to refer to this argument expression as the trigger, a term that reflects the fact that the semantic role of the argument in question triggers the choice of a verbal affix."[5]
Studies
A number of studies focused on the typological perspective of Austronesian voice system.[6][7] Some explored the semantic or pragmatic properties of Austronesian voice system.[8][9] Others contributed to the valence-changing morphology.[10]
Properties
Agreement with the semantic role of the subject
In languages that exhibit symmetrical voice, the voice affix on the main verb within the clause marks agreement with "the semantic role of the [subject]".[11]
For example, the Actor Voice affix may agree only with agent nominal phrases. (The asterisk means that the sentence is ungrammatical for the intended meaning.)
- Kapampangan
- Tagalog
The sentences in (b) are ungrammatical because the patient nominal phrase is marked as the subject, even though the verb bears the Actor Voice infix. The sentences in (c) are ungrammatical because, instead of the agent nominal phrase, the location nominal phrase is marked as the subject.
The patient voice affix may agree only with patient nominal phrases.
- Kapampangan
- Tagalog
The sentences in (b) are ungrammatical because the agent nominal phrase is marked as the subject, even though the verb bears the patient voice affix. The sentences in (c) are ungrammatical because, instead of the patient nominal phrase, the location nominal phrase is marked as the subject.
The locative voice affix may agree only with location nominal phrases.
- Kapampangan
- Tagalog
The sentences in (b) are ungrammatical because the agent nominal phrase is marked as the subject, even though the verb bears the locative voice affix. The sentences in (c) are ungrammatical because, instead of the location nominal phrase, the patient nominal phrase is marked as the subject.
Types of semantic roles
Across languages, the most common semantic roles with which the voice affixes may agree are agent, patient, location, instrument, and benefactee. In some languages, the voice affixes may also agree with semantic roles such as theme, goal, reason, and time. The set of semantic roles that may be borne by subjects in each language varies, and some affixes can agree with more than one semantic role.
Promotion direct to subject
Languages that have symmetrical voice do not have a process that promotes an oblique argument to direct object. Oblique arguments are promoted directly to subject.
- Tagalog
In the Tagalog examples above, the goal nominal phrase can either be an indirect object, as in (1), or a subject as in (2). However, it cannot become a direct object, or be marked with indirect case, as in (3). Verb forms, such as "nagpadalhan", which bear both an Actor Voice affix and a non-Actor Voice affix, do not exist in languages that have symmetrical voice.
The Tagalog examples contrast with the examples[12] from Indonesian below.
- Indonesian
In the Indonesian examples, the goal nominal phrase can be the indirect object, as in (4), and the subject, as in (5). However, unlike in Tagalog, the goal nominal phrase in Indonesian can be a direct object, as in (6). The preposition kepada disappears in the presence of the applicative suffix -i, and the goal nominal phrase moves from sentence-final position to some verb-adjacent position. In addition, they can behave like regular direct objects and undergo processes such as passivisation, as in (5).
Proto-Austronesian examples
The examples [13] below are in Proto-Austronesian. Asterisks indicate a linguistic reconstruction. The voice affix on the verb appears in red text, while the subject, which the affix selects, appears in underlined bold italics. Four voices have been reconstructed for Proto-Austronesian: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice and Instrument Voice.
- Proto-Austronesian
Formosan examples
The data below come from Formosan, a geographic grouping of all Austronesian languages that belong outside of Malayo-Polynesian. The Formosan languages are primarily spoken in Taiwan.
Amis
Amis[14] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Instrument Voice.
The direct case marker, which marks the subject in Amis, is ku.
Atayal
While they both have the same number of voices, the two dialects of Atayal presented below do differ in the shape of the circumstantial voice prefix. In Mayrinax, the circumstantial voice prefix is si-, whereas in Squliq, it is s-.
Mayrinax
Mayrinax[15] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial Voice prefix selects for benefactee and instrument subjects.
The direct case morpheme in Mayrinax is kuʔ.
Squliq
Squliq[16] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice prefix selects for benefactee and instrument subjects.
The direct case morpheme in Squliq is qu’.
Hla’alua
Hla’alua[17][18] has three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice suffix selects for location and theme subjects.
While bound pronouns have a direct case form, nouns do not bear a special direct case marker for subjects in Hla’alua.
Kanakanavu[19] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Instrument Voice.
The direct case morpheme, which optionally marks the subject in Kanakanavu, is sua.
Kavalan
Kavalan[20] has three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice prefix selects for instrument and benefactee subjects.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Kavalan, is ya.
Paiwan
Paiwan[21] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Instrument Voice.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Paiwan, is a.
Pazeh
Pazeh,[22] which became extinct in 2010, had four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Instrument Voice.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Pazeh, is ki.
Puyuma
Puyuma[23] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice suffix selects for benefactee and instrument subjects.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Puyuma, is na or i.
Seediq
The two dialects of Seediq presented below each have a different number of voices. The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in both dialects, is ka.
Tgdaya
Tgdaya[24] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice and Instrument Voice.
Truku
Truku[25] has three voices: Actor Voice, Goal Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The goal voice suffix selects for patient and location subjects. The circumstantial voice prefix selects for benefactee and instrument subjects.
Tsou
Tsou[26] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Benefactive Voice. In addition to the voice morphology on the main verb, auxiliary verbs in Tsou, which are obligatory in the sentence,[27] are also marked for voice. However, auxiliaries only differentiate between Actor Voice and non-Actor Voice[28] (in green text).
The direct case morpheme, which marks subjects in Tsou, is ’o.
Batanic examples
The data below come from the Batanic languages, a subgroup under Malayo-Polynesian. These languages are spoken on the islands found in the Luzon Strait, between Taiwan and the Philippines.
Ivatan
Ivatan[29][30] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice prefix selects for instrument and benefactee subjects.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Ivatan, is qo.
Yami
Yami[31] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Instrument Voice.
The direct case morpheme, which marks subjects in Yami, is si for proper names, and o for common nouns.
Philippine examples
The data below come from Philippine languages, a subgroup under Malayo-Polynesian, predominantly spoken across the Philippines, with some found on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia.
Blaan
Blaan[32][33][34] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Instrument Voice, and Non-Actor Voice.
The non-Actor Voice affix selects for patient and location subjects, depending on the inherent voice of the verb.
| Agent Prefocus Base[35] | Patient Prefocus Base[36] | Instrument Prefocus Base[37] | |||
| (1) | Template:Interlinear | (1) | Template:Interlinear | (1) | Template:Interlinear |
| (2) | Template:Interlinear | (2) | Template:Interlinear | (2) | Template:Interlinear |
| (3) | Template:Interlinear | (3) | Template:Interlinear | (3) | Template:Interlinear |
Cebuano
Cebuano[38] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Circumstantial Voice, and Instrument Voice.
The circumstantial voice suffix selects for location, benefactee and goal subjects.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Cebuano, is ang or si.
Kalagan
Kalagan[39] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Instrument Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice suffix selects for benefactee and location subjects.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Kalagan, is ya. The direct case form of the first person, singular pronoun is aku, whereas the ergative case form is ku.
Kapampangan
Kapampangan[40] has five voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Goal Voice, Locative Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice prefix selects for instrument and benefactee subjects.
The direct case morpheme in Kapampangan is ing, which marks singular subjects, and reng, which is for plural subjects. Non-subject agents are marked with ergative case, ning, while non-subject patients are marked with accusative case, -ng, which is cliticized onto the preceding word.[41]
Limos Kalinga
Limos Kalinga[42] has five voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, Benefactive Voice and Instrument Voice.
Except for when the subject is the agent, the subject is found directly after the agent in the clause.
Maranao
Maranao[43] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Circumstantial Voice, and Instrument Voice.
The circumstantial suffix selects for benefactee and location subjects.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Maranao, is so.
Palawan
Palawan[44] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Instrument Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice suffix selects for benefactee and location subjects.
Subanen
Subanen[45] has three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The examples below are from Western Subanon, and the direct case morpheme in this language is og.
Tagalog
Tagalog has six voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, Benefactive Voice, Instrument Voice, and Reason Voice.
The locative voice suffix selects for location and goal subjects. (In the examples below, the goal subject and the benefactee subject are the same noun phrase.)
The reason voice prefix can only be affixed to certain roots, the majority of which are for emotion verbs (e.g., galit "be angry", sindak "be shocked"). However, verb roots such as matay "die", sakit "get sick", and iyak "cry" may also be marked with the reason voice prefix.
The direct case morpheme, which marks subjects in Tagalog, is ang. The indirect case morpheme, ng /naŋ/, which is the conflation of the ergative and accusative cases seen in Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, marks non-subject agents and non-subject patients.
Tondano
Tondano[46] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Locative Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial Voice selects for instrument, benefactee, and theme subjects.
The subject is found in sentence-initial position, before the verb.
North Bornean examples
The data below come from North Bornean languages, a grouping under Malayo-Polynesian, mainly spoken on the northern parts of Borneo, spanning administrative areas of Malaysia and Indonesia.
Bonggi
Bonggi[47][48] has four voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Instrumental Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice suffix selects for benefactee and goal subjects.
The subject is found in sentence-initial position, before the verb.
Kadazan Dusun
Kadazan DusunTemplate:Sfnp has three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice and Benefactive Voice.
The direct case morpheme, which marks the subject in Kadazan Dusun, is i.
Kelabit
KelabitTemplate:Sfnp has three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice and Instrument Voice.
Unlike other languages presented here, Kelabit does not use case-marking or word-ordering strategies to indicate the subject of the clause.[49] However, certain syntactic processes, such as relativization, target the subject. Relativizing non-subjects results in ungrammatical sentences.Template:Sfnp
Kimaragang
Kimaragang[50] has five voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Benefactive Voice, Instrument Voice and Locative Voice.
Only intransitive verbs can be marked with the locative voice suffix,[51] which looks similar to the patient voice suffix.[52]
The direct case marker, which marks the subject in Kimaragang, is it for definite nouns and ot for indefinite nouns.
Timugon Murut
Timugon Murut[53] has five voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, Benefactive Voice, Instrument Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
There is no direct case marker to mark subjects in Timugon Murut. However, non-subject agents are marked with the ergative case marker, du, while non-subject non-agents are marked with the oblique case marker, da.
Malayic examples
The data below come from Malayic languages, a subgroup under Malayo-Polynesian, traditionally spoken on parts of Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, Borneo, and the islands between.
Besemah
Besemah (a dialect of South Barisan Malay spoken in southwestern Sumatra)[54] has two voices: Agentive Voice and Patientive Voice.
Indonesian
IndonesianTemplate:Sfn has two voices: Actor Voice and Undergoer Voice. Template:Interlinear
Barito examples
The data below represent the Barito languages, and are from a language spoken on Madagascar, off the east coast of Africa. Other languages from Barito are spoken in Indonesia and the Philippines.
Malagasy
Malagasy[55] has three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The circumstantial voice suffix selects for instrument and benefactee subjects.
Malagasy does not have a direct case marker. However, the subject is found in sentence-final position.
Non-Austronesian examples
Alignment types resembling symmetrical voice have been observed in non-Austronesian languages.
Nilotic
The Nilotic languages are a group of languages spoken in the eastern part of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Dinka
Dinka is a dialect continuum spoken in South Sudan. The two dialects presented below each have a maximum of three voices.
Agar
Andersen (1991) suggests that Agar exhibits symmetrical voice. This language has a maximum of three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, and Circumstantial Voice. The subject is found in sentence-initial position, before the verb. The non-finite form of the verb found in the examples[56] below is yḛ̂ep "cut".
However, the number of voice morphemes available in this language is reduced to two when the agent is a full noun (i.e., not a pronoun), such as in the examples[57] below. In (5a), where the subject is a patient, and the agent is not a pronoun, the verb is marked with Circumstantial Voice. Compare to (2) above, in which the agent is pronominal, and the verb is marked with patient voice morpheme, Template:Text color.
Bor
Van Urk (2015) suggests that Bor exhibits symmetrical voice. This language has three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The subject is found in sentence-initial position, before the verb. The non-finite form of the verb found in the examples[58] below is câam "eat".
Kurmuk
Andersen (2015) suggests that Kurmuk, which is spoken in Sudan, has a construction that resembles symmetrical voice. This language has three voices: Actor Voice, Patient Voice, and Circumstantial Voice.
The subject in the examples[59] below is found in sentence-initial position, before the verb.
Notes
Glosses
Here is a list of the abbreviations used in the glosses:
1 first person Template:Sc definite Template:Sc ligature Template:Sc realis mood 2 second person Template:Sc determiner Template:Sc locative voice Template:Sc reason voice 3 third person Template:Sc direct case Template:Sc masculine Template:Sc singular Template:Sc accusative case Template:Sc ergative case Template:Sc non-actor voice Template:Sc transitive Template:Sc animate Template:Sc feminine Template:Sc nominalizer Template:Sc morpheme of unknown semantics Template:Sc aspect Template:Sc genitive case Template:Sc nominative case Template:Sc actor voice Template:Sc goal voice Template:Sc oblique case Template:Sc auxiliary verb Template:Sc inanimate Template:Sc plural Template:Sc benefactive voice Template:Sc indirect case Template:Sc preposition Template:Sc circumstantial voice Template:Sc indefinite Template:Sc past tense Template:Sc declarative Template:Sc instrument voice Template:Sc patient voice
Endnotes
References
- Abrams, N. 1970. "Bilaan Morphology". Papers in Philippine Linguistics No.3 A-24:1-62.
- Aldridge, Edith. 2015. "A Minimalist Approach to the Emergence of Ergativity in Austronesian Languages". Linguistics Vanguard 1(1):313-326.
- Andersen, Torben. 1991. "Subject and Topic in Dinka". Studies in Language 15(2):265-294.
- Andersen, Torben. 2015. "Syntacticized topics in Kurmuk: A ternary voice-like system in Nilotic". Studies in Language 39(3):508-554.
- Bell, Sarah Johanna. 1976. Cebuano Subjects in Two Frameworks. PhD dissertation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Boutin, Michael E. 2002. "Nominative and genitive case alternations in Bonggi". The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems. eds. Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, pp 209-239. Pacific Linguistics 518. Canberra: Australian National University.
- Cauquelin, Josiane. 1991. "The Puyuma Language". Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 147(1):17-60.
- Estioca, Sharon Joy. 2020. A Grammar of Western Subanon. PhD Dissertation: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.
- Ferreirinho, Naomi. 1993. Selected Topics in the Grammar of Limos Kalinga, the Philippines. Pacific Linguistics B-109. Canberra: Australian National University.
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Huang, Stacy Wan Tin. 2014. "Tao Voice Affixes: Derivation or Inflection or Both?". Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages: papers from 12-ICAL, Volume 2. eds. I.W. Arka and N.L.K.M. Indrawati, pp 175-195. Asia-Pacific Linguistics 013 / Studies on Austronesian languages 002. Canberra: Australian National University. [1]
- Huang, Huei-ju and Shuanfan Huang. 2007. "Lexical Perspectives on Voice Constructions in Tsou". Oceanic Linguistics 46.2:424-455.
- Kroeger, Paul R. 2005. "Kimaragang". The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. eds. K.A. Adelaar and N. Himmelmann, pp 397–428. New York: Routledge.
- Kroeger, Paul R. 2010. "The Grammar of hitting, breaking, and cutting in Kimaragang Dusun". Oceanic Linguistics 49.1:1-20.
- Kroeger, Paul. 2017. "Frustration, culmination, and inertia in Kimaragang grammar". Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1):56, 1-29.
- Kuo, Jonathan Cheng-Chuen. 2015. Argument Alternation and Argument Structure in Symmetrical Voice Languages: A case study of transfer verbs in Amis, Puyuma, and Seediq. PhD Dissertation: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.
- Lee, Wei-Wei. 2016. The Expression and Conceptualization of Time in Kavalan (Austronesian, Taiwan). MA thesis: Universiteit Leiden.
- Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2000. "Some Aspects of Pazeh Syntax". Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 29:89-108.
- Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2002. "Nominalization in Pazih". Language and Linguistics 3.2:227-239.
- Liu, (Adlay) Kun-Long. 2017. Syntactic Interactions with Information Structure in Squliq Atayal. PhD dissertation: Australian National University.
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Liu, Dorinda Tsai-hsiu. 2014. "Neutral and Imperfective Forms in Kanakanavu". Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages: papers from 12-ICAL, Volume 2. eds. I.W. Arka and N.L.K.M. Indrawati, pp 175-195. Asia-Pacific Linguistics 013 / Studies on Austronesian languages 002. Canberra: Australian National University. [2]
- McKaughan, Howard. 1962. "Overt Relation Markers in Maranao". Language 38.1:47-51.
- McKaughan, H. 1970. "Topicalization in Maranao - an addendum". Pacific linguistic studies in honour of Arthur Capell. eds. S.A. Wurm, and D.C. Laycock, pp 291-300. Pacific Linguistics C-13. Canberra: Australian National University.
- Mirikitani, Leatrice T. 1972. Kapampangan Syntax. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication, 10. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
- Pan, Chia-jung. 2012. A Grammar of Lha’alua, an Austronesian Language of Taiwan. PhD dissertation: James Cook University.
- Pearson, Matt. 2005. "Voice morphology, case, and argument structure in Malagasy". Proceedings of AFLA 11. ed. P. Law, pp 229-243. Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin.
- Prentice, D.J. 1965. "Form and Function in the Verbs of Sabah Murut: A Preliminary Analysis". Oceanic Linguistics 4.1/2:127-156.
- Reid, Lawrence Andrew. 1966. An Ivatan Syntax. PhD dissertation: University of Hawai'i.
- Ross, Malcolm. 2002. "The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking". The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems. eds. Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, pp 17-62. Pacific Linguistics 518. Canberra: Australian National University.
- Ross, Malcolm and Stacy Fang-ching Teng. 2005. "Formosan Languages and Linguistic Typology". Language and Linguistics 6.4:739-781.
- Schachter, Paul and Fé T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Shiohara, Asako. 2012. "Applicatives in Standard Indonesian". Objectivization and Subjectivization: A Typology of Voice Systems. eds. W. Nakamura and R. Kikusawa, pp 59-76. Senri Ethnological Studies 77. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
- Sneddon, J.N. 1970. "The languages of Minahasa, North Celebes". Oceanic Linguistics 9:11-36.
- Sneddon, J.N. 1975. Tondano phonology and grammar. Pacific Linguistics B-38. Canberra: Australian National University.
- Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner Aspect: the articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Tryon, Darrell T. 1994. "The Austronesian Languages". Comparative Austronesian dictionary: An introduction to Austronesian studies. ed. D.T. Tryon, pp 5-45. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Tsukida, Naomi. 2012. "Goal Voice and Conveyance Voice of Seediq". Objectivization and Subjectivization: A Typology of Voice Systems. eds. W. Nakamura and R. Kikusawa, pp 77-95. Senri Ethnological Studies 77. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
- van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. PhD dissertation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2005. "Tsou". The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. eds. K.A. Adelaar and N. Himmelmann, pp 259-290. New York: Routledge.
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Beguš, Gašper. (2016). "The Origins of the Voice/Focus System in Austronesian". Presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS42).
- ↑ Himmelmann, N. P. (2002). Voice in western Austronesian: An update. In F. Wouk & M. Ross (Eds.), The History and Typology of western Austronesian voice systems (pp. 7-15). Canberra, ACT: Australian National University.
- ↑ Starosta, Stanley. (2002). Austronesian ‘Focus’ as Derivation: Evidence from Nominalization. Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 427-479.
- ↑ Masumi Katagiri (2020) 'Tagalog'. In Tasaku Tsunoda (ed.) Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction with Biclausal Appearance. De Gruyter. P. 786.
- ↑ Hemmings, Charlotte. (2015). Kelabit Voice: Philippine‐Type, Indonesian‐Type or Something a Bit Different? Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 383-405.
- ↑ Liao, Liao, H. C. (2011). Some morphosyntactic differences between Formosan and Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics, 12(4), 845-876.
- ↑ Kroeger, Paul. (2007). Morphosyntactic vs. morphosemantic functions of Indonesian –kan. In A. Zaenen et al. (Eds.), Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes of Joan Bresnan (pp. 229-251).
- ↑ Huang, Shuan-fan. (2002). The pragmatics of focus in Tsou and Seediq. Language and Linguistics, 3(4), 665-694.
- ↑ Fortin, Catherine. (2003). Syntactic and Semantic Valence: Morphosyntactic Evidence from Minangkabau. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 29).
- ↑ Ross (2002, p. 20)
- ↑ Taken from Shiohara (2012)'s examples in (4a-b) on page 60, and in (12) on page 63. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Blust (2013)'s Table 7.2 on page 439. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Liu (2011)'s examples in (2.5) on page 27. Glosses and translation modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Liu (2011)'s examples in (2.30) on page 44. Glosses and translation modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Liu (2017)'s examples in (52) to (56). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Pan (2012)'s examples in (3.16b), (3.23a), (3.32d) and (3.33a). Glosses and translation modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ The orthography used in this subsection does not conform to the orthography used in Pan (2012) with respect to the consonant /ɬ/. Whereas Pan (2012) represents this sound as ‹lh›, this sound is represented here as ‹hl› (Pan (2012; page 50)).
- ↑ Taken from Liu (2014)'s examples in (5a), (5c), (17a), and (20a). Glosses and translation modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Lee (2016)'s examples in (24), and (25). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Ross and Teng (2005)'s examples in (2). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Li (2000)'s examples in (22), (39), and (58), and Li (2002)'s example in (15). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Aldridge (2015)'s examples in (7), and Cauquelin (1991)'s example on page 44. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Kuo (2015)'s examples in (2.1) on page 14. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Tsukida (2012)'s examples in (3). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Huang and Huang (2007)'s examples in III in the Appendix, pages 449-450. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Zeitoun (2005), page 266
- ↑ Zeitoun (2005), page 267 ("actor voice" and "undergoer voice", respectively, in her terminology).
- ↑ Taken from Reid (1966)'s examples on pages 26 and 27. Glosses and translation modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ The orthography used for the data here reflects the transcription system used by Reid (1966). It seems that, from the Wikipedia article on Ivatan, this may not be the actual spelling system that the speakers of this language use. The sound represented by ‹q› is /ʔ/.
- ↑ Taken from Huang (2014)'s examples in (3a-d) on page 251. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Abrams (1970)'s examples on page 2. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Abrams (1970, pages 1-2) indicates that Blaan verbs are classified into three types of prefocus bases, each of which has an inherent voice without bearing any voice affixes. An agent prefocus base is a bare verb that is inherently in Actor Voice voice. A patient prefocus base is inherently in patient voice, and an instrument prefocus base is inherently in instrument voice.
- ↑ Blaan has two morphemes which, when attached to a prefocus base, change the inherent voice of the base. These morphemes are the Actor Voice affix, m-/-am-, and the non-Actor Voice affix, n-/-an- ("subject focus" and "non-subject focus" in Abrams (1970, page 1)'s terminology, respectively).
- ↑ Abrams (1970, page 2) has not found many examples of an agent prefocus base taking either of the voice-changing morphemes. However, in that rare example in which an agent prefocus base does, both voice-changing morphemes transitivize the intransitive agent prefocus base. In addition, the Actor Voice affix keeps the base in Actor Voice voice, while the non-Actor Voice affix changes the voice of the base to non-Actor Voice voice, and allows for the selection of a patient subject.
- ↑ Without any voice-changing morphemes, patient prefocus bases take patient subjects. The Actor Voice affix changes the voice of the base to Actor Voice voice, allowing the verb to take an agent subject. The non-Actor Voice affix allows a patient prefocus base to take location subjects.
- ↑ The Actor Voice affix changes the inherent instrument voice of the base to Actor Voice voice, whereas the non-Actor Voice affix changes the voice to non-Actor Voice voice, and allows for the selection of a patient subject.
- ↑ Taken from Bell (1976)'s examples on pages 8, 9, and 11. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Travis (2010)'s examples in (46) on page 42. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Mirikitani (1972)'s examples in (64), (95), (96), (100), (101) and (106). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ In the examples, the word to which the accusative case marker attaches is a pronoun or portmanteau pronoun that is obligatorily present in the same clause as the noun with which it is co-referential. In sentences with an Actor Voice, the pronoun co-refers with the agent subject. In sentences with a non-Actor Voice, the portmanteau pronoun co-refers with both the ergative agent and the non-agent subject, which is marked with direct case.
- ↑ Taken from Ferreirinho (1993)'s examples in (100), (245), (246), (247) and (248). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from McKaughan (1962)'s examples on pages 48 and 50, and from McKaughan (1970)'s example in (4). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Tryon (1994)'s examples on pages 35 and 36. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Estioca (2020)'s examples on page 123. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Sneddon (1970)'s examples on page 13, and from Sneddon (1975)'s examples on pages 63 and 66. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Boutin (2002)'s examples in (3), and (4) on page 211, (6) and (7) on page 212, and in (44) on page 222. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Boutin (2002; pp. 211-212) presents other voice-related data. However, because these are periphrastic constructions, they are of no interest for the purposes of this Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Hemmings (2016) presents examples in which the subject in patient voice appears before the verb, and in which the subject in Actor Voice voice appears after the verb
- ↑ Taken from Kroeger (2005)'s examples in (20a-c), page 405, and from Kroeger (2017)'s examples in (5), (6a) and (7). The orthography used here conforms to the orthography used in Kroeger (2017). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Kroeger (2017), page 5.
- ↑ According to Kroeger (2005; page 415, table (45)), the patient voice suffix has two allomorphs, -on and -∅. The former occurs in non-past contexts, whereas the latter in past contexts. The locative voice suffix does not exhibit such allomorphy, and can appear in both past and non-past contexts.
- ↑ Taken from Prentice (1965)'s examples on pages 130 and 131. Glosses and translations for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Template:Cite thesis
- ↑ Taken from Pearson (2005)'s examples in (2) and (10c). Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Andersen (1991)'s example (74) on page 286. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Andersen (1991)'s example (71) on page 285. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from van Urk (2015)'s example (2) on page 61. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.
- ↑ Taken from Andersen (2015)'s example (1) on page 510. Glosses and translations modified for the Wikipedia article.