Peter Cole and Gabriella Hermon, University of Delaware

The Syntax of Indonesian-type Languages from a Generative Perspective

Voice in Malay/Indonesian

KUINLI
st
August 21 , 2016 , 12:30-14:15

I. Purpose
• Compare the voice system in Standard Malay/Indonesian (SI) with that
found in several regional dialects of Malay/Indonesian.

• Three voices: an active voice marked on the verb by a phonologically

determined variant of the prefix meng-, a passive voice marked by the
prefix di- and an object voice (OV) in which the verb appears as a bare
stem.

• The pattern seen in Standard Malay/Indonesian (SI) is essentially the same

as the voice system widely believed to be found in other “Indonesian-type”
Western Austronesian languages like Javanese and Balinese.

• We shall see that the voice systems found in a variety of colloquial dialects
of Malay/Indonesian display varying degrees of deviation from the SI
system.

• Voice in Philippine-type and Indonesian-type languages provides strong

support for the explanatory power of a phase based theory of movement.
Rather than employing a parameter based approach, we propose a
morphological constraint (as discussed in Cole, Hermon and Yanti 2008).
•

II. Standard Malay/Indonesian

• Three voices are found in SI (MacDonald and Darjowidjojo 1967, Chung
1976, Sneddon 1996, inter alia).

• Active voice on the verb is marked by one of the phonologically conditioned

variants of the prefix meng:

(1) Tono membeli buku di toko buku.

Tono MENG-buy book LOC store book
‘Tono bought a book at the bookstore.’

(2) *Tono beli buku di toko buku.

Tono buy book LOC store book
‘Tono bought a book at the bookstore.’

A brief overview of argument structure and extraction options:

Arguments are obligatory (except for “pro drop”):

(3) *Tono membeli Ø di toko buku.

Tono MENG-buy LOC store book
‘Tono bought at the book store.’

(4) * Ø membeli buku di toko buku.

MENG-buy book LOC store book
‘Bought a book at the book store.’

The only argument that can be extracted is the subject:

(5) a. Siti pikir Tono membeli buku di toko buku.

Siti think Tono MENG-buy book LOC store book
‘Siti thinks Tono bought a book at the book store.’

b. Tono, Siti pikir, t membeli buku di toko buku.

Tono Siti think MENG-buy book LOC store book
‘Tono, Siti thinks bought a book at the book store.’

(6) * Buku, Siti pikir [Tono membeli t di toko buku.]

book Siti think Tono MENG-buy LOC store book
‘A book, Siti thinks Tono bought at the book store.

(7) Siapa yang Siti pikir [ t membeli buku di toko buku]?

who that Siti think MENG-buy book LOC store book
‘Who does Siti think bought a book at the book store?’

(8) *Apa yang Siti pikir [Tono membeli t di toko buku]?

what that Siti think Tono MENG-buy LOC store book
‘What does Siti think Tono bought at the book store?’

In contrast, adjuncts can be extracted (and they can even be extracted long distance,
see Cole and Hermon 2000):

(9) Kapan Ali memukul Ahmad t ?

when Ali MENG-hit Ahmad
‘When did Ali hit Ahmad?’

(10) Di mana Ali memukul Ahmad t ?

LOC which Ali MENG-hit Ahmad
‘Where did Ali hit Ahmad?’

(11) Mengapa Ali memukul Ahmad t ?

why Ali MENG-hit Ahmad
‘Why did Ali hit Ahmad?’

2
 • In the object voice
o the verb appears in bare stem form
o the patient is the surface subject, appearing typically in clause initial
position
o the agent is found immediately to the left of the verb
o the agent is preceded by negation and auxiliaries:

(12) a. Topi ini sudah saya beli t .

hat this PFCT 1SG buy
‘This hat has been bought by me.’

b. Kue ini tidak saya makan t .

cake this not 1SG eat
‘This cake was not eaten by me.’

c. Kamar itu belum saya lihat t .

room that not.yet 1SG see
‘That room has not been seen by me.’

(13) a. *Topi ini saya sudah beli t .

hat this 1SG PFCT buy
‘This hat has been bought by me.’

b. *Tidak kue ini saya makan t .

not cake this 1SG eat
‘This cake was not eaten by me.’

c. *Kamar itu saya lihat belum t .

room that 1SG see not.yet
‘That room has not been seen by him.’

The patient is the superficial subject of the embedded clause:

(14) Mereka anggap (bahwa) buku ini sudah saya baca.

3PL believe that book this PFCT 1SG read
‘They believe (that) this book, I have read.’

(15) Buku ini di-anggap (oleh) mereka sudah saya baca.

book this PASS-believe by 3PL PFCT 1SG read
‘This book is believed by them to have been read by me.’

• In the object voice the agent is an argument. (Alsagoff (1992), Guilfoyle,

Hung and Travis (1992), inter alia)

• The linear position of the agent after auxiliaries and negation and before the
verb suggests that its surface position is Spec of vP, the position in which
agent arguments would be expected to be generated:

3
(16) [TP buku ini [tidak [akan [vP saya [VP baca t ]]]]]
book this not will 1SG read
‘This book won’t be read by me.’

(16’) TP

NP T’

Buku ini T Neg P

Neg ‘

Neg AdvP
tidak

Adv,

Adv vP
akan
NP v’
saya

v VP

baca t

• The agent is obligatory, suggesting that it is an argument rather than an

adjunct.

• Agents in the object voice can antecede a reflexive surface subject (the
patient), Arka and Manning (1998).

(17) Dirimu mesti [vP kamu serahkan ke polisi].

self-2 must 2SG surrender-APPL to police
'Yourself must be surrendered (by you) to the police.'

4
(17’) TP

NP T’

dirimu T AdvP

Adv,

Adv vP
mesti
NP v’
kamu
v VP
∅
OV V’

V NP
serahkan
ti

• The agent in the object voice is an argument, presumably generated in spec of

vP.
(spec or adjoined positions of XPs may be indetical in the MP framework)

• The only argument that can be extracted is the surface subject:

(19) a. Buku ini akan siapa lihat?

book this will who see
‘Who will see this book?’

b. *Siapa yang buku ini akan lihat?

who that book this will see
‘Who will see this book?’

c. Apa yang akan kamu lihat?

what that will 2SG see
‘What will you see?’

(20) a. Bunga-bunga itu sudah siapa kagum-i?

RED-flower that PFCT who admire-APPL
‘Who has admired the flowers?’

b. *Siapa bunga-bunga itu sudah kagum-i

who RED-flower that PFCT admire-APPL

5
 ‘Who has admired the flowers?’

c. Apa yang sudah anak yang pake baju merah kagum-i?

what that PFCT child that wear shirt red admire-APPL
‘What has the child in red shirt admired?’

Passive:
• This voice is formed by prefixing di- to the verb stem.
• The patient appears as the surface subject.
• The agent is postverbal.
• The passive voice marker di- is in complementary distribution with the active
voice marker MENG-.

(21) a. Ahmad di-pukul ((oleh) Ali).

Ahmad PASS-hit by Ali
‘Ahmad was hit (by Ali).’

b. *Ahmad di-memukul (oleh) Ali.

Ahmad PASS-MENG.hit by Ali

c. *Ahmad mendi-pukul (oleh) Ali.

Ahmad MENG.PASS-hit by Ali

(22) Kue ini di-makan ((oleh) Arna).

cake this PASS-eat (by Arna)
‘This cake was eaten (by Arna).’

The presence of oleh is obligatory when the agent is not immediately adjacent to the
verb:

(23) a. Kami di-beri sebungkus coklat oleh ibu-nya.

1PL PASS-give a.pack chocolate by mother-3
‘We were given a pack of chocolate by his mother.’

b. *Kami di-beri sebungkus coklat ibu-nya.

1PL PASS-give a.pack chocolate mother-3
‘We were given a pack of chocolate by his mother.’

(24) a. Tas yang ada di meja ini telah di-ambil oleh Amir.
bag that exist LOC table this PFCT PASS-take by Amir
‘The bag which was on this table has been taken by Amir.’

b. Tas yang ada di meja ini telah di-ambil Amir.

bag that exist LOC table this PFCT PASS-take Amir
‘The bag which was on this table has been taken by Amir.’

6
The agent in di- passives cannot be the antecedent for a reflexive in subject position.
(Arka & Manning 1998)

(25) a. ?*Diri-nya di-serahkan ke polisi oleh Amir

self-3 PASS-surrender-APPL to police by Amir
‘Himself was surrendered to the police by Amir.’

b. ??Diri-nya di-ajukan sebagai calon oleh Amir

self-3 PASS-nominate-APPL as candidate by Amir
‘Self was nominated as a candidate by Amir.’

(26) a. *Diri-nya tidak di-perhatikan Amir

self-3 not PASS-care-APPL Amir
'Himself was not taken care by Amir.'

b. * Dirinya selalu di-utamakan Amir

self-3 always PASS-prioritise-APPL Amir
’Himself was not given prority by Amir.'

Only the surface subject can be extracted:

(27) a. Extraction of Passive Subject

Siapa yang selalu di-beri-kan makanan sehat oleh ibu-nya?
who that always PASS-give-APPL food healthy by mother-3
‘Who is always given healthy food by his mother?

b. Extraction of Passive Agent

*Siapa yang anak itu selalu di-beri-kan makanan sehat oleh?
who that child that always PASS-give-APPL food healthy by
‘By whom is the child always given healthy food?

c. WH in Situ of Theme in Ditransitive

Anak itu selalu di-beri-kan apa oleh ibu-nya?
child that always PASS-give-APPL what by mother-3
‘What is always given to the child by his mother?’

d. Extraction of Theme in Ditransitive

*Apa (yang) anak itu selalu di-beri-kan oleh ibu-nya?
what that child that always PASS-give-APPL by mother-3
‘What is always given to the child by his mother?’

• The facts of SI are amenable to a modified “Philippine-type” analysis.

• A currently popular one is the phase edge analysis along the lines suggested
by Rackowski and Richards for Tagalog.

7
 We will not go into details here, but such analyses try to model the fact that in
Philippine-type voice systems, the agent is not “demoted” to adjunct in passive-
like constructions.

• In modeling Philippine-type systems, the goal is to account for the extraction

facts without positing extraction of arguments from any position other than
subject position.

• This approach to apparent object relativization, which we shall refer to as the

object voice analysis, makes certain clear predictions.

• In the object voice the agent always occurs to the right of negation and
auxiliaries.

• This is the neutral word order and does not imply focus on the
auxiliaries/negation

(28) a. Buku ini tidak akan kami baca.

book this not will 1PL read
‘This book will not be read by us.’

b. *Buku ini kami tidak akan baca.

book this 1PL not will read
‘This book will not be read by us.’

• This is in contrast to the active, in which the agent typically occurs to the left
of negation and auxiliaries
• Negation/auxiliaries only occur to the left of the agent in the active if they are
focused

(29) Active
Kami tidak akan membaca buku ini.
1PL not will MENG-read book this
‘We will not read this book.’

(30) Active (* if negation/auxiliaries are not focused)

*Tidak akan kami membaca buku ini.
not will 1PL MENG-read book this
‘We will not read this book.’

This is also in contrast to the passive, in which the agent occurs postverbally and the
passive subject precedes negation and auxiliaries in the neutral word order:

(31) Passive
Buku ini tidak akan di-baca (oleh) Siti.

8
 book this not will PASS-read by Siti
‘This book will not be read by Siti.’

(32) Passive
*Tidak akan buku ini di-baca (oleh) Siti.
not will book this PASS-read by Siti
‘This book will not be read by Siti.’

Relativization on object position:

• In apparent object relativization, the order of elements expected is that seen in
an object voice source, and not the order seen in relativization from an active
source
• Negation/auxiliaries precede agent
• Negation/auxiliaries cannot follow agent

(33) a. [Buku [yang tidak akan kami baca]] sangat menarik.

book that not will 1PL read very interesting
‘The book that we will not read is very interesting.’

b. *[Buku [yang kami tidak akan baca]] sangat menarik.

book that 1PL not will read very interesting
‘The book that we will not read is very interesting.’

(34) a. [Anak [yang tidak aku pukul-i] itu menangis.

child that not 1SG hit-APPL that cry
‘The child that I didn't hit is crying.’

b. *[Anak [yang aku tidak pukul-i] itu menangis.

child that 1SG not hit-APPL that cry
‘The child that I didn't hit is crying.’

9
 Summary SI
• Active
o obligatory nasal prefix (MENG-)
o neutral order of agent-neg/aux-MENG-verb
o agent = subject can also follow VP
• Passive
o di- prefix on verb
o prefix in complementary distribution with MENG-
o neutral word order of patient-neg/aux-di-verb-agent
o patient = subject can also follow VP
o agent optional
o optional preposition preceding agent
• Object Voice
o neutral order of patient-neg/aux-agent-bare verb
o position of neg/aux-agent-bare verb fixed
o patient = subject can also follow VP
o agent obligatory (excepting “pro-drop”)
• Extraction
o only subject arguments can be extracted
o apparent object extraction shows object voice word order
o There is no need for a constraint against extraction over a nasal
prefix verb. This follows from the overall system.

V. Regional Dialects of Malay/Indonesian

• Problem:
o Is SI a natural language or simply the result of language planning?
• Solution:
o Look at “real” dialects of Malay/Indonesian and see what voice
systems they instantiate.
o Do any dialects have a system like that of SI?
o What systems do we find?

10
 • Results in a nutshell:
o There are dialects that are very similar to SI
o Many dialects show a breakdown of the SI voice system
o The breakdown is most extreme in one contact variety of
Malay/Indonesian (a subdialect of Kuching Malay)
o Considerable breakdown is also found in some traditional dialects
o Effects seemingly due to single, coherent system in SI must have
idiosyncratic explanation when they persist in resultant systems
o Idiosyncratic features are subject to loss.

• Characteristics of Traditional Malay Dialects

o Presumably unbroken chain of speakers back to protolanguage
o This does not mean no substrate/superstrate influences
o Spoken in “Malay heartland” (Sumatra, Borneo)

• Contact varieties
o No unbroken chain of speakers back to protolanguage
o Formed by contact among speakers of various languages who used
Malay for inter-communal communication

• Traditional Malay Dialects

o Sarolangun Malay
o Sarang Lan Malay (not discussed in this handout)
o Melayu Balai Berkuak (not discussed in this handout)
o Jambi Malay
§ Tanjung Raden
§ Mudung Darat
• Contact Varieties of Malay/Indonesian
o Jakarta Indonesian
o Kuching Malay

VI. Sarolangun Malay (BS)

• Spoken in the villages of Jernih (Jeenas in BS) Muda and Jernih Tua, in the
district of Air Hitam (Ayik Hap), northeast of the town of Sarolangun.

• Voice System
o Actives:
• As in SI nasal prefix is required (N-, not MENG-)

(35) Active Using N-

a. sitiy ŋambɪʔ ayiʔ
Siti N.take water
‘Siti took the water.’

11
 b. hendra maŋkuŋ pəɲɒhɒnt pakay kayuw
Hendra N.hit PEN.bad use wood
‘Hendra hit the thief with a stick.’

c. manto budɒʔ tu daŋ nareʔ mubil

QUANT kid that PROG N.pull car
‘The kids are pulling the car.’

d. maʔ ediy mbuwɒnt kuwe di dapur

mother Edi N.make cake LOC kitchen
‘Edi’s mother made the cake in the kitchen.’

(36) Bare Verbs (grammatical only as imperatives)

a. *sitiy ambɪʔ ayiʔ
Siti take water
‘Siti took the water.’

b. *hendra baŋkuŋ pəɲɒhɒnt pakay kayuw

Hendra hit PEN.bad use wood
‘Hendra hit the thief with a stick.’

c. *manto budɒʔ tu daŋ tareʔ mubil

QUANT kid that PROG pull car
‘The kids are pulling the car.’

d. *maʔ ediy buwɒnt kuwe di dapur

mother Edi make cake LOC kitchen
‘Edi’s mother made the cake in the kitchen.’

Object Voice based on the bare verb stem (auxiliaries before agent)

(37) Object Voice, Auxiliary Before Agent

a. makalah koh lah kamiy bɒcu
paper this PFCT 1PL read
‘I have read this paper.’

b. sayor koh lah awaʔ bəliy diy pasar

vegetable this PFCT 1SG buy LOC market
‘I have bought this vegetable at the market.’

c. maʔ, pəmakan lah maʔ buwɒnt ?

mother PE.eat PFCT mother make
‘Mom, have you made the food?’

(38) Object Voice, Agent Before Auxiliary

a. *maʔ, buku awaʔ maʔ lah bɒcu ?
mother book 1SG mother PFCT read
‘Mom, have you read my book?’

12
 b. *sayor koh awaʔ lah bəliy diy pasar
vegetable this 1SG PFCT buy LOC market
‘I have bought this vegetable at the market.’

c. *maʔ, pəmakan maʔ lah buwɒnt ?

mother PE.eat mother PFCT make
‘Mom, have you made the food?’

• Comparison with the order in the active:

o In the active in unmarked order agent precedes auxiliaries

(39) a. hape koh, maʔ takiddin naʔ məliy

cell.phone this mother Takiddin want N.buy
‘Takiddin’s mother will buy this cell phone.’

b. awaʔ didu nulaʔ ciweʔ tuw

1SG not N.push female that
‘I didn’t push the girl.’

In the active it is ungrammatical for the auxiliary to precede the agent (except when
the auxiliary is focused etc.)

(40) a. *lah kah mɒcu buku dumah?

PFCT 2SG N.read book at.home
‘Have you read the book at home?’

b. *lah kamiy maco galo makalah

PFCT 1PL N.read all paper
‘We have read the whole paper.’

As in SI, the agent cannot be omitted in the object voice:

(41) Agent deletion not possible with bare verb P2, di-passive allows agent deletion:

a. *pəmaen ko hudah ambɪʔ

PE-play this already take
‘This toy has been taken.’

b. pemaen ko hudah di-ambɪʔ

PE-play this PFCT PASS-take
‘This toy has be taken.’

Some additional examples showing agent deletion in the object voice is

ungrammatical:

13
 c. *sepida ko didu beli.
bicycle this NEG buy
‘This bicycle was not bought.’

d. *buku ko didu bacu.

book this NEG read
‘This book has not been read.’

e. *mʊbɪl ko didu jual.

car this NEG sell
‘This car has not been sold.’

f. *bʊŋʊ ko didu tanam.

flower this NEG plant
‘This flower has not been planted.’

g. *ʊmpot ko didu potoŋ

grass this NEG cut
‘This grass has not been cut.’

Sarolangun also exhibits a passive with properties like those of SI:

(42) Di- Passive

a. umah ardiy di-bəliy (weʔ) kətuwo eʁte
house Ardi PASS-buy by chief village
‘Ardi’s house was bought by the chief of the village.’

b. maʔ, makalah awaʔ didu di-bɒcu guru

mother paper 1SG not PASS-read teacher
‘Mom, my teacher didn’t read my paper.’

c. buku tu lah di-bao

book that PFCT PASS-bring
‘The book has been brought.’

d. deeyan koh di-juwɒl, naŋ koh di-himpan

durian this PASS-sell that this PASS-keep.away
‘These durians are sold, and these are kept.’

• in the passive the verb is preceded by the prefix di-

• the agent follows the verb
• agent is preceded by the optional preposition weq ‘by’
• in contrast to the object voice, the agent may be freely omitted

14
 • Extraction (WH questions)
o WH in situ
o construction in which a headless relative clause is the subject of a WH
predicate

• In WH in situ the question word can be a subject or an object.

• In questions based on a headless relative clause, the relativized NP of the
headless relative clause is limited to the subject

(43) WH in Situ
a. WH Object
sitiy ɲəmpunt puraŋ?
Siti N.pick.up who
‘Who did Siti pick up?’

b. WH Object
sitiy məliy apu ?
Siti N.buy what
‘What did Siti buy?’

c. WH Subject
apu di-bəliy sitiy diy pasar ?
what PASS-buy Siti LOC market?
‘What was bought by Siti the market?’

15
(44) a. WH + Headless Relative Clause - Grammatical Subject Relativization

[CP apu [DP[CPOP [naŋ [TP t di-bəliy sitiy diy pasar]]]]]?

what that PASS-buy Siti LOC market
‘What was bought by Siti in the market?’

(44) a’ CP

apuj C’

C TP

NP NP
tj

(NPi) CP

OPi C’

C TP
naŋ

ti di-bəliy sitiy diy pasar

(Alternative analysis: via Pred fronting of the Wh-NP)

(44) b. Ungrammatical Object Relativization

*[CP puraŋ [TP [CP OP [naŋ [TP sitiy ɲəmpunt t ]]]]]?
who that Siti N.pick.up
‘Who did Siti pick up’?

16
(44) b’ * CP

puraŋ C’
who

C TP

NP NP
t who

(NP ) CP
(person)

OPi C’

C TP
naŋ
that
sitiy ɲəmpunt ti
Siti N.pick.up (that person)

Apparent object relativization is possible when the verb is employed in stem form:

(45) Apparent Object Relativization with Bare Stem Verb

a. puraŋ naŋ sitiy jəmpunt ?
who that Siti pick.up
‘Who did Siti pick up?’

b. apu naŋ kah huroh de ?

what that 2SG ask earlier
‘What did you ask me to do?’
But there is evidence that apparent object relativization involves object voice:

(46) Order of Auxiliary/Negation and Agent

a. Auxiliary Precedes Agent
puraŋ naŋ lah sitiy jəmpunt ?
who that PFCT Siti pick.up
‘Who has Siti picked up?’

b. Agent precedes Auxiliary

*puraŋ naŋ sitiy lah jəmpunt ?
who that Siti PFCT pick.up
‘Who has Siti picked up?’

(47) Order of Auxiliary/Negation and Agent

17
 a. Auxiliary Precedes Agent
awaʔ didu təntuw [apu [naŋ ndɒʔ kah huroh]]
1SG not know what that want 2SG ask
‘I don't know what you will ask me to do.’

b. Agent Precedes Auxiliary

*awaʔ didu təntuw apu naŋ kah ndɒʔ huroh
1SG not know what that 2SG want ask
‘I don't know what you will ask me to do.’

• As in SI, auxiliaries precede the agent.

• There is no extraction over a nasal prefix verb

(48) a. *puraŋ naŋ sitiy ɲəmpunt __ ?

who that Siti N.pick.up
‘Who did Siti pick up?’

b. *apu naŋ kah ɲuroh de __ ?

what that 2SG N.ask earlier
‘What did you ask me to do?’

c. *budiy ŋambɪʔ harɒmp naŋ upeʔ ɲapaʔ __ tade

Budi N.take rubbish that older.sister N.throw.away earlier
‘Budi took the rubbish that my older sister threw away.’

• We conclude for BS, as was previously shown for SI,

o that extraction is limited to subjects.
o apparent cases of object extraction are in fact instances of extraction of
the subject from an object voice clause.
o There is no need for a constraint against extraction over a nasal
prefix verb. This follows from the overall system.
• Thus, we conclude that BS is like SI in exhibiting the following voice system:

(49) a. active voice employing N-

b. object voice employing bare verb stem and auxiliaries/negation preceding
agent
c. no productive use of bare verb for transitive active
d. passive voice employing di-
e. extraction from a clause limited to subject
f. apparent object extraction shows object voice order of auxiliaries/negation
preceding agent and not active voice order of agent preceding
auxiliaries/negation

Conclusion:
The voice system in BS is essentially the same as that in SI.

18
VII. Our analysis
The so-called “subject only constraint” follows from a system in which the voice head
agrees morphologically with the nominal argument that moves out of the VoiceP
(little vP in our trees below), e.g. to specifier of TP. This prevents the movement of
other nominals out of the phase because the morphological markers are subject to a
morphological uniqueness requirement. The movement of any other nominal
through the edge of the phase would require morphological agreement with Voice (or
the v head), but this would violate the uniqueness requirement on the Voice head. As
a result, only a single DP (the one triggering agreement) is able to move into the edge
of the phase, Spec of VoiceP. Since the EPP must be satisfied, the unique nominal
that moves out of the VoiceP (or vP) phase must also be the surface subject (specifier
of TP). This leads to the result that only subject nominals can be extracted, but the
extraction of non-nominal arguments and adjuncts is unconstrained since adjuncts do
not trigger agreement. While non-nominals (like nominals) must pass through the
edge of the phase, they are not subject to the morphological requirements that allow
only a single nominal constituent to escape from the Voice Phrase.

We argue that this approach is superior to the approach to Phillipine type languages
developed earlier in the literature by Rackowski, A., Richards, N., 2005. ( Phase edge
and extraction: a Tagalog case study., Linguistic Inquiry) .
In R&R the edge of the vP is defined as the highest specifier of vP. In this view,
lower specifiers of vP are not considered as instances of the vP edge, so nominals in
lower specifiers are not extractable. The result of this system is that only a single DP
can move out of vP to a higher position, regardless of whether the position to which it
moves is an A-position or an A’-position. A separate UG requirement, the EPP,
demands that the surface subject position (presumably, specifier of TP) be filled or
the sentence will be ill-formed. Thus, the single DP that escapes from the vP must be
the DP selected to satisfy the EPP, that is, the surface subject.

It follows that movement of an argument to an A’ position must be from specifier of

TP since direct extraction of an argument to an A’-position would result in an EPP
violation. To summarize, according to such a purely syntactic approach, UG
principles restrict movement out of vP to the highest specifier of vP, which entails
that A’-movement of arguments must be from subject position (as described in detail
in R&R).
But in English actives not only the agent (highest edge) can be extracted, also objects
can:

(a) [CP Whati will [TP youj [vP ti [vP tj [VP see ti in Montana]]]]]

(b) Edge Parameter Hypothesis

Two definitions of “phase edge” are available to languages, a strict definition,
according to which the edge of a phase is the highest specifier of that phase
(Phillipine type), and a liberal definition, according to which the edge of the
phase is any specifier of the phase.

Our alternative to the EPH:

19
R&R only allow the extraction of a single NP from a Phase Edge, while we will show
that in some Indonesian languages we need to allow extraction from positions that are
not in the phase edge. We therefore introduce a morphological constraint and show
that once the morphology is defective in certain regional dialects extraction becomes
allowed from non subject position. The morphological condition and its interaction
with Agree also explains why adjuncts can always be extracted.

Here our our assumptions spelled out more formally:

i. Voice Agreement Hypothesis (VAH).

According to the VAH, in a Philippine-type voice system the voice system has two
related but independent properties.

a. The Voice head has to agree with +N arguments adjoined to the

voice head (in Spec of voice?). That is, Voice reflects morphologically the
position from which extraction takes place. [Note: English and non-Phillipine type
languages do not have this recording of voice morphology on the Voice head, but
Indonesian type languages have retained this.]

In SI and BS meng-/N- occur when the agent is moved out of vP to specifier of

VoiceP and the null prefix is required when an object is extracted from vP.
According to the VAH, this is a requirement of the morphology and is not universal.

In English (and in all non Phillipine type languages) adjunction to vP and VoiceP and
agreement with v are presumably required if an object is to move out of vP, but the
morphology of English voice does not reflect this agreement. Rather, active voice
reflects, roughly, the fact that the agent is generated as specifier of vP and passive
reflects the alternative scenario in which the agent is not generated as specifier of vP.
The same is true of the European type passive di- in Indonesian.

b. Constraint on conflicting case/thematic role features on voice head

(CCC):
The second critical property of a Philippine-type voice system is a constraint
preventing the extraction of other constituents which have morphosyntactic properties
that conflict with those of the constituent which determines the choice of voice. We
emphasize that this constraint is again morphological in nature. The constraint says
that the voice marker in question cannot bear conflicting features regarding the
case (or, perhaps, the thematic role) of the extracted elements:

CCC (Case Confict Constraint)

*[v f(x) & f(y)]
where x and y range over the overt morphological instantiation on voice of the
case/thematic role features +nominative/agent and +accusative/patient.

Arguments for the VAH:

a. Adjuncts can always be extracted in Indonesian type languages.
According to the EPH, this derivation should not be possible because only the highest
specifier of vP should be accessible from outside the vP.

20
(c1). Mengapa mereka belum menjawab surat saya?
why they not.yet answer letter 1SG
‘Why haven’t they answered my letter?’ (Sneddon (1996: 319)

(c2) Kapan ia boleh memalsukan identitasnya?

when he may fabricate identity-e
‘When may he fabricate his identity?’ (from a blog by Andreas Harsono, an
Indonesian journalist, http://andreasharsono.blogspot.com/2006/04/kapan-wartawan-
mencuri.html)

The structure for (c) is presumably as follows ( see modified structures with VoiceP
rather than TP below):

(c1)’ [CP mengapai [VoiceP merekaj belum [vP ti [vP tj menjawabk [VP tk surat saya ti]]]]]
why they not.yet answer letter 1S

In (c)’ both the agent, mereka ‘they’, and the question word, mengapa ‘why’ have
moved out of vP. According to the EPH, this derivation should not be possible
because only the highest specifier of vP should be accessible from outside the vP.

Let us see how regular object extraction is blocked in this system but subject
extractions is not. If an object is extracted (such as in OBJ relativization) we get a
conflict and an ugrammatical sentence:

(d) *Buku ini yang saya membeli

As a result of specifier/head agreement {MENG}receives the phi features of OP.

Since OP is +N, its case feature is capable of morphological representation on Voice,
resulting in conflicting morphological features on {MENG}:

(d)’ [VoiceP sayai [VoiceP OPj meng-belik [vP ti tk [VP tk tj]]]]

+nom +acc {MENG}
+N +N +nom
+WH +N
+acc
+N

Thus, the derivation produces a conflicting morphological representation and is ill-

formed due to the CCC ruling this out:

21
(d’) tree format

VoiceP

sayai
+Nom VoiceP

OPj
+Acc VoiceP

*voice vP
meng-belik
+Nom
+Acc v vP
ti
tj VP

V NP
tk tj

On the other hand the subject position can be relativized without a Case Conflict:
(e) Siapai yang membeli buku ini?

[VoiceP OPi meng-belik [vP ti tk [VP tk tj ]]]]

+nom {MENG}
+N +N +nom
+WH +N

(e’) Tree format

VoiceP

OPi
+Nom VoiceP

*voice vP
meng-belik
+Nom
v VP
ti
V NP
tk buku ini

22
VIII. Overview: SI-like Voice Systems
• BS:
o Roughly the same as SI.
o Extraction constraints appear derivable from voice system.

• SL & MBB (not discussed here):

o Like SI in voice system.
o Different extraction facts.
o Extraction facts not easily derivable from voice system.

What we see in the next group of dialects is that the use of bare stem for
actives in one special environment (relativization of objects in actives) has
been generalized to all active environments.
o In TR and MD we find bare verbs in the following environments:
§ imperative
§ deverbal noun
§ object voice
§ active with object relativization
§ active declaratives without relativization

• In SL and MBB the bare stem is used to indicate object relativization in an

active as well as object voice. In other words, these dialects allow object
extraction over a bare ACTIVE verb (without first promoting the patient to
subject via OV). We have not provided an account here for this.IX. Tanjung
Raden and Mudung Darat
•
• Spoken across the Batanghari River from Jambi City, the capital of Jambi
Province.
• NSF/MPI EVA study: “Traditional Jambi Malay”
• Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, Uri Tadmor, PIs
• Yanti, PhD, Postdoctoral Collaborator
• Several local assistants in Jambi area
• Logistical support from Jakarta Field Station
In the Jambi dialects we will see a further breakdown of the voice system found in SI
and BS.

IX. Tanjung Raden

Di- Passive:
(78) a. di-taŋkap buat buser soretu.
PASS-catch by police.officer yesterday
‘They were caught by the police yesterday.’

b. la di-ambɪʔ oraŋ
PFCT PASS-take person
‘It was stolen by someone.’

23
(79) duwɪt tu di-bawaʔ, ndaʔ tukar dŋan bras
money that PASS-bring want change with uncooked.rice
‘The money was brought; he wanted to exchange it for rice.’

• The passive agent follows the verb

• The agent is optional
• When present can be preceded optionally by the preposition buat ‘for, by’.

In the active the verb can occur in either bare stem form or preceded by the nasal
prefix:

(80) a. abdula motoŋ rumput.

Abdula N.cut grass
‘Abdula cut his grass.’

b. abdula potoŋ rumput.

Abdula cut grass
‘Abdula cut his grass.’

(81) a. titin narʊʔ buku di atas meja.

Titin N.put book LOC top table
‘Titin put a book on the table.’

b. titin tarʊʔ buku di atas meja.

Titin put book LOC top table
‘Titin put a book on the table.’

The nasal prefix occurs much more frequently than the bare stem, but both are
grammatical:

(82) Frequency of Bare Stem Versus Nasal Prefix in Tanjung Raden

Verb Stem Gloss Bare Stem N- % Bare % N-
teŋoʔ look 14 45 24% 76%
paliŋ steal 1 21 5% 95%
cari search 4 13 24% 76%
ambɪʔ take 3 26 10% 90%
pgaŋ hold 1 9 10% 90%
bli buy 6 45 12% 88%
pasaŋ set 1 24 4% 96%
sbut mention 3 13 19% 81%
bawaʔ bring 9 19 32% 68%
buat make 6 31 16% 84%
jual sell 10 13 43% 57%

• In usage TR narratives resemble SI, BS, SL and MBB, in that active sentences
typically employ the nasal prefix.

24
 • Unlike SI, BS, SL and MBB, this is a strong tendency in TR rather than a hard
and fast rule.

• The difference between TR and SI, BS, SL and MBB is reflected in judgments
of TR speakers, and not just in textual frequencies.
• Speakers uniformly judge active sentences using the bare verb stem to be
grammatical.
• Thus, there is no discord between grammaticality judgments and occurrence in
texts (except that frequency cannot be determined by grammaticality
judgments).

Possible order of negation/auxiliaries and main verbs in TR:

• In TR the most usual position for negation/auxiliaries is between the subject
and the verb.
• Initial negation and auxiliaries are also grammatical if motivated by focus etc.
• While some initial negation examples appear to be constituent negation, others
seem to be sentential negation:

(83) a. daʔ aku tonton pilem tu

NEG 1SG watch film that
‘It wasn’t me who watched the movie.’

b. daʔ aku bawaʔ buku-ɲo.

NEG 1SG bring book-3
‘I didn’t bring the book.’

c. ... la kulo campʊr-i dŋan apo waʔ ciʔ dŋan nasi.

PFCT 1SG mix-APPL with what aunt.or.uncle small with cooked.rice
‘Now I have mixed it with, uh, with rice, auntie.’

• Auxiliaries and sentence negation cannot occur postverbally.

• Post verbal negation can only be interpreted as forming a yes/no question.
• It does not constitute sentential negation:

(84) a. kau sdaŋ mbaco buku daʔ?

2SG PROG N.read book NEG
‘Are you reading a book?’

b. dioʔ sdaŋ masaʔ di dapʊr daʔ?

3 PROG cook LOC kitchen NEG
‘Is she cooking in the kitchen?’

c. kau nengoʔ daʔ budaʔ malɪŋ kini tu?

2SG N.look NEG kid N.steal now that
‘Did you see those who steal them?’

d. di tmpat kawan kulo waʔ ciʔ di stɪrɪs sano daʔ?

LOC place friend 1SG aunt.or.uncle small LOC Setiris there NEG
‘At my friend’s place, uncle, it’s in Setiris, right?’

25
 e. joko di-bagɪ duwɪt daʔ?
Joko PASS-give money NEG
‘Did he give Joko money?’

f. *aku makan daging daʔ.

1SG eat meat NEG
‘I don’t eat meat.’

Preposing of objects within the clause is illformed, but fronting is well-formed if a

resumptive pronoun is used (-e in (85b) is a resumptive pronoun):

(85) a. *motor tu daʔ aku mli.

motorcycle that NEG 1SG N.buy
‘I didn’t buy that motorcycle.’

b. motor tu aku daʔ prna mli-e.

motorcycle that 1SG NEG ever N.buy-E
‘I never bought that motorcycle.’

Object voice: agent can precede bare V

(86) a. tipi tu daʔ ahmad ambɪʔ

television that NEG Ahmad take
‘Ahmad didn’t take the television.’

b. motor tu daʔ kau bli.

motorcycle that NEG 2SG buy
‘The motorcycle wasn’t bought by you.’

Agent cannot precede negation:

(87) a.*buku tu sayo daʔ ambɪʔ

book that 1SG NEG take
‘I didn’t take the book.’

b. *motor tu eko daʔ bli.

motorcycle that Eko NEG buy
‘Eko didn’t buy the motorcycle.’
Unlike the passive, in the object voice the agent is obligatory:

(88) a. ayam ko aku daʔ kesot

chicken this 1SG NEG slaugther
‘This chicken was not slaughtered by me.’

b. *ayam ko la kesot
chicken this PFCT slaughter
‘This chicken is already slaughtered.’

26
 c. ayam ko la di-kesot
chicken this PFCT PASS-slaughter
‘This chicken is already slaughtered.’

(89) a. motor tu aku jual

motorcycle that 1SG sell
‘The motorcycle was sold by me.’

b. *motor tu jual.
motorcycle that sell
‘The motorcycle was sold’

c. motor tu la di-jual.
motorcycle that PFCT PASS-sell
‘The motorcycle has been sold.’

Summary:
• Passive voice
• Object voice (same properties as the passive and object voice in SI, BS, SL
and MBB)
• Two forms of the active, actives with the nasal prefix and bare stem actives.

Extraction:

Extraction of the object of a verb bearing a nasal prefix is ill-formed or at

least
dispreferred.

(90) a. *apo CP[ naŋ IP[titin mli di pasar di]]?

what that Titin N.buy LOC market earlier
‘What did Titin buy in the market?’
b. apo naŋ titin bli di pasar di?
what that Titin buy LOC market earlier
‘What did Titin buy in the market?’

27
(90) a. *CP

apoj C’

C TP

NP NP
tj

NP CP

OPi C’

C TP
naŋ

titin mli ti di pasar di

(91) a. *siapo CP[ naŋ TP[ndaʔ titin ɲmpʊt]]?

who that want Titin N.pick.up
‘Who is Titin going to pick up?’

b. siapo naŋ ndaʔ titin jmpʊt?

who that want Titin pick.up
‘Who is Titin going to pick up?’

28
(91) b. CP

Siapoi C’

C TP

NP NPi

NP CP

OPj C’

C TP
naŋ

ndaʔ titin jmpʊt tj

Long distance extraction of the subject of a complement clause is clearly illformed

when the matrix verb bears the nasal prefix, but is much better over a bare verb:

(92) a. *apo CP[OPi naŋ TP[titin nŋar CP[hendra mli ti]]]?

what that Titin N.hear Hendra N.buy
‘What did Titin hear Hendra bought?’

b. apo CP[OPi naŋ TP[titin dŋar IP[hendra bli ti]]]?

what that Titin hear Hendra buy
‘What did Titin hear Hendra bought?’

29
(92) a. CP

apoi C’

C TP

NP NP
ti

NP CP

OPj C’

C TP
naŋ

titin nŋar hendra mli tj

b. CP

apo C’

C TP

NP NP

NP CP

OPj C’

C TP
naŋ

titin dŋar hendra bli tj

In a few instances, however, extraction over a nasal was accepted by some speakers.

30
This constraint seems to be in a state of flux in TR.

While agents must follow negation/auxiliaries in object voice sentences, no such

constraint applies to relativization of direct objects:

(93) a. budi ambɪʔ sarap naŋ ʊpɪʔ la buaŋ

Budi take rubbish that Upik PFCT throw.away
‘Budi took the garbage that Upik has thrown away.’

b. apo naŋ ndaʔ kau bli di pasar?

what that want 2SG buy LOC market
‘What do you want to buy at the market?’

c. apo naŋ kau ndaʔ bli di pasar?

what that 2SG want buy LOC market
‘What do you want to buy at the market?’

• Preference for sentences like (93a) and (93c) over (93b).

• Those like (93b) were judged to be fully grammatical.

Alternations in word order like that observed in (93) are not restricted to first and
second person agents:

(94) a. apo naŋ titin ndaʔ bli di pasar?

what that Titin want buy LOC market
‘What will Titin buy at the market?’

b. apo naŋ ndaʔ titin bli di pasar?

what that want Titin buy LOC market
‘What will Titin buy at the market?’

As in SL and MBB, informants express a preference for the object voice order
(94b), but they are adamant that the order in (94a) is well-formed and could be heard
in speech in the village.

Summary of TR
(95) a. Active Voice: N- or bare verb stem
b. Passive Voice: di-
c. Object Voice: bare verb stem; when present, negation/auxiliary precedes
agent
d. The ban on extracting over a nasal is a strong preference, but not absolute.

• In TR the bare verb stem is not an indicator of object voice.

• The use of the bare verb is generalized to indicate active voice.
• Thus, the bare verb in TR does not provide an unambiguous indicator of
object voice or even of a choice between object voice and relativization of the
object in an active.

31
There are many relative clauses in which it is impossible to distinguish object
voice and active voice:

(96) a. [motor tu naŋ kanti aku jual] rusaʔ

motorcycle that that friend 1SG sell broken
‘The motorcycle that my friend sold broke.’

b. [naŋ kau bli-tu] bsaʔ nian

that 2SG buy-TU big very
‘The one that you bought is very big.’

Examples like those of (96) are ambiguous between an object voice analysis and a
direct extraction from bare active analysis:

(97) [motor tu [CP OPi naŋ [TP ti [vP kanti aku jual ti] rusaʔ
motorcycle that that friend 1SG sell broken
‘The motorcycle that was sold by my friend broke.’

(98) [motor tu [CP OPi naŋ [TP kanti aku [vP jual ti] rusaʔ
motorcycle that that friend 1SG sell broken
‘The motorcycle that my friend sold broke.’

The fact that (97) and (98) share both the same linear string of words and the same
semantic interpretation might be expected to contribute to the erosion of the
distinction between the two constructions.

X.II Mudung Darat

Mudung Darat (MD) is the second dialect spoken across the river from Jambi City.
MD is about 6 kilometers northeast of TR. MD and TR are to a very great extent
mutually comprehensible. However, although they share both lexicon and most
grammatical morphemes, they differ grammatically in important ways.

In the active voice nasal prefix verbs and bare stem verbs alternate:

(99) a. mariana neŋoʔ pilem ktun

Mariana N.look film cartoon
‘Mariana watches a cartoon movie.’

b. mariana teŋoʔ pilem ktun

Mariana look film cartoon
‘Mariana watches a cartoon movie.’

(100) a. sayo ɲepaʔ bola (di) dpan uma

1SG N.kick ball LOC front house
‘I kicked the ball in front of the house.’

b. sayo sepaʔ bola (di) dpan uma

32
 1SG kick ball LOC front house
‘I kicked the ball in front of the house.’

(101) a. sayo makeʔ moto ka pasa

1SG N.use motorcycle to market
‘I rode the motorcycle to the market.’

b. sayo pakeʔ moto ka pasa

1SG use motorcycle to market
‘I rode the motorcycle to the market.’

As for TR, in MD for most verbs the preponderance of tokens of transitive verbs
employ the nasal prefix:

(102) Use of N- versus Bare Stem in Mudung Darat Active Verbs

Verb Stem Gloss Bare Stem N- % Bare %N-
tengoʔ look 10 54 31% 69%
cari search 2 6 20% 80%
ambɪʔ take 9 26 26% 74%
tanam plant 5 15 25% 75%
bli buy 18 51 26% 74%
sbut mention 4 57 7% 93%
bawaʔ bring 12 36 25% 75%
jual sell 10 20 33% 67%
pintaʔ request 7 36 16% 84%

• The frequency of active transitive verbs with the nasal prefix is roughly
the same in the two Jambi dialects.
• Active verbs with the nasal prefix are much more frequent than actives
with the bare stem.
• However, both forms are clearly grammatical.
• As in the case of TR, speaker judgments are in complete conformity with
text counts.

Examples of di- Passive

(103) a. pilem ktun di-teŋoʔ mariana
film cartoon PASS-look Mariana
‘The cartoon was seen by Mariana.’

b. ʊmpʊt di-tbas (samo) bdʊl

grass PASS-cut by Bedul
‘The grass was cut by Bedul.’

c. kbon tu dioʔ niŋgal di-jual abɪs-la

garden that 3 die PASS-sell finish-EMPH
‘The garden was sold when she died.

d. neŋoʔ oraŋ btino, di-kjar-e

N.look person female PASS-chase-3
‘When they saw females, they [the females] were chased by them.’

33
Is there object voice in Mudung Darat?

(104) a. In the object voice, negation and auxiliaries obligatorily precede the agent.
b. The agent cannot be omitted in the object voice.

The following examples would appear on first examination to be examples of the

object voice:

(105) a. paraʔ tu daʔ aku potoŋ

rubber that not 1SG cut
‘I didn't cut the rubber.’

b. hape tu daʔ sayo palɪŋ

cell.phone that not 1SG steal
‘I didn't steal the cell phone.’

Unlike TR and other Malay dialects discussed earlier, negation/auxiliaries do not

appear obligatorily before the agent:

(106) a. paraʔ tu aku daʔ potoŋ

rubber that 1SG not cut
‘I didn't cut the rubber.’

b. hape tu sayo daʔ palɪŋ

cell.phone that 1SG not steal
‘I didn't steal the cell phone.’

c. buku ko paʔ aku daʔ bli

book this father 1SG not buy
‘My father did not buy this book.’

Furthermore, the order of negation/auxiliaries vis a vis the agent is generally very free
in MD:

(107) a. buku ko la kau bli

book this PFCT 2SG buy
‘You have bought this book.’

b. la kau bli buku ko

PFCT 2SG buy book this
‘You have bought this book.’

c. kau la bli buku ko

2SG PFCT buy book this
‘You have bought this book.’

34
 d. kau bli buku ko la
2SG buy book this PFCT
‘You have bought this book.’

e. buku ko kau la bli

book this 2SG PFCT buy
‘You have bought this book.’

The very free word order instantiated above would not provide speakers with any way
to distinguish object voice from the bare active. Thus, we suggest that object voice
should not be posited for MD, and that sentences that appear to be instances of object
voice are, in fact, bare actives.

The optionality of the agent in putative instances of object voice provides further
evidence that these sentences are not in fact instances of object voice:

(108) uma ko la buat

house this PFCT make
‘This house was already built.’

(109) a. adɪʔ sayo kau la jmpʊt ?

younger.sibling 1SG 2SG PFCT pick.up
‘Have you picked up my younger brother?’

b. adɪʔ sayo kau daʔ lagi jmpʊt

younger.sibling 1SG 2SG not PROG pick.up
‘You don’t have to pick up my younger brother anymore.’

c. adɪʔ sayo la paʔ aku jmpʊt

younger.sibling 1SG PFCT father 1SG pick.up
‘My younger brother has been picked up by my father.’

d. adɪʔ sayo la jmpʊt paʔ aku

younger.sibling 1SG PFCT pick.up father 1SG
‘My brother has picked up my father.’

e. adɪʔ sayo la jmpʊt

younger.sibling 1SG PFCT pick.up
‘My younger brother has been picked up.’

(110) paraʔ tu la potoŋ

rubber that PFCT cut
‘That rubber has been cut.’

• These examples illustrate the free ordering of the agent and negation/auxiliaries
in sentences with bare verbs in MD.
• Of particular note is (109e) and (110), which illustrates the fact that the agent is
optional.

35
 • We conclude that in MD the object voice has merged with the bare active.
• This merger results in a word order in MD that is markedly freer than that in
TR.
• Such a state of affairs is explained if, as the result of the merger of the active
and the object voice, speakers perceive the various word orders found in what
in other dialects constitutes object voice as variants on the bare active.
• That is to say, orders that are indicative of object voice in SI are instances of
scrambling in MD.

Our analysis predicts that the ordering of negation and auxiliaries will in general be
freer in MD than in TR (in all voices):

(111) a. uma paʔ ku mɲaɲi tukaŋ daʔ

only father 1SG N.sing can not
‘However, my father couldn’t sing.’

b. aku ŋawat-e daʔ

1SG N.care-3 not
‘I don’t care.’

c. tau daʔ dio

know not 3
‘She doesn’t know.’

d. make aŋin daʔ; make bintaŋ daʔ; make aeʔ

N.use wind not N.use star not N.use water
‘We don’t use wind; we don’t use stars; we use water.’ [‘We only use water
as our guidance.’]

• None of these sentences would be grammatical in TR.

• The following examples illustrates the postverbal use of auxiliaries in MD:

(112) a. masɪ ɪdʊp lagi, waʔ ?

still alive PROG uncle.or.aunt
“Is he still alive?’

b. bapo taʊn datʊʔ tiŋgal di siko la ?

how.much year grandfather stay LOC here PFCT
‘How many years have you lived here?’

c. bibiʔ mryam juale payo tu la

aunt Maryam sell-3 marsh that PFCT
‘Aunt Maryam had sold her paddy field.’

These sentences would also be ungrammatical in TR.

• Although MD displays a markedly freer word order than TR with respect to the
position of negation and auxiliaries, in other ways the grammar is quite
constrained.

36
 • As in TR, the fronting of objects to the beginning of the clause is
ungrammatical:

(113) a. *paraʔ aku motoŋ

rubber 1SG N.cut
‘I cut rubber.’

b. *paraʔ tu prna aku motoŋ

rubber that ever 1SG N.cut
‘I have cut rubber.’

c. *hape tu sayo malɪŋ

cell.phone that 1SG N.steal
‘I stole the cell phone.’

d. *buku ko kau mli

book this 2SG N.buy
‘You bought this book.’

As in TR, a resumptive pronoun is necessary:

(114) a. paraʔ tu prna aku motoŋ-e

rubber that ever 1SG N.cut-3
‘I have cut rubber.’

b. paraʔ tu aku prna motoŋ-e

rubber that 1SG ever N.cut-3
‘I have cut rubber.’

c. hape tu sayo malɪŋ-e

cell.phone that 1SG N.steal-3
‘I stole the cell phone.’

d. buku ko kau mli-e

book this 2SG N.buy-3
‘You bought this book.’

MD Voice System:
(115) Active: N- and bare stem
Passive: di-
Object Voice: does not ocur.

Local Fronting of an object NP:

(116) a. *paraʔ aku motoŋ
rubber 1SG N.cut
‘I cut rubber.’

b. *paraʔ tu prna aku motoŋ

rubber that ever 1SG N.cut
‘I have cut rubber.’

37
 c. *hape tu sayo malɪŋ
cell.phone that 1SG N.steal
‘I stole the cell phone.’

d. *buku ko kau mli

book this 2SG N.buy
‘You bought this book.’

Similar sentences are well-formed if a resumptive pronoun is used:

(117) a. paraʔ tu aku prna motoŋ-e

rubber that 1SG ever N.cut-3
‘I have cut rubber.’
b. hape tu sayo malɪŋ-e
cell.phone that 1SG N.steal-3
‘I stole the cell phone.’

c. buku ko kau mli-e

book this 2SG N.buy-3
‘You bought this book.’

• MD is strict in blocking fronting of objects over a verb bearing the nasal

prefix.
• Regardless of the order of negation/auxiliaries and the agent, similar sentences
employing bare stem forms are well-formed.
• We have argued that in MD all such sentences are bare active rather than
instances of object voice.
• Thus, the ungrammaticality of fronting over a nasal prefix verb cannot, in MD,
be a side effect of object voice since object voice does not occur in this
dialect.

Relativization:
Extraction over a nasal prefix verb is blocked

(118) a. *siapo naŋ joni maŋkʊŋ di pasa?

who that Joni N.hit LOC market
‘Who did Joni hit at the market?’

b. *apo naŋ siti mli di jakata?

what that Siti N.buy LOC Jakarta
‘What did Siti buy in Jakarta?’

c. *budi ambɪʔ sarap naŋ ʊpɪʔ la muaŋ

Budi take rubbish that Upik PFCT N.throw.away
‘Budi took the garbage that Upik has thrown away.’

38
(119) a. siapo naŋ joni baŋkʊŋ di pasa?
who that Joni hit LOC market
‘Who did Joni hit at the market?’

b. apo naŋ siti bli di jakata?

what that Siti buy LOC Jakarta
‘What did Siti buy in Jakarta?’

c. budi ambɪʔ sarap naŋ ʊpɪʔ la buaŋ

Budi take rubbish that Upik PFCT throw.away
‘Budi took the garbage that Upik has thrown away.’

• In MD the voice system no longer consists of three voices (active, object voice
and passive) but rather of two (active and passive).
Active is marked by either a nasal prefix N- or a ∅ prefix. The N- obeys the CCC and
hence no extraction over a nasal is allowed. The ∅ prefix, however, is defective and
hence is compatible with both an agent or a theme (both Nom and Acc +N in Spec of
vP or VoiceP). Thus, in MD the occurrence of the feature matrix in (e) would be
well-formed when the voice head bears the null prefix:

(e) {∅ N Nom Acc} [Read: the Null prefix is Defective]

The examples of (118)-(119) show that relativization respects the constraint that
extraction over a nasal prefix verb is ungrammatical. While in the case of SI and BS
this morphosyntactic constraint is general to N- and the object voice, in MD the voice
system no longer consists of three voices (active, object voice and passive) but rather
of two actives and a passive (N- active, null prefix active and passive). Although the
null prefix in MD indicates agent rather than patient extraction from vP, it exhibits the
same property seen in SL: the null prefix is exempt from the morphological
constraint blocking more than one extraction from vP. Thus, in MD the occurrence of
the feature matrix {∅ N Nom Acc} would be well-formed when the voice head bears
the null prefix:

We hypothesize that constraints that apply only to a single member of a class (the N-
prefix in our case) are more likely to be subject to diachronic loss than constraints
applying to a complete natural class. Thus, it would be expected that a voice system
like that instantiated by MD would be unstable, at least with respect to the
maintenance of the CCC. We shall now turn to evidence that such instability in fact
exists. There is suggestive evidence that speakers have started to lose the constraint
against extraction over N-. In some cases speaker judgments exhibit variability
regarding whether extraction over N- is genuinely ill-formed (although with a clear
preference for the bare form when extraction occurs). In other cases, such sentences
were judged consistently to be minimally grammatical, but still less acceptable or less
usual than some other form. Some examples that were judged to be jaraŋ (rarely
used) rather than ungrammatical are provided.
(119’) Extraction Over a Nasal Prefix Verb, judged as jaraŋ
??[naŋ baru mli maʔe t] budi ɲjual tu
that new N-buy mother-3 Budi N-sell that
‘Budi sold the one that his mother just bought.’

39
(120) Extraction Over a Nasal Prefix Verb, evaluated as grammatical, but less
preferred
than the example with a bare verb
??hen neŋoʔ budaʔ naŋ anjɪŋ lagi ŋgɪgɪt
Hendra N-look kid that dog PROG N-bite
‘Hendra is looking at the kid that the dog is biting.

(121) Extraction Over a Nasal Prefix Verb in Mudung Darat, evaluated as

grammatical, but less preferred than the example with the bare verb teŋoʔ.

??jantan naŋ titin neŋoʔ gaga

male that Titin N-look handsome
‘The boy whom Titin saw is handsome.’

Perhaps more convincing than the existence of “noise” in speaker judgments is the
occurrence of occasional examples in our naturalistic data in which there is extraction
over a nasal prefix verb. Argument WH questions are typically instantiated by WH in
situ, but examples occur in which a WH operator has been fronted in its own clause
despite the fact that this requires it to cross a verb with a nasal prefix:1

(122) WH in Situ (no movement)

titin magi dʊwɪt samo siapo?

Titin N-give money with who
‘Who did Titin give the money to?’

(123) WH Movement Over Nasal Prefix Verb

a. naŋ ŋundaŋ, naŋ ŋundaŋ daʔ daʔ

that N-invite that N-invite not not
‘Those who were invited, those who weren’t, wouldn’t.’
[(The magicians) that came to the party were those who were invited (by the
host)]

b. naŋ mli aitula copot tu ?

that N-buy before-EMPH Copot that
‘What about the paddy field Copot bought?’

Although examples like those of (123) occur in our data, both educated and
uneducated speakers typically reject extraction over a nasal prefix, and, almost all
examples of object extraction conform to these speaker judgments and have a bare
verb. We suggest, however, that the occasional violations of the constraint against
extraction over N- may be innovations that are entering the language.

Summary:

40
 • Tanjung Raden and Mudung Darat appear to be undergoing a process of
simplification of their voice systems in comparison with SI and BS.
• In addition to allowing relativization of objects (as in SL and MBB), the Jambi
dialects both permit the use of the bare verb as an active.
• In the case of TR, the bare active is in addition to the continued use of the bare
verb for the object voice.
• In MD, however, the object voice has been lost and the active (together with
the imperative) has become the primary use of the bare verb.
• While the facts are not sufficiently clear to be certain, it also appears that the
constraint against long distance extraction over a verb bearing the nasal prefix
is starting to disappear.

XI. Contact Varieties of Malay/Indonesian

XI.I Jakarta Indonesian

Active:
(130) JI Active with N-
Siti nulis surat itu.
Siti N.write letter that
'Siti wrote the letter.'

(131) JI Prefixless Active

Siti tulis surat itu
Siti write letter that
'Siti wrote the letter.'

No object voice in basilectal JI.

(132) a. Bare Stem Active

b. Nasal prefix Active
c. Di- passive

This is analogous to the voice system seen in MD.

Object relativization over a verb with the nasal prefix is usually judged by speakers
as ungrammatical:

(133) Subject Extraction

a. Siapai [CP yang [TP ti ngebaca buku]]?
who that N.read book
'Who is the one that is reading a book?'

b. Anaki [CP yang [TP ti ngebaca buku ]] temen gue

child that N.read book friend 1SG
'The child that is reading a book is my friend.'

41
(134) a. *Apai [CP yang [TP anak itu ngebaca ti ]]?
what that child that N.read
'What is the child reading?'

b. *Bukui [CP yang [TP anak itu ngebaca ti ]] mahal

book that child that N.read expensive
'The book that the child is reading is expensive.'

• In a grammaticality judgment task twenty adult speakers of Jakarta Indonesian

were asked to evaluate the grammaticality of six sentences in which of objects
were relativized over a nasal prefix verb (Tjung 2006).
• The speakers unanimously found all the sentences to be ungrammatical.
• When asked to evaluate six sentences in which objects were relativized over
bare verbs, they unanimously found them all to be grammatical.

Extraction of objects of bare verbs is grammatical:

(135) a. Apai [CP yang [TP anak itu baca ti ]]?

what that child that read
'What is the child reading?'

b. Bukui [CP yang [TP anak itu baca ti ]] mahal.

book that child that read expensive
'The book that the child is reading is expensive.'

Long distance extraction of the subjects of complement clauses (with a bare verb in
the main clause) is well-formed as well:

(136) a. Dia lapor-in/ngelapor-in anak itu ngebaca buku.

3SG report-APPL/N.report-APPL child that N.read book
'She reported (that) the child was reading a book.'

b. Siapai [CP yang [TP dia lapor-in/*ngelapor-in [CP [TP ti ngebaca buku ]]]]?
who that 3SG report-APPL/N.report-APPL N.read book
'What did she report the child was reading?'

c. Anaki [CP yang [TP dia lapor-in/*ngelapor-in [CP [TP ti ngebaca buku ]]]]
child that 3SG report-APPL/N.report-APPL N.read book
pinter banget
smart very
'The child that she reported was reading a book is very smart.'

• Loss of constraint against extraction over nasal predicted for same reasons as
for Jambi dialects.
• A few examples may suggest that this process has started, or they may simply
be speech errors.

(137) a. Nah itu [OPi yang kita sendiri belum bisa ngantisipasi ti] itu
well that COMP 1PL self not.yet can N.anticipate that

42
 'Well, that, (the one) that we have not yet been able to anticipate is that.'
(A-A1)

b. [OPi yang tadi Vincy ngomong ti] itu mungkin bener

COMP earlier Vincy N.say that perhaps right
'The one that Vincy said earlier may be right.'(A-A1)

X.II Kuching Malay (not discussed here in detail)

The Malay spoken in Kuching, the capital of the Malaysian State of Sarawak

While no regularity appears to be derivable from the data for all the speakers, subsets
of speakers do appear to have adopted a regular system.

• For one group of speakers, which includes our primary informant and others in
her age group and social class (late 20s, college educated), the apparent chaos
regarding when the nasal prefix is employed indicates that there is in fact no
synchronic rule prefixing transitive verbs with N-.
o Rather, for some verbs N- has been incorporated into the verbs stem
and the etymological stem form is no longer recognized as the verb
stem.
o For other verbs, the etymological stem continues to be the verb stem.
o In the absence of a synchronic rule affixing N- to the verb stem in the
active only the stem form is available.
o Not surprisingly, for some verbs doublets are available.
o One form exists in which the nasal has been reinterpreted as part of the
stem while in another form the etymological form exists without the
nasal.

When the nasal has been reinterpreted as part of the stem, it is predicted that the
passives of verbs taking the nasal prefix in the active will be:

(148) di-N-verb

• This subdialect of KM has gone a step further than TR, MD and JI in the
process of losing the marking of the active voice by a nasal prefix.
• For these speakers, the process of loss of the rule is now complete and the
remaining prefixes are etymological vestiges of a rule that no longer exists
synchronically in the language.

43
 • Implications of the loss of the nasal prefix rule on other aspects of the
grammar of the dialect.
• In TR and MD the loss of the obligatory marking of the active by the N- prefix
is accompanied by an incipient loss of the constraint against extraction of
arguments over N-verbs.
• It would be expected that in a language like this subdialect of KM that the
constraint against movement over N-verbs would not hold.
• This expectation is correct (N- indicates etymological N-):

(169) a. WH in Situ
ʃya məlik apa?
Sya N.buy what
‘What did Sya buy?’

b. Moved WH
apa ʃya məlik t ?
what Sya N.buy
‘What did Sya buy?’

c. Clefted Question
apa nok ʃya məlik t ?
what that Sya N.buy

(170) a. WH in Situ
⎧nanam⎫
kitak ⎨ ⎬ apa?
⎩tanam ⎭

2 N-plant what
∅-plant
‘What did you plant?’

b. Moved WH
⎧nanam⎫
apa kitak ⎨ ⎬ t ?
⎩tanam ⎭

what 2 N-plant
∅-plant
‘What did you plant?’

c. Clefted Question
⎧nanam⎫
apa nok kitak ⎨ ⎬ t?
⎩tanam ⎭

what that 2 N-plant

∅-plant
‘What did you plant?’

44
(171) a. WH in Situ
oraŋ ya ŋambik sapa di skola?
ambik

person that N – pick.up who LOC school

∅ – pick.up
‘Who did that man pick up at school?’

b. Moved WH
sapa oraŋ ya ŋambik t di skola?
ambik

who person that N – pick.up LOC school

∅ – pick.up
‘Who did that man pick up at school?’

c. Clefted Question
? sapa nok oraŋ ya ŋambik t di skola?
ambik

who that person that N – pick.up LOC school

∅ – pick.up
‘Who did that man pick up at school?’

As was seen in (169-171) the variety of KM under discussion has lost the constraint
against the extraction of objects over a nasal prefix, a constraint that was seen to
follow as a corollary from the voice system in SI. This constraint was predicted to be
vulnerable to loss in dialects in which the SI voice system has broken down.
Although the constraint has only shown the first signs of incipient loss in JI, loss
appears to be well under way in TR and MD, and to be complete in this dialect of
KM. This would be expected if the basis for the constraint in SI is a system in which
both A-movement and A’-movement are limited to nominals that stand in an agree
relation with v and which are thereby at the edge of vP.

As a result the existence of Ø-verb actives in TR and MD, and the more extreme loss
of the synchronic N- prefix in KM, the relationship between the agreement marker on
v and extraction is obscured. The breakdown of the distinction between Ø-verb as an
indicator of object shift to an edge position, and N- as an indicator a lack of object
shift, has obscured the relationship between agreement marking on v and extraction,
thereby permitting the extraction of objects without the need for special voice
marking.

45
(172) Cline of erosion of the Philippine-type voice system
Agent Theme Locative, goal, Benefactive,

(+NOM) (+ACC) IO instrumental

Tagalog -um- -in- -an i-

Standard Meng- ∅ ------- --------

Indonesian

BasA N- ∅

Sarolangun

/Sarang Lan N- ∅ (defective), ------- --------

(also Tanjung allows +Nom,

Raden) +Acc features

Mudung Darat N- ------- -------- --------

∅ (defective),

allows +Nom,

+Acc features

Kuching Malay ----- ------- -------- --------

(N- is part of

stem, ∅ is part

of stem)

Even in dialects which only preserve one overt agreement marker (Nom, subject
agreement) like MD, the single remaining voice prefix can be viewed as instantiating
a Philippine-type voice system in miniature: the constraint barring movement of a
nominal argument over a verb bearing the nasal prefix can be analyzed as following
from the requirement that N- does not allow conflicting case features. Thus, even
the last remnant of the Philippine-system can be viewed as a synchronic instantiation
of an agreement–based voice system. It is only when this last piece of voice
morphology loses its function as a voice agreement marker that the last remnant of
Philippine voice disappears and multiple arguments can be extracted without the
appearance of a voice agreement marker on the verb.

46
List of Abbreviations:
1. 1 = first person
2. 2 = second person
3. 3 = third person
4. APPL = applicative
5. EMPH = emphatic marker
6. LOC = locative marker
7. MENG = nasal prefix in Standard Indonesian
8. N = nasal prefix
9. PART = discourse particle
10. PASS = passive
11. PE-/PEN- = nominalizer
12. PFCT = perfective.
13. PL = plural
14. PROG = progressive
15. QUANT = quantifier
16. RED = reduplication
17. SG = singular

References

Aldridge, E., 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral
dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Aldridge, E., 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua

1118.10:1440-1469

Alsagoff, L. S., 1992. Topic in Malay: the other subject. Doctoral dissertation.
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

Arka, I. W., Manning, C. D., 1998. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: a
new perspective. In: Butt, M., King, T.H., (Eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG '98
Conference. CSLI Publications , Stanford.

Arka, I. W., 2002. Voice systems in the Austronesian languages of Nusantara:

typology, symmetricality and Undergoer orientation. Linguistik Indonesia 21.1,
113-139.

Blake, F. R., 1925. A grammar of the Tagalog language. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.

Bloomfield, L., 1917. Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis. University of

Illinois studies in language and literature, 3.2-4. Urbana, Illinois.

47
Blust, R., 2002. Notes on the history of ‘focus’ in Austronesian languages. In: Wouk,
F. and Ross, M., (Eds.), The History and Typology of Western Austronesian
Voice Systems. Pacific Linguistics 518, pp. 63-80.

Cole, P., Hermon G., 1998. The typology of WH movement: WH questions in Malay.
Syntax 1, 221-258.

Cole, P., Hermon G., 2000. Partial Movement in Universal Grammar. In Lutz, U.,
Mueller, G. and A. von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-Scope Marking, 101-130. John
Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Cole, P., Hermon G., 2005. Subject and non-subject relativization in Indonesian.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14.1, 59-88.

Cole, P., Hermon G., and Yanti. 2008. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. LinguaVolume
118, Issue 10, pp. 1500-1553

Cena, R. M., 1979. Tagalog counterexamples to the Accessibility Hierarchy. Studies

in Philippine Linguisitics 3.1, 119-124.

Chung, S., 1976a. An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesian. Linguistic Inquiry 7,

41-87.

Chung, S., 1976b. On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. In: C. Li (Ed.),
Subject and Topic. Academic Press, New York, pp. 57-98.

Chung, S., 1978. Stem sentences in Indonesian. In: Wurm, S. A. and Carrington, L.,
(Eds.), Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics:
Proceedings. Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 61, pp. 335-365.

Chung, S., 1994. Wh-Agreement and referentiality in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry

25.1, 1-44.

Donohue, M., 2006. Variation in voice in Indonesian/Malay: historical and

synchronic perspectives. In: Matsumoto, Y., Oshima, D. Y., Robinson, O. R., and
Sells P. (Eds.), Diversity in Language: Perspectives and Implications. Stanford:
CSLI Publications.

Foley, W. A., 1998. Symmetrical Voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine

languages. Paper presented at the Workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions
in Austronesian Languages, LFG '98 conference, Brisbane.
http://www.sultry.arts.usyd.edu.au/LFG98/austro/download/download.htm

Guilfoyle, E., Hung, H., Travis, L., 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: two subjects in
Austronesian Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 375-414.

Huang, C. T. J., 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.
Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

48
Kroeger, P. 1993. Phrase structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. CSLI
Publications, Stanford CA.

Kroeger, P., 1998. Nouns and verbs in Tagalog: a reply to Foley. Paper presented at
the Workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian Languages,
LFG '98 conference, Brisbane.
http://www.sultry.arts.usyd.edu.au/LFG98/austro/download/download.htm

Macdonald, R., Dardjowidjojo, S., 1967. A Student's Reference Grammar of Modern

Formal Indonesian. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Rackowski, A., Richards, N., 2005. Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study.
Linguistic Inquiry 36.4, 565-599.

Ross, M. D., 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and
voice-marking. In: Wouk, F. and Ross, M., D. (Eds.), The History and Typology
of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Pacific Linguistics 518, pp. 17-62.

Ross, M. D., 2004. Notes on the prehistory and internal subgrouping of Malayic. In:
Bowden, J., Himmelmann, N., (Eds.), Papers in Austronesian Subgrouping and
Dialectology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 97-109.

Saddy, D., 1991. Wh scope mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia. In: Cheng, L. and
Demirdash, H. (Eds.), More Papers on Wh-Movement. MITWPL 15, pp. 183-
218.

Sneddon, J. L., 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge: London.

Tadmor, U., 2002. Language Contact and the Homeland of Malay. Talk delivered at
the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, 10 July 2002,
http://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/jakarta/docs/homeland_handout.pdf.

Tjung, Y.N., 2006. The Formation of Relative Clauses in Jakarta Indonesian: A

Subject Object Asymmetry. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware,
Newark, DE.

Wolff, J., 1996. The development of the passive verb with pronominal prefix in
western Austronesian languages. In: Nothofer B., (Ed.), Reconstruction,
Classification, Description: Festschrift in Honor of Isidore Dyen. Hamburg:
Abera, pp. 15-40.

49
Questions
1. How was the subject only condition accounted for traditionally and/or in other
frameworks?

2. Do you know of other (non-Phillipine type) languages in which this condition

holds?

3. Can you illustrate this condition with more than one construction from your own
language or dialect?

4. What is the system in a GB/Minimalism framework that would account for these
dialects and for the apparent “subject only” condition in SI and some traditional
varieties?

50