Download Full Paper

Interpreting Voice in W. Austronesian
Edward L. Keenan 3/31/06
abstract The voice system in Malagasy is typically W. Austronesian1. Nuclear Ss
present DPs with the same theta role in different syntactic configurations using verbs with
different voice morphology. Such Ss are theta equivalent in the way that actives and their
passives are in English. In this article we provide an explicit means of deriving and
interpreting such Ss proving theta equivalence. Novel here is: (1) Theta equivalence
derives from semantic interpretation, not UTAH, which fails. So we come to understand
better the empirical and notational commitments of theories which adopt UTAH. (2)
Expressions are derived bottom up using only Merge and Voice functions with no A or
A= movement. Voice and case morphology are autonomously structural [K&S 2003],
not reflexes of movement or add-ons to phrase structure. Support for our analysis is that
relative clauses are built just using constituents of nuclear Ss. No movement, empty
categories or variable binding are needed. This yields a novel account of the ASubjects
Only@ constraint in W. Austronesian.
1. Introduction We first overview Malagasy clause structure, illustrating its voice
morphology. Then Part 2 derives and interprets nuclear clauses built from verbs in
different voices. Part 3 compares our approach with mainstream ones (GHT 1992, Paul
1999, Richards 2000, R&T 2000, Pearson 2005).
Typical of W. Austronesian languages, verbs in Malagasy are clause initial,
presenting different morphologies built by affixing roots. For example from the root2
tolotra >offer= we construct the four verbs in (1). (1a-d) have basically the same
meaning, so the translation of (1a) suffices for each. The primary constituent break,
indicated by square brackets, receives massive support, not repeated here as generative
grammarians working on Malagasy (Keenan 1976, 1995; GHT 1992; Paul 1999; R&T
2000; Pearson 2005; Sabel 2005) agree on it, though they differ concerning the category
and internal structure of the bracketed constituent. We refer to it theory neutrally as a one
place Predicate Phrase (P1). It combines with one DP to form a S (P0), the type of
expression which is true or false. Semantically, P1s denote functions, called properties
here, mapping entities into {True, False}.
(1) a. [P1 m+aN+tolotra (manolotra) vary ny vahiny amin'ny lovia vaovao] aho
Pres+AN+offer
rice the guest on'the dishes new
1sg.nom
I offer rice to the guests on the new dishes
b. [P1 a+tolotra+ko (atolotro) ny vahiny amin'ny lovia vaovao] ny vary
A-+offer+1sg.gen
the guests with'the dishes new
the rice
c. [P1 tolotra+ina+ko (tolorako) varyt+amin'ny lovia vaovao]
ny vahiny
offer+INA+1sg.gen
rice past+with'the dishes new the guests
d. [P1 aN+tolotra+ana+ko (anolorako) vary ny vahiny] ny lovia vaovao
[[AN + offer]+-ANA]+1sg.gen
rice the guests the dishes new
The DP sister3 of the P1 is replaceable by a distinctive shape of pronoun B aho >1 sg=,
izy
>3sg/pl=, ... which we gloss nom. So nom means replaceable by a pronoun from that
series. Pearson (2005) justifies calling them Adefault@ forms. In (1b,c,d) the Agent is
glossed gen. It has exactly the same (complex) forms as possessors in nominals.
Compare (2) with Agents in the a- prefix verbs in (3). See K&P for details:
(2) a. trano
house
b. ny tranoko
the house+my
c. ny tranon-dRabe4
the house+of+Rabe
(3) a. atao
do/done
b. ataoko
I do/@done my@
c. ataon-dRabe
Rabe does/@done of Rabe@
Lastly, pronominal replacements for Themes and Goals in (1a) also have distinctive
pronominal forms: ahy >me=, azy >him, her, them=. We call these acc forms.
2. The core voice system in Malagasy We assume a lexicon of roots (Abinal & Malzac,
1963; Rabenilaina 1993). We form nuclear clauses and DPs bottom up by affixing and
concatenating lexical items, not by inserting them in prefabricated trees. (This renders
difficult detailed comparison of our proposals with more usual P&P or Minimalist ones).
2.1 Primary Affixes apply to roots yielding verbs B syntactically simple Pns (n-place
predicates) which carry selection features for the categories and cases of their arguments.
We consider only 7 such affixes here. Their diversity supports our approach over fixed
tree models. Tense affixes (present = m- /-, past = n(o)-, future = h(o)-) combine with
Pns to form tensed Pns, preserving argument structure.
2.1.1 (m)aN- (4b) records the derivational history of (4a) identifying its constituents.
(4) a.
n+aN+enjika (nanenjika) ny jiolahy Rabe
past+AN+chase
the thief Rabe
Rabe chased the thief
b.
Spst
Spst[DPnom:AG]
Spst[DPacc:TH,DPnom:AG]
Tpst
DPacc
DPnom
ny jiolahy
Rabe
S[DPacc:TH,DPnom:AG]
RT{AG,TH}
n
(m)aN- + enjika
enjika is a root with two theta roles, Agent (AG) and Theme (TH). We note its category
as RT{AG,TH}. (m)aN- is prefixed to enjika, with which the tense marker n- combines to
form a tensed P2 of category Spst[DPacc:TH,DPnom:AG]. It selects a DPacc interpreted as
Theme to form a tensed P1, which merges with a DPnom interpreted as Agent to form a
past tense P0 (Spst ). Prefixing (m)aN is done by a morphological function AN, as in (5)5.
(5)
enjika: RT{AG,TH}
AN
===> -anenjika: S[DPacc:TH, DPnom:AG]
We treat roots, and expressions in general, as ordered pairs whose first coordinate is a
phonological string, and whose second is a grammatical category. (In English the noun
honor and the verb honor are different expressions with the same first coordinate but
different category coordinates). We often omit brackets around ordered pairs.
Syntax A function Merge concatenates a string s of category Pn = Stns[C1α1:θ1,...,Cnαn:θn]
with a t of category C1α1 to form st of category Stns[C2α2:θ2,...,Cnαn:θn], satisfying a
category (C1) and a case (α1) requirement. In a variant vocabulary we may say that
merging a C1α1 with the Pn checks the C1α1 feature. When all case and category features
are checked we have a P0 (0 = no features to check). In (4a), Merge concatenates
nanenjika with ny jiolahy >the thief= a DPacc to yield nanenjika ny jiolahy, a
Spst[DPnom:AG].
Then that P1 merges with Rabe, a DPnom, to form a P0. Theta role diacritics only appear
in the selection feature list of Pn=s. They are used in semantic interpretation.
Semantics Given a model with domain E, (enjika, RT{AG,TH}) denotes a binary relation
over E (a set of pairs of elements of E). A P1 denotes a property, a function from E into
truth values5. In general a Pn+1, an n+1-ary predicate, maps an entity to an n-ary
predicate denotation. For simplicity here we use DPs interpretable as elements of E.
Extending our treatment to the full class of generalized quantifiers is straightforward.
Theta roles are relations between entities in E and n-ary predicate denotations, n > 0.
Writing d for the semantic interpretation of an expression d, we define:
(6) AN(enjika)(y)(x) = True iff
(x,y)  enjika  THEME(y enjika))  AGENT(x, enjika)
We often omit the category coordinate of an expression, writing just enjika instead of
<enjika, RT{AG,TH}>. In (6) enjika denotes a binary relation enjika. Some might want
to read the right hand side above as Ax and y are participants in a chasing event enjika,
y is Theme of enjika and x is Agent@. All we need is compositionality: that the
derived expression AN(enjika) be interpreted as a function of what it is derived from,
enjika.
From (6) it is the P1 AN(enjika), not just the root enjika, which associates argument
and theta role. (4a) is True (in E) if and only if the pair <j,r> is in the enjika relation,
j = the thief and r = Rabe, and j bears the Theme relation to enjika and r the Agent
relation to it. So ny jiolahy >the thief= denotes the Theme of AN(enjika) >chase= and
Rabe its Agent in (4a). Thus theta role assignment derives from semantics. And we
define:
Def 1 A verb is Actor Voice (AV) iff it does not select a DPgen. Pn=s built from an AV
verb are also called AV. A non-AV verb is called θ voice if it selects a DPnom:θ.
Thus AN(enjika) in (4a) is AV, as is (4a) itself. A verb recall, is a syntactically simple Pn.
It consists of a root with zero or more affixes. The result of coordinating a verb with a
Pn, modifying it by an adverb or PP, or merging it with an argument expression is not
syntactically simple, and so is not a verb. Fact 1 below motivates our explicit (given a
lexicon) but narrowly language specific definition of Actor Voice (Schachter 1976).
Fact 1 A verb (and its Pn=s) is Actor Voice iff it selects a DPnom whose theta role
outranks those of any other DP it selects on the partial order in (7):
(7) Agent/Cause/Perceiver > Theme/Goal > Instrument/Benefactive/Locative > Other
Fact 1 holds for the range of verbs we consider, but complete support would require
treating predicates like mendrika >merits=, as in mendrika azy izy >Henom merits itacc=
with He = Goal and it = Theme. Refining Fact 1 leaves Def 1 unchanged.
Being Actor Voice is likely a syntactic invariant of Malagasy grammar [K&S].
This property is syntactically significant in that: (1) Only AV verbs are m-initial in
present tense; (2) AV verbs form imperatives (K&P, Koopman 2005) by suffixing -a,
non-AV verbs suffix -o (= /u/), or -y (= /i/) if the root contains an o; (3) Causative and
reciprocal affixes only apply to AV verbs, forming AV verbs, and (4) Acircumstantial@
morphology (below) applies only to AV verbs, deriving non-AV verbs.
To complete our analysis of (4a) we stipulate that the domain of the function AN, the
set of expressions it applies to, isdef the set of roots marked with man- in Abinal & Malzac
1963. These roots r often have category RT{AG,TH} (but not all such roots are in the
domain of AN; see I below). AN maps them to AN(r) of category S[DPacc:TH,DPnom:AG].
Some present tense examples are: AN(didy) = mandidy >cuts=, AN(vaky) = mamaky
>reads=, AN(vono) = mamono >kills=, AN(fonos-) = mamono >envelopes=. AN also
applies to roots r of category RT{AG,TH,GOAL}, mapping them to AN(r) of category
S[DPacc:TH,DPacc:GL,DPnom:AG], as in: AN(roso) = mandroso >serves=, AN(tolotra) =
manolotra >offers=, AN(ome) = manome >gives=.
AN applies to a few roots of category RT{AG} yielding P1s: AN(leha) = mandeha
>goes=, AN(dihy) = mandihy >dances=, AN(lainga) = mandainga >lies=, AN(lohalika)
= mandohalika >kneels=. Also AN has some roots of category RT{TH} in its domain:
AN(hetaheta) = mangetaheta >is thirsty=, AN(hatsiaka) = mangatsiaka >is cold=,
AN(firatra+firatra) = mamirapiratra >scintillates=. (8) is a generalization that aids in
language acquisition by providing default interpretations for novel verbs.
(8) AN always builds Actor Voice predicates (and so will also be called Actor Voice).
To complete defining AN we should say what phonological value it assigns to the
string coordinate of a root r. We often just write AN(r), but as in other Austronesian
languages (m)aN- prefixation is phonologically complex: vowel initial roots just prefix
an-. Root initial voiceless stops usually drop: tolotra >offer=  manolotra, voiced
continuants usually mutate to the closest prenasalized non-continuant: roso >serve= =
mandroso, /ma.ndru.su/, etc. See K&P and Paul (1996).
Many voice affixes are determined by functions whose domains overlap but are not
identical. That is, the affixes select their roots, no two select exactly the same set, but
they often overlap. Thus it is natural to represent (m)aN- affixation by a function AN
since to define the domain of AN is to state what roots (m)aN- selects. Similarly for the
other verbal affixes. To derive a P1 from a root we must see the affix, not simply know
that there is one, as many different affixes combine with the same root. Even given the
theta role of the DPnom of the P1 we still cannot uniquely predict the affix (below).
2.1.2 I is a second AV function. It prefixes i- to the string coordinate of a root. It
applies to many roots of category RT{AG,TH} building P2s of category S[DPacc:TH,
DPnom:AG],
like AN: I(kapoka) = mikapoka >beats=, I(vidy) = mividy >buys=, I(orina) = miorina
>builds=, I(varotra) = mivarotra >sells=, I(laza) = milaza >says=, I(tady) = mitady
>seeks=,
I(fidy) = mifidy >chooses=, I(saotra) = misaotra >thanks=, I(karakara) = mikarakara
>takes
care of=, I(taona) = mitaona >carries=, I(jery) = mijery >watches=, I(antso) = miantso
>calls=. None of the roots listed here are also in the domain of AN. Thus if we know of
a
P1 that it is built from an Agent/Theme root and interprets its DPnom as Agent we cannot
uniquely predict the AV prefix: it is aN- with enjika >chase=, but i- with tady >seek=.
I also often builds P1s, and this in two ways. It applies to some roots of category
RT{AG}: asa ==> miasa >works=, teny ==> miteny >speaks=, homehy ==> mihomehy
>laughs=. And it applies to some two place roots which are in the domain of AN: enjika
==> mienjika >runs away=, (manenjika >chases=); sasa ==> misasa >washes (intr)=
(manasa >washes (tr)=); hidy ==> mihidy >is locked=, (manidy >locks (tr)=). Another
language internal generalization helpful in learning novel verbs is:
(9) When i- and aN- combine with the same root the i-verb usually has lesser valence.
I- is the most productive AV affix. In distinction to AN, it enables direct recovery of
the root. Hilda Koopman (pc) points out nonce creations on the web like miparticiper
>participates= built on French with a (m)i- prefix. We turn now to some non-AV affixes.
2.1.3 INA builds non-AV predicates by suffixing roots with -ina (-ena, -(a)na)
supporting root final consonants (perhaps modified)2. Suffixing in general shifts stress
(phonemic) rightward. We mark it here, but not generally. Contrast (11a) with (4a):
énjika: RT{AG,TH}
(10)
INA
==> enjéhina: S[DPgen:AG, DPnom:TH]
(11) a. n+enjika + ina +Rabe (nenjehin-dRabe) ny jiolahy
past+chase+INA+Rabe
the thief
Rabe chased the thief (The thief was chased by Rabe)
b.
Spst
Spst[DPnom:TH]
Spst[DPgen:AG,DPnom:TH]
DPgen
DPnom
S[DPgen:AG,DPnom:TH]
Tpst
RT{AG,TH}
n
enjika + ina
Rabe
ny jiolahy
Past
chase
INA
Rabe
the thief
Rabe chased the thief (The thief was chased by Rabe)
(12) INA(enjika)(u)(v) = True iff
(u,v)  enjika  THEME(v,enjika)  AGENT(u,enjika)
So enjehina is a Theme Voice (TV) verb. INA always builds non-AV verbs. Ss like
(11a) are often translated as passives in English or French (Rahajarizafy 1962, Keenan
1976, Paul 1999) since, in both, the Theme is an argument of the P1 and the Agent is part
of a constituent with the verb excluding the Theme. But in fact TV verbs built from -ina
and a- (below) are far more like English actives than passives7. We now define:
Def 2 Nuclear Ss are theta equivalent iff their arguments can be bijectively matched such
that each argument in one and its match in the other have the same theta roles.
Notice now that (13a) follows immediately from (6) and (12), and in general (13b) holds
when root is in the domain of both AN and INA. So the derived verbs are logical
converses, from which the two propositions below follow.
(13) a. AN(enjika)(y)(x) = INA(enjika)(x)(y) and in general,
b. AN(root)(y)(x) = INA(root)(x)(y)
Proposition 1 For r a two theta role root in the domain of both AN and INA,
A. nuclear Ss built from AN(r) and INA(r) are theta equivalent: the P1 argument of
each bears the same theta role as the non-P1 argument of the other.
B. I(r) and INA(r) build theta equivalent nuclear Ss when I(r) is transitive.
Proposition 2 Nuclear Ss built from AN(r) and INA(r) are logically equivalent when
their Agents are the same individual denoting DPs and their Themes are the same
individual denoting DPs. Comparable claims hold for I(r) and INA(r) in B.
Prop-2 provides support not based on theta roles for the correctness of our analysis.
Prop-1, extended below, is why UTAH (Uniformity of Theta Role Assignment
Hypothesis; Baker 1988) fails on our analysis. UTAH implies that DPs with the same
theta role in different expressions are derived from isomorphic initial structures. And our
treatment of the voice affixes such as AN/INA and I/INA is that they combine with roots
to build syntactically distinct verbs which are semantic converses of each other, whence
we can match their argument DPs preserving theta role but violating UTAH.
The AN/INA alternation is very productive in Malagasy, many roots lie in the
domain of both functions: haja  manaja / hajaina >respects=, vono  mamono /
vonoina
>hits, kills=, la  manda / lavina >refuses=. Equally the I/INA alternation is productive:
bata  mibata / bataina >raises up=, kapoka  mikapoka / kapohina >beats=, antso 
miantso / antsoina >calls=. Imagine English with hundreds of pairs of verbs of the form
<x+blik, y+blik> which were semantic converses, like please / like. We could then, as in
Malagasy, derive nuclear Ss such as Aw likes z@ and Az pleases w@ holding of the same
participants but presenting them in different syntactic configurations without ever having
been in the same one, violating UTAH, to which we return in 3.2.
2.1.4 A is a second non-AV function. It prefixes a-, and like I and AN, it applies only to
roots, so its domain can be listed. The DPnom of a P1 built by A is an AIntermediary@:
Theme with roots of movement or transmission, Instrument otherwise. See Paul (1999).
Here we just emphasize that A, INA, I, and AN, all select the roots they apply to. For
example A applies to tosika below yielding a TV verb, whose first argument is a genitive
Agent, always the case with non-AV verbs.
(14) a.
[n+(m)aN+tosika (nanosika) ny fiara] Rabe
past+AN+push the car Rabe
Rabe pushed the car
(AV)
b.
[n+a+tosika+Rabe (natosi-dRabe)] ny fiara
past+A+push+Rabe.gen the car
Rabe pushed the car
(TV)
tosika is not in the domain of INA: *tosihina. Thus we cannot uniquely predict the voice
affix of a P1 built from a Agent/Theme root which interprets its DPnom as Theme. If the
root is enjika >chase= we use -ina, if it is tosika >push= we use a-.
Other roots in the domain of A but not INA are taov- >do, make= which yields AV
manao and TV atao but *taovina; voaka >exit= which yields AV mivoaka >go out= and
mamoaka >expell=, as well as TV avoaka, but *voahina. Also lahatra  mandahatra
and
alahatra >put in a line= but *laharina, and tono  mitono and atono >grills= but
*tonoina.
There are many more roots in the domain of INA but not of A: lalao >play=  lalaovina
but *alalao; la >refuse=  lavina but *ala; haja >respect=  hajaina but *ahaja. But
usually both A and INA apply to ditransitive roots of transmission, as in (1). A assigns
Theme to DPnom and INA assigns Goal. Similar roots are roso >serve= and solo
>replace,
substitute=. This paradigm is not limited to verbs of transmission:
(15) a. n+(m)aN+tondro (nanondro) ny tranony tamin=ny tehiny Rabe
past+AN+point-out
the house-his past+with=the cane-his Rabe
Rabe indicated his house with his cane
b. n+a+tondro+Rabe (natondron-dRabe) ny tranony ny tehiny
past+A+point-out Rabe
the house-his the cane-his
c. no+tondro+ina+Rabe (notondroin-dRabe) tamin=ny tehiny ny tranony
past+point-out+INA+Rabe
past+with=the cane-his the house-his
Here are the semantic values of AN, A, and INA at ditransitive roots r. (16a) says that
the P3 AN(r) interprets its argument z as THEME, the resulting function interprets its
argument y as GOAL, and the final P1 function interprets its argument x as AGENT. In
contrast the A verb in (16b) interprets its first argument as AGENT, its second as GOAL
and its last as THEME. The INA verb in (16c) interprets its first argument as AGENT,
its second as THEME, and its last as GOAL.
(16) a. AN(p, RT{AG,TH,GOAL})(z)(y)(x) = True iff
<z,y,x>  P & THEME(z,P) & GOAL(y,P) & AG(x,P)
b. A(p, RT{AG,TH,GOAL})(x)(y)(z) = True iff
<z,y,x>  P & AG(x,P) & GOAL(y,P) & TH(z,P)
c. INA(p, RT{AG,TH,GOAL})(x)(z)(y) = True iff
<z,y,x>  P & AG(x,P) & TH(z,P) & GOAL(y,P)
(16b,c), as well as (1b,c) are examples of two non-AV theta equivalent Ss. So theta
equivalence doesn=t just apply to pairs we might analogize to active vs passive in
English. And we now extend Proposition 1
C. For r in the domain of AN and A, nuclear Ss built from AN(r) and A(r) are theta
equivalent, the P1 argument of one bearing the same theta role as that of the
interior argument of the other.
D. For r a ditransitive root of transmission in the domains of AN, A, and INA the
three nuclear Ss they build are theta equivalent, per (16) above.
2.1.5 Roots. Malagasy has about 25 roots which function directly as TV P2s. So in the
lexicon they have category S[DPgen:AG,DPnom:TH] and take without affixation a genitive
Agent and a nominative Theme. They have AV forms in (m)aN- or i- and often (not
always) have INA forms. We illustrate with the root résy marking stress:
(17) a. Résin=ny mpanjaka izy ireo
defeat+INA=the ruler.gen 3nom dem.pl
They are/were defeated by the king
b. N+aN+résy (nandrésy) azy ireo ny mpanjaka
past+AN+defeat
3acc dem.pl the ruler
The king defeated them
c. Resy+ina+Imp (= reséna+Imp = Reséo) izy!
defeat+INA+Imperative
3nom dem.pl
Defeat them!
Root predicates in general do not take past tense marking, n(o)-. A lexical adjective like
adala >crazy= builds Adala Rabe >Rabe is/was crazy=, but *Nadala Rabe >Rabe was
crazy=. Similarly resi- in (17a) cannot prefix no-. These TV roots are stative, whereas
their -ina counterparts are dynamic (Paul 1999). The imperative in (17c) is the INA
form, as we see from the stress shift right and the change in vowel from i to e. The
addressee is missed out as is usual (but not obligatory) in imperatives B it is genitive
when present, and the Theme is nominative, as expected. In (17a) we have the stative
root, in which the n following resi is a purely orthographic reflex of the genitive
construction, Malagasy has no geminates.
Thus TV roots like résy and their INA forms, reséna, may both take genitive Agents
and nominative Themes yielding theta equivalent Ss, both of which are non-AV. For
each line below the three indicative forms build nuclear Ss that are theta equivalent, the
first two being TV with genitive Agent/Perceiver and nominative Theme, the last being
AV with accusative Theme and nominative Agent/Perceiver. The last two imperative
forms likewise build theta equivalent imperatives. (The AV imperative theta equivalent
to (17c) is Mandresea azy! >Defeat them (3acc)!=).
(18)
ROOT
résy
TV
reséna
AV
mandrésy
TV+Imp
reséo
AV+Imp
mandreséa
>defeat=
héno
váky
tápaka
hadíno
henóina
vakína
tapáhina
hadinóina
mihéno
mamáky
manápaka
manadíno
henóy
vakío
tapáho
hadinóy
mihenóa
mamakía
manapáha
manadinóa
>hear=
>read=
>cut=
>forget=
2.1.6 VOA is a TV function which prefixes voa- to roots forming Ss theta equivalent to
INA ones but which differ in aspect. Compare:
(19) a.
Voa+kapoka (voakapoka) ilay alika
VOA+ beat
that (aforementioned) dog
That dog was beaten
b.
no+laza+ina+ko (nolazaiko) izany
c. voa+laza+ko (voalazako) izany
past+say+INA+1sg.gen that
VOA+say+1sg.gen that
I said that
I said that
VOA verbs are perfective, do not form imperatives and, like roots, are not marked for
pas tense. They are often agentless, (19a), and occur less frequently than INA or A verbs
(Keenan and Manorohanta 2001). So they do resemble English passives. Still, as (19c)
shows they can take genitive Agents building Ss theta equivalent to ones built from INA
verbs. And it is common, as with both roots in (19), for VOA and INA to apply to the
same roots: fitaka  voafitaka, fitahina >deceived=, vonjy  vaovonjy, vonjena >saved=,
soratra  vaosoratra, soratana >written=.
2.1.7 - prefixes to about 20 roots, all vowel initial, forming present tense AV verbs in
m-. They take normal past and future tense marking, n(o)- and h(o)- replacing m-. They
have AV imperative forms and circumstantial forms (below), so we treat them as having
a zero prefix (m is the present tense marker for all AV derived verbs). Examples are -ila
>need=, -ino >believe=, -indrana >borrow=, -anana >possess= and -iditra >enter=. The
first
four have -ina forms and thus form theta equivalent Ss.
(20) a. m++íla (míla) azy aho
Pres+AV+need 3acc 1sg.nom
I need her
b. Ila+ina+ko (iláiko) izy
need+ina+1sg.gen 3nom
I need her
There are yet other primary affixes B the AV ma-, mana- and maha- (Phillips 2000)
and the (usually) TV tafa-, but our partial inventory will suffice here.
2.2 Secondary Affixes. Causative AMP (Randriamasimanana 1986; Andrianierenana
1996) and reciprocal IF (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2004) prefix (m)amp- and (m)ifrespectively to AV verbs (less the initial m) forming AV verbs that lie in the domain of
other voice affixes, hence our interest in them. (21) and (22b) both illustrate both affixes.
(21) n+if+amp+i+anatra zavatra betsaka isika
past+Rec+Cause+I+learn thing many we.nom.incl
We have taught each other many things
(22) a. n+if+an+enjika izy ireo
past+Rec+AN+chase 3nom dem.pl
They chased each other
b. n+amp+if+an+enjika azy ireo Rabe
past+Cause+Rec+AN+chase 3acc dem.pl Rabe
Rabe made them chase each other
AMP verbs (but not IF ones) lie in the domain of INA (whose DPnom can be either Theme
in the case of causatives of transitive verbs).
(23) a. n+amp+aN+taov (nampanao) farafara azy ireo
Rabe
past+Cause+AN+make
bed
3.acc dem.pl Rabe
Rabe made them make beds
b. n+[amp+aN+taov]+ina+Rabe (nampanaovin-dRabe) farafara izy ireo
past+Cause+AN+make+INA+Rabe
bed
3.nom dem.pl
They were made by Rabe to make beds
So the primary voice functions AN, I,  and A only apply to roots. But INA applies to
roots and to AV verbs derived by AMP. INA also applies to a closed class of six AV
verbs derived by AN: they suffix -ina directly to form a TV verb: hataka  mangataka
(AV)  angatahina (TV) >asks=; halatra  mangalatra (AV)  angalarina (TV)
>steals=;
voatra  mamboatra (AV)  amboarina (TV) >arranges=. See RR (1971; 102).
(24)
n+[[aN+halatra]+ina]+Rabe (nangalarin-dRabe) ny omby
past[[AV+steal]]+TV+Rabe.gen the cow
The cow was stolen by Rabe / Rabe stole the cow
2.3 Circumstantial Voice (CV) is the last and most problematic voice we consider. CV
verbs are built by ANA which suffixes -ana (sometimes -anana) shifting stress right,
preserving root final consonants2. ANA applies to all prefixed AV verbs and to no bare
roots or non-AV verbs. The derived verb is not AV: it first selects a DPgen, with the theta
role of the DPnom of the AV verb it is derived from. Its DPnom usually bears an oblique
theta role B Benefactive, Instrument, Location, Time, Manner, Price, ..., typically not
selected by the AV verb it applies to (see K&P, and Paul 1999)8. Present tense is - and
imperatives are formed with -o (or -y), as expected of non-AV verbs. Compare:
(25) a. [n+aN+enjika (nanenjika) ny jiolahy t+amin=ny fiara] Rabe
past+AV+chase
the thief past+with=the car Rabe
Rabe chased the thief by means of the car
AV
b. [n+enjika+ina+Rabe (nenjehin-dRabe) t+amin=ny fiara] ny jiolahy
past+chase+TV+Rabe.gen
past+with=the car the thief
Rabe chased the thief by means of the car
TV
c. [n+[aN+enjika]+ana+Rabe (nanenjehan-dRabe) ny jiolahy] ny fiara
past+[[AV+chase]+CF]+Rabe.gen
the thief
the car
Rabe chased the thief in/with/...the car
CV
(26) a. [n+i+vidy (nividy) akanjo ho an=i Bosy] Rasoa
past+I+buy
clothes for=art Bosy Rasoa
Rasoa bought clothes for Bosy
AV
b. [no+[vidy+ina]+Rasoa (novidin-dRasoa) ho an=i Bosy] ny akanjo
past+buy+INA+Rasoa.gen
for=art Bosy the clothes
Rasoa bought the clothes for Bosy
TV
c.[n+i+vidy+anana+Rasoa (nividianan-dRasoa) akanjo] i Bosy
past+[[I+buy]+ANA]+Rasoa.gen
clothes art Bosy
Rasoa bought clothes for/because of...Bosy
CV
(27) is a sample application of ANA to a transitive AV verb On the right in (28) are
some present tense CV verbs built from enjika >chase=.
ANA
(27) verbAV:S[DPacc:TH, DPnom:AG] ==> verb+ana:S[DPgen:AG, DPacc:TH, DPnom]
(28) miénjika
manénjika
mifanénjika
mampifanénjika
runs away
chases
chase each other
makes chase e.o.
ienjéhana
anenjéhana
ifanenjéhana
ampifanenjéhana
circumstance of fleeing
circ. of chasing
circ. of chasing each other
circ. of causing to chase e.o.
In (27) DPnom is not marked for theta role. The CV form tells us that its DPnom stands in
some oblique relation to the action or state expressed by the verb, but just which one is
decided pragmatically, not coded in the syntax or morphology. For example, in (29)
Rasoa might be Benefactee or might be Cause (she nagged Rabe so much he finally built
a house). Other theta roles, such Instrument or Locative are grammatically possible but
pragmatically implausible in this case.
(29) +[[aN+taov]+ana]+Rabe (anaovan-dRabe) ny trano Rasoa
pres+AN+make+ANA+Rabe.gen the house Rasoa
Rabe is making the house for / because of Rasoa
So a CV sentence is not fully theta equivalent to a corresponding AV or TV one with an
overt PP. But the arguments which are selected by the underlying AV verb do bear the
same theta roles in both Ss. Here is our analysis: PPs and adverbials denote predicate
modifiers B functions F mapping predicate denotations P to predicate denotations F(P).
Normally they are restricting: F(P)  P, meaning that for all entities x, if F(P)(x) = True
then P(x) = True. for Max is restricting in (30a), whence it entails (30b). Replacing for
Max by with a screwdriver preserves the entailment since it is also restricting.
(30) a.
b.
Sue opened the box for Max
Sue opened the box
[(for Max)(open (the box))](Sue)
[(open(the box))](Sue)
So Prepositions denote functions p mapping entities to restricting functions, and CV
verbs quantify over such p as in (31), the circumstantial of a transitive verb. (29) is
derived as in (32) and compositionally interpreted as in (33), tense omitted9.
(31) ANA(verbAV)(x)(y)(z) = True iff p p(z)(verbAV(y))(x) = True
(32)
Spres
Spres[DPnom]
Spres[DPacc, DPnom]
Spres[DPgen, DPacc, DPnom]
S[DPgen, DPacc, DPnom]
S[DPacc,DPnom]
DPgen
DPacc
DPnom
Rabe
ny trano
Rasoa
RT{AG,TH}

(33)
aN
taov
ana

aN
taov
ana
Pres
AN
TAOV
ANA
Rabe
ny trano Rasoa
r
t
s
AN(TAOV)
ANA(AN(TAOV))
(ANA(AN(TAOV)))(r)
(ANA(AN(TAOV)))(r)(t)
(ANA(AN(TAOV)))(r)(t)(s)
Crucially the semantic interpretation of the CV verb uses that of the AV verb it takes as
argument. The (tenseless) AV verb is a constituent of the CV verb, as made clear in the
bracketing in (31). And since p(x) is restricting, a nuclear CV S like (29) entails the AV
(34) which lacks a PP corresponding to the P1 argument of the circumstantial.
(34) m+aN+taov (manao) ny trano Rabe
pres+aN+make the house Rabe
Rabe is making a house
The last line is True iff for some p, p(s)(AN(TAOV)(t))(r) = True. And since p(s) is
restricting, the last line entails AN(TAOV)(t)(r), the interpretation of Rabe is making the
house. Thus our semantics for the circumstantial S entails that Rabe is Agent of make
and the house is Theme. Consider now the predictions of theta equivalence between a
circumstantial S and a corresponding AV one with an overt oblique.
(35) a.
b.
+aN+taov+ana+Rabe (anaovan-dRabe) ny trano Rasoa
pres+aN+make+ana+Rabe.gen the house Rasoa
Rabe is making the house for / because of Rasoa
m+aN+taov (manao) ny trano ho an-dRasoa Rabe
pres+aN+make the house for Rasoa Rabe
Rabe is making the house for Rasoa
(CV)
(AV)
On our semantics (35b) entails (35a), but the converse fails. (35a) is true in a model in
which Rasoa=s nagging prompted Rabe to build a house for sale (not for her). Our
analysis also shows that the genitive complement Rabe in (35a), has the same theta role,
Agent, as the P1 argument in (35b), and the accusative ny trano >the house= is Theme in
both Ss. But while Rasoa is a Benefactive in (35b), forced by the choice of Prep ho an>for=, Rasoa is not assigned a theta role in (35a). So (35a,b) are not fully theta (or
logically) equivalent. Our semantics just quantifies over functions from entities to
restricting functions, different theta roles for Rasoa correspond to different choices of
function. Thus on our analysis a CV S is vague, not ambiguous, regarding the theta role
of its DPnom. We just know that it bears some oblique relation to the predicate denotation.
The case is analogous to the bridge where the spies meet, which is unspecific but not
ambiguous regarding whether they meet under, on, or next to the bridge. In contrast
purely syntactic approaches which derive CV forms by incorporating a Prep into the
verbal root (GHT 1992, Paul 1999) would seem to predict ambiguity not vagueness for
CV Ss according to the Prep incorporated..
3. Comparison with mainstream analyses Schachter (1976) first pointed out that
properties associated with Asubjects@ (anteceding reflexives, extracting in relativization,
etc.) were split between the DPnom of AV Ss and the DPgen of non-AV Ss (our
terminology) in Philippine languages. GHT (1992) was the first account for these facts
in contemporary generative theory, treating Avoice@ morphology as case assigners and
deriving AV and TV Ss by movement of different DPs into Spec(IP) in structures like
(36) in order to get case, similar to the derivation of passives in English.
(36)
IP
I=
I
DP
VP
DP
agent
V=
V
-ina
Rabe
enjika
DP
theme
ny jiolahy
e
In (36) -ina assigns case to Rabe, the verb enjika >chase= moves to I hosting the suffix
-ina, and ny jiolahy >the thief= raises to DP = Spec(IP) to get case. Assumed stipulations
here are that Spec(IP) is assigned case and that the Theme sister of V is not. The
corresponding AV S differs from (36) in that the V node dominates both the lexical verb
and the morpheme aN-, which assigns case to the Theme. I is empty and the Agent Rabe
is caseless in situ and moves to Spec(IP) getting case. UTAH is roughly satisfied in that
Agent and Theme assignment are effected in comparable positions in the trees underlying
AV and TV Ss (but the trees are not isomorphic due to differences in voice annotation,
-ina vs aN- which force different movement options). This case/voice approach is
extended in Paul 1999 to include a- verbs, and is implicit in R&T 2000.
A second generative approach was initiated by Richards 2000 for Tagalog and
developed more fully in Pearson 2005 for Malagasy using structures like (37). Here ny
jiolahy >the thief= is not raised to get case, rather it is a topic as in V2 languages like
Icelandic and is base generated in Spec(TopP), an A= position not an A position. It is coindexed with an empty operator which has moved from an argument position. Voice
morphology encodes the abstract case features associated with the movement chain
determined by that operator. This operator originates in Spec(VP) where it is assigned a
theta role (Theme) by V but not case. The Asp head preceding it has a strong (by
stipulation) case feature, -Vn (= -ina) so it moves across that node into Spec(AspP),
acquiring accusative case. Then it moves directly to Spec(WhP). Rabe is generated in
Spec(vP) where it is assigned the Agent role by little v. The E head to its left has a weak
(by stipulation) case assigner -ny, so Rabe remains in situ, where it is assigned case.
The verb is built from enjika which head-moves to Asp, hosting the -Vn(a) suffix,
then the verb+-Vn(a) moves to v (without effect), then to E, hosting the suffixal linker
-ny, then the whole complex, -enjehiny, moves to T where it hosts the tense prefix nB.
The underlying structure is given in (37).
In the AV version of (37), nanenjika ny jiolahy Rabe >Rabe, he chased the thief=,
presents aN- in Asp, stipulated weak, whence ny jiolahy in Spec(VP) does not move and
is assigned case (accusative) and theta role (Theme) in situ. In E however we now find
the AV morpheme m-, stipulated strong. Spec(vP) is filled with an empty operator which
moves to Spec(EP), acquiring nominative case, and then moves directly to Spec(WhP)
where it is co-indexed with Rabe, generated in Spec(TopP).
(37)
TopP
Top=
DP
ny jiolahyi
Top
WhP
Wh=
DP
Opi
Wh
TP
T
n-
EP
DP
E=
E
-ny
(weak)
vP
DP
Rabe
v=
v
AspP
DP
ti
AspP=
Asp
-Vn
(strong)
VP
DP
ti
V=
V
Nenjehin-dRabe ny jiolahy
enjika
>chase=
We turn now to the comparison, limiting ourselves to (1) descriptive adequacy and (2)
generality: how insightfully the analyses carry over to other languages.
3.1 Selection In treating voice affixes as functions10 we have committed ourselves to
defining their domains. In several cases, AN, I, A,  they are just lists of lexical items.
In other cases, such as INA the domain is a mix B some lexical items, 6 AN verbs listed,
and then the range of AMP (Causative). The domain of AMP itself is basically the range
of AN, I and  (for verbs considered here). Listing is not a matter of theoretical interest,
though the lists support some language internal generalizations of help to the learner.
Mainstream approaches fail to provide the means to constrain the distribution of
affixes and roots, since they (largely) occur independently in the tree structures. What
prevents us on either mainstream approach from inserting -ina in the slot provided for the
voice affix (strong in Pearson) and inserting tosika >push= in the root/verb node? They
are independent nodes, and each item can independently go where we put it. But then
verb movement will derive the phonologically natural *tosihina, which does not exist,
since as we have seen tosika, like many other roots, forms its Theme Voice form with a-,
not -ina. Dually many roots take -ina and not a-. Nor can we redesign the lexical entries
for a- and -ina so that they occur in the same node, forcing them to be in complementary
distribution. Then we would not generate the many verbs built from roots that take both
affixes (such as most ditransitives).
We emphasize that the problems here are not just a few lexical items. Mainstream
approaches massively misgenerate B they scramble verb roots and affixes, the core of
Malagasy grammar. Here, quickly, are some further cases.
1B the i- and aN- AV prefixes distinguish many two place roots. Many such roots
combine with i- and not aN- and many combine with aN- and not i-. But again we can
not put them in the same node in the tree since then we fail to capture the many cases of
roots that take both, with the i-verb usually being intransitive.
2 B many i-verbs are AV transitive and their roots may take TV -ina. But we
listed a fair number that don=t take -ina, such as voaka >go out=, lahatra >align=, etc.
To
derive the first case i- and -ina must occupy independent nodes. But then what blocks
forming -ina verbs from the many roots that take i- but not -ina? Similarly what blocks
forming i- verbs from roots that take -ina but not i-?
3 B traditional suppletive voice forms are not naturally handled on mainstream
approaches. For example mitondra / entina >carries=. Mitondra is an AV transitive
verb
built from I, it has AV tense and imperatives and a CV form, but tondra does not build a
TV verb B not with a-, not with -ina. Similarly entina behaves like a regular TV form B
it forms imperatives in -o not -a, but it has no corresponding AV form. For us we just
include tondra in the domain list for I, and ent- in that for INA. And we stipulate in the
lexical entries that INA(ent-)(y)(x) = I(tondra)(x)(y). This is correctly ad hoc as
there
is no way to predict that mitrondra and entina are logical converses. Other suppletive
pairs are maka / alaina >takes= and mahalala / fantatra >knows=.
4 B we have seen that there are six AN verbs in the domain of INA (angataka >ask=,
etc.). So these verbs will carry both aN- and -ina, a situation incompatible with either
mainstream approach. On GHT for example both Agent and Theme would be case
marked. With no other DP in the S, as in (24), the result is incorrectly blocked (an EPP
violation). If there is an oblique DP in the S it would advance to subject with the CV
morphology -ana on the verb. But this is ungrammatical, -ina verbs cannot suffix -ana.
Again we just list these six aN- verbs in the domain of INA. They are exceptional in
traditional grammars and learning that they take -ina must be done ad hocly.
5 B case assigning by voice affixes is not sufficiently general internal to Malagasy.
Recall the 25 odd roots that function directly as TV transitive verbs: resy >defeat=,
hadino
>forget=, etc. So in Ss like (17a) Résin=ny mpanjaka izy ireo >They are defeated by the
king= we have two case marked DPs, one genitive, one nominative, assigned Agent and
Theme respectively. We list these roots in the lexicon with category
S[DPgen:AG,DPnom:TH].
But on mainstream approaches there are no affixes to assign case.
Also case assignment by voice affix does not extend naturally to case assigners like
Adjectives and Prepositions. Arguably there is a very general mechanism (Ntelitheos
2005), represented by a nasal segment (na in GHT, ny in Pearson) which constructs
genitive case complements. In (2) we saw Afree@ genitives on Ns like >house= tranondRabe >Rabe=s house=. We find such genitives on some adjectives, as in (38).
(38) a. jamba (adj) >blind=
b. marary (adj) >sick=
a=. jamban=ny vola >blinded by money=
b=. mararin=ny tazomoka >sick from
malaria=
But a few others select accusative: antonina >sufficient=, feno >full=, sahaza
>suitable=.
(39) a. Antonina azy io satroka io
sufficient him that hat that
That hat suits him
b. Feno azy ny siny
full 3acc the jug
The jug is full of it
Prepositions normally select genitive complements, as in (40a,b,d), but a few, as in
(41a,b) select accusative. And one, noho >compared to, because of= selects nominative:
noho izy (nom) >compared to him, because of him=.
(40) a. amy (prep) >with,...=
a=
amiko >with me=, amin-dRabe >with
Rabe=
b. ambony (prep) >on, above=
c. akaiky (prep) >near (to)=
(41) a. Lavitra ahy izy io
Far 1sg.acc 3nom dem.sg
That is far from me
b=. ambonin=ny latabatra >on the table=
c=
akaikin-dRabe >near Rabe=
b. Nividy akanjo ho azy aho
bought clothes for 3acc 1sg.nom
I bought clothes for him
6 B mainstream approaches have difficulty adjusting the number of case assigners to
the arity of the verb. For ditransitives such as manolotra >offers= the verb only supplies
one case assigner, aN-, and the highest DP gets case by stipulation. But how does the
third argument get case? Dually with intransitive AV verbs built with aN- or I- we have
only one, nominative, argument but two case assigning options: the one assigned by aN(or i-) and the free nominative. Some of these verbs may be treated as unaccusatives,
like mangatsiaka >is cold= or manjombona >is overcast= but then we expect aN- to
assign
accusative case to the underlying object, yet it only surfaces as nominative.
3.2 UTAH Our discussion of the affixes in 2 and of selection in 3.1 has revealed many
pairs or triples of Ss which are theta equivalent without satisfying UTAH on our analysis.
Both mainstream approaches essentially assume UTAH, which is in part why they need
so much movement of DPs, as theta equivalent Ss with the DPs in different orders forces
something to move. Our intent here has not been to show that UTAH is empirically
incorrect. Several scholars have argued this for one or another language (Spencer 1995,
van Valin 1992, and Anderson 2000). Rather our concern has been to provide a syntactic
and semantic analysis of the voice morphology of Malagasy which yields correct
judgments of well formedness and entailment. The judgments of theta equivalence that
would be yielded by UTAH are corollaries to our semantics, which is more general,
yielding judgments of logical equivalence and of proper entailment in cases in which
logical equivalence fails (as in our discussion of Ss built from circumstantial verbs). We
should want to see what a grammar for simple clauses would look like without UTAH
even if just to better understand what it rules out. Our need is stronger if we accept the
arguments against UTAH by the scholars noted above.
Culicover and Jackendoff (2005:73 B 79) provide an enlightening discussion of the
consequences of adopting UTAH: small clauses, as in [I find [John reliable]], the
presence of PRO in control structures, and VP internal subjects, to name just a few. As
each of these expression types in Malagasy merits an extensive investigation we shall not
attempt to cover them here. We note only that (1), lacking UTAH we are less committed
initially to their analysis, and (2), in 4[2] we illustrate some Malagasy control structures.
Their physiognomy appears rather different, indeed much richer, than in English.
3.3 Generality Mainstream approaches have been actively concerned with structural
similarities between Malagasy and other languages. And the parallels they have noted
are enlightening. There are similarities between the Malagasy voice system and those in
other W. Austronesian languages, and there are (weaker) similarities between Malagasy
voice and European active/passive distinctions. Equally Richards and Pearson exhibit
substantive similarities between our DPnom=s and topic DPs in V2 languages.
In contrast our work has solely concerned Malagasy. Have we indeed said anything
that generalizes to other languages? To this we have two responses. One, before we can
offer generalizations concerning the independent syntactic role of morphology we need
thorough grammatical studies on which to base them. Are the syntactic functions of
Malagasy voice morphemes natural, or aberrant? Are they dual to nominal case marking
patterns? Just how can the two be related by applicative affixes? For historical
reasons generative grammar has focused on hierarchical structure. Morphological
structure often takes the form of annotations on independently existing phrase structure
trees. These trees are largely unchanged if the annotations are erased, as they are largely
redundant with phrase structure. In contrast K&S exhibit a model case marking language
where case markers are structural invariants independent of hierarchical structure: erase
case, lose structure.
Second, there are other languages with Malagasy-like patterns. We find similar (but
not identical, Pearson 2005) ones in related Austronesian languages1. Outside this family
the most obvious case is Semitic, in which active, passive, causative, ... verb forms are
derived by applying morphological functions to consonantal roots. The active / passive
contrast in (42) from the Hebrew <G,D,L> root is illustrative.
(42) a. Ha-saba gidel et ha-yeled
the-grandfather.nom bring+up[act, past] acc.def the-child
The grandfather brought up the child
b. Ha-yeled gudal al yedei ha-saba
the-child.nom bring+up [pass, past] on hands the-grandfather
The child was brought up by the grandfather
So analogous to AN and INA the I-E function and the U-A function in Hebrew would
take roots like <G,D,L> to verbs specifying the number, case and theta role of their
arguments. The pattern in which different voice forms derive from a common root is
more widespread than we might expect. Compare the active/passive forms in Latin:
(43)
Active
amo
amamus
amas
amatis
amat
amant
Passive
amor
amamur
amaris
amamini
amatur
amantur
We do not derive passive verbs by affixing active ones or vice versa. Amamini is not an
affixed form of amatis or vice versa. Rather we should start with roots, like amV and
apply active and passive morphology and agreements independently, as do classical
grammars. (Haspelmath 1990 surveys 80 languages, finding passives in somewhat more
than half. Just 3 had the Aux + participle with adjectival type feature agreement
(number, gender, not person) were all Indo-European..
Another easy instance of the Malagasy pattern concerns case assignment. That the
lexical verb with voice morphology assigns case to its complement is unexceptional. In
languages with rich case marking such as Latin, active verbs like amare >to love= and
vincere >to conquer= take accusative case objects while parere >to obey=, imperare >to
order=, invidere >to envy=, respondere >to answer= and persuadere >to persuade= and
others take dative complements. Passives of both classes take agent phrases in the
ablative (with a/ab); in the first class the passive Theme is nominative, and in the second
it stays dative (usually). So choice of case needs both root and voice morphology.
Also convincing here are the many deponent verbs in Latin and Greek which are
formed with passive morphology but are transitive taking a nominative and a nonnominative argument. Lat: comitari >to accompany=, tueri >to protect=, aggredi >to
attack=, comperiri >to find out=. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1913) list 81 examples.
Similarly Modern Greek has many such deponents (Dimitris Ntelitheos, pc): dehome,
thimame, mahome (I) accept, remember, fight, as in (44). So the case of the complement
depends on both the root and the voice morphology.
(44) O Giannis dehtike tin protasi mu
the Giannis.nom [accept+NonAct.pst.3sg] the proposal.acc my
Giannis accepted my proposal
Also similar to Malagasy is (as is well known) that Preps select case in Latin (Russian,
German): a/ab >away from, by=, e/ex >out of=, cum >with= take ablative complements,
ad
>to=, contra >against=, per >through= take accusative. Similarly some adjectives
govern
case: ones with meanings like suitable, similar, friendly take dative: amicus Ciceroni
>friendly to Cicero=. Dignus and indignus >(un)worthy= take the ablative >vir patre ...
dignissimus >a man most worthy of his father=.
3.4 Constituency Both mainstream approaches do not in my judgment adequately
represent the very tight constituency between non-AV verbs and their genitive argument.
The Agent is not a sister to the verb (even after root raising) but rather a Spec of a sister
to the verb. But Spec(XP) do not project their features to their XP and so would seem
inaccessible from outside it. On our analysis however the DPgen is selected by the verb
(so this is not a free genitive, as with Ns and some As) and forms a very tight constituent
with it (Keenan 2000). In distinction to AV verbs which allow adverbs to separate them
from a definite accusative (as R&T note), genitives are inseparable from their non-AV
verbs. One slightly surprising case is illustrated in (46b). Observe first that indefinite
Themes appear at times incorporated into the AV transitive verb:
(45) a. Manana vola izy
M--has money 3nom
b. Manam-bola izy
M--has-money 3nom
He has money
He has money / is wealthy
(46) a. [Hadinon-dRabe] ny anaran=ny mpianatra
forget (TV RT)+Rabe.gen the name=the student.gen
Rabe forgot the name of the student
b. [Hadinon-dRabe anarana] izy
forget (TV RT)+Rabe.gen name 3nom
Rabe name-forgot him / He had his name forgotten by Rabe
But bare Ns like anarana >name= cannot Aincorporate@ over a genitive agent (Keenan &
Ralalaoherivony 2000). We=d derive Hadinon=anaran-dRabe moving anarana >name=
over Rabe in (46b). This at most means Aforgotten by the name of Rabe@, a nonsense.
A second somewhat surprising constituency judgment concerns coordinating
transitive AV verbs with agented CV forms of transitive roots. On our analysis the CV
nividianan-dRabe >buy+Rabe.gen= has the same category as AV namaky >reads=, as
both
seek an DPacc and then a DPnom to form an S. And they do coordinate (Keenan 2000):
(47) [N+[[i+vidy]+anan]-dRabe (nividianan-dRabe) sy namaky] ilay boky ianao
past+AV+buy+CV+Rabe.gen
and past+AV+buy that book 2sg.nom
You were bought for by Rabe and read that book
3.5 Semantic interpretation Neither mainstream approach provides a compositional
interpretation of nuclear Ss. Yet this is the most explicit account of how we understand
arbitrary many novel utterances: we know what their lexical items mean and we learn
how things built in that way take their meaning as a function of the meanings of what
they are built from. But I don=t see how the syntactic derivations in mainstream analyses
could be compositionally interpreted. The plethora of empty nodes and constituent
changing movements are daunting. Plausibly such approaches assume translation into
ALF@, but to the extent that such translation changes structure (ignoring or collapsing
empty nodes, changing c-command relations) it is unsatisfying. Why do we speak the
way we do, if we need to change it in order to semantically interpret it?
Mainstream approaches however do make more of an attempt to capture theta
equivalence. GHT annotate their structures with theta role diacritics and explicitly
espouse UTAH. And while the tree structures from which AV and TV Ss derive are not
quite isomorphic they are close. GHT could just stipulate that independent of diacritics a
transitive V assigns Theme to its sister and Agent to its Spec. Similarly Pearson=s more
complex structures do not directly satisfy UTAH. The Agent for example in a AV S
originates in the TopP superstorey and is coindexed with an empty operator originating in
Spec(vP). In the TV S the Agent originates and stays in Spec(vP). So an explicit coindexing mechanism must be provided, and the semantic effect of co-indexing must be
given explicitly so that the appropriate judgments of theta properties can be inferred.
Again, it seems to me that it could be done without otherwise changing the analysis.
It is also worth noting that UTAH is not quite satisfied even in BJR 1989. The
position from which -en argument morphology moves is not identical to that in which
full DP Agents are present in active Ss. But again the two structures are Aclose@. And if
such highly similar structures underlie both actives and passives in English we will have
to move things since at observable structure their DPs vary in order. But as we have
shown, it is not necessary to assume isomorphic underlying structures to derive theta
equivalence. An explicit semantics, which we want independently, suffices, and is
simpler, eliminating much artifactual movement.
It is worth recalling that deriving semantic equivalence from syntactically distinct
sources is unavoidable in standard semantics. Consider sentential logic B some atomic Ss
closed under combinations with and, or, not, if-then .... Now each formula is logically
equivalent to infinitely many non-isomorphic others. For example not(P or Q) is
equivalent to (notP and notQ), etc. So the idea that syntactically non-isomorphic
Malagasy Ss might be theta equivalent B a semantic relation B is semantically natural.
3.6 ASubjects only@ It is well known that only DP sisters of P1s can be relativized
and wh-questioned in W.Austronesian. To refer to the thief that Rabe chased, the verb
chase must be in the TV form; in the man who chased the thief it must be AV, and in the
car in which he chased the thief it must be CV. Both mainstream approaches capture this
in a more general way than the AOnly subjects relativize@ constraint of Keenan 1972.
R&T suggest a Kaynian ASVO@ underlying structure in which the Malagasy VOS
order is derived by fronting the V+O constituent. Then a general constraint blocking
extraction from moved constituents leaves the subject as the only constituent available
for extraction. R&T refer to an earlier proposal along these lines by Pensalfini; Aldridge
(2002) suggests the same idea for Seediq (Formosan).
Specifically, R&T assume a structure in which a Speech Act Phrase (headed by
question particles for example) dominates an AgrSP whose specifier is NPsubj. The
complement of the (undefined) head of AgrSP is TP which includes the verb and all its
arguments. After one moves to NPsubj the TP moves left over Speech Act P, and once
moved no longer hosts extraction (a stipulation). Appealing to an independent constraint
on extraction is a plus, but much remains to be worked out to make this proposal explicit.
What motivates movement of TP? To what position does it move? Is the movement
obligatory? What blocks extraction without moving? That is, why can=t we extract
directly from the original SVO structure? Once we raise a DP out of TP into
Spec(AgrSP), does it not violate the intuition of cyclicity to go back down to TP to move
it over that DP? Why may the antecedent of an anaphor in an AV S not c-command it?
([Manaja tena] Rabe >Rabe respects himself=has [manaja tena] asymmetrically ccommanding Rabe). Can Rabe bind its original trace without c-commanding it? These
questions may well have satisfying answers but R&T do not provide them.
As yet I am not persuaded by this movement approach for two reasons. First, the
movement of TP (or V+O) is an artifact of having chosen an empirically incorrect order
to begin with. On the approach proposed here no movement is involved in deriving
simple Ss. And second, Aextraction@ as classically understood introduces complexities
motivated in English but not in Malagasy. Below we provide a simpler and more natural
analysis of relativization in Malagasy that involves no movement or variable binding.
But first consider Asubjects only@ from the V2 topic perspective of Pearson and
Richards. Both note similarities in specificity requirements on DPnom and Germanic
Topics. Pearson finds similarities in weak crossover. But most striking is that we cannot
wh-question out of X in a Topic+V2+X sentence in German, (48c), analogous to
(unpermitted) extraction out of P1s in Malagasy.
(48) a. Sie hat dem Hans das Buch gegeben
She.nom has to.the Hans the book given
She gave the book to Hans
(Pragmatically neutral order)
b. Dem Hans hat sie das Buch gegeben
the.dat Hans has she.nom the book given
To Hans she gave the book
c. *Was dem Hans hat sie gegeben?
What to.the Hans has she given
What did she give to Hans?
(V2, dative DP topicalized)
c=. Was hat sie dem Hans gegeben?)
What has she to.the Hans given
What did she give to Hans?
The mechanism Pearson uses to block questioning a non-Topic in Malagasy is that a
question word, such as Iza >Who?=, must be co-indexed with an empty operator in
Spec(WhP) B review (37). But that is the location of the empty operator co-indexed with
the DPnom in Spec(TopP). (Iza is not in Spec(TopP)). The stipulation that no position can
host more than one operator blocks wh-questioning anything other than DPnom.
(49) a. Iza no nenjehin-dRabe?
Who Focus chased+TV+Rabe.gen
Who (was it who) Rabe chased?
b. Iza no nanenjika azy?
Who Focus AV+chased 3sg.acc
Who (was it who) chased him?
Pearson=s *Operator Cohabitation is an original account of Subjects Only, but it
seems arbitrary. Why couldn=t empty operators just pile up, form a set, and get coindexed as needed? Perhaps we could restate Pearson=s idea to say that Spec(WhP) is
filled with a variable, bindable by DPnom in declaratives and a wh operator in questions.
Then invoke *Double Bind: No two operators can bind the same occurrence of a
variable. In logic xxPx is equivalent to xPx. Variable binding operators, x, cannot
bind already bound variables. So we have an independent instance of *Double Bind.
The parallel between Malagasy DPnoms and German Topics is genuinely intriguing.
But there are enough differences to support that the two phenomena are genuinely
different, albeit similar. Here are some differences:
(1) German fronted Topics retain the case they have in the pre-topicalized structure,
there being no analogue of a default case there. (2) V2-Topics with different theta roles
do not correlate with verbs in differing morphology. Had we fronted das Buch instead of
dem Hans from (48a) the shape of the auxiliary and past participle would not change. (3)
At least in German, Topic Fronting as in (48b) is largely a root clause phenomenon
(Daniel Büring, pc), such Ss often being ungrammatical in subordinate contexts, (50b),
while their Malagasy counterparts, (50c) are fully natural.
(50) a. ...weil die Studenten das Buch nicht gelesen haben
because the students that book not read have
because the students didn=t read that book
b. ... *weil das Buch haben die Studenten nicht gelesen
because the book have the students not read
c. ... satria tsy novakin=ny mpianatra io boky io
... because not read+TF=the students.gen that book that
... because that book wasn=t read by the students
Lastly, as Pearson (2000: footnote 28) notes, the core extraction facts are not fully
parallel. In (51a) we seem to have wh-questioned into a topicalized clause, retaining V2.
This suggests that the star in (48c) results less from competition between topic and
extractee than simple violation of V2 B two constituents precede the tensed verb.
(51) a. Was hat dem Hans jemand gegeben?
What has to.the Hans someone given
What did someone give to Hans?
b. das Buch das dem Hans jemand gegeben hat
the book that to.the Hans someone given has
the book that to Hans someone gave
(51b) seems to relativize out of a topicalized clause, which forces an Aux final order.
Pearson suggests that the fronted dative dem I.Hans in the subordinate clause may be an
instance of Scrambling, but even so it has a topicalizing effect, blemishing the parallel
with extraction from P1s in Malagasy. We turn now to the natural non-extraction way of
forming relative clauses in Malagasy.
3.7 Relative Clauses (RCs) in Malagasy are formed just by concatenating a noun
with a P1 in any voice (the result combining freely with Determiners to form DPs):
(52)
N = N + P1.
(53) a. [Nzaza [P1 nanenjika ny jiolahy] ]
child (who) [chased the thief]
b.
[Nzaza [P1 nenjehin-dRabe]]
child [chased-by-Rabe]
P1s denote properties, functions from individuals to truth values. The property denoted
by nanenjika ny jiolahy maps an individual x to True iff x chased the thief. That denoted
by nenjehin-dRabe maps x to True iff Rabe chased x. In RCs P1s function as property
denoting expressions exactly as they do in nuclear Ss. In (53a) the children referred to
are those that nanenjika ny jiolahy >chased the thief= is True of. In (53b) it is those
nenjehin-dRabe >was chased by Rabe= maps to True. Formally,
(54) a. Noun + P1 = Noun  {x| P1(x) = True}
b. zaza nenjehin-dRabe
= zaza  {x|nenjehin-dRabe(x) = True}
= CHILD  {x|(CHASED BY RABE)(x) = True}.
Thus we compositionally interpret (53b)11. No movement or variable binding is needed,
we just concatenate Ns and P1s, both used independently in nuclear clauses.
We emphasize as well that our analysis captures judgments of selection restrictions.
#Nanenjika azy ny trano >The house chased him= is bizarre in Malagasy as is its English
translation, since houses can=t autonomously move and so can=t chase things. And we
interpret the RC trano nanenjika azy >house (that) chased him= as the set of houses x
such
that nanenjika azy x >x chased him= is true. So anything in the denotation of the RC
must
be a house that did some chasing, violating the selectional restrictions.
So on (54) RC Formation in Malagasy involves no extraction B no movement, no
empty categories and no variable binding. Linguists (myself included, 1972) have
ethnocentrically modeled Malagasy RC formation and interpretation on the English
pattern, using structures like (55) in which the post-N expression is a wh operator
followed by a full S, the whole thing interpreted as a P1 when wh binds its trace in the S.
(55)
zaza [whi [S[P1 nanenjika ny jiolahy] [ti]]].
child who
chased
the thief
(55) is compositionally interpretable but carries superfluous, hence objectionable,
structure: an embedded S, an inaudible P1 argument and a silent variable binding
operator (vbo), whi which converts the S (P0) back to a P1. It obscures the fact that to
form and interpret RCs, the Malagasy child just uses Ns and P1s already learned in
interpreting nuclear Ss. What would motivate a child to posit and interpret additional,
unpronounced, material? English, I claim, provides an answer to this question, Malagasy
does not. To see this consider the interpretation of the RCs in (56).
(56) a. child that chased John
zaza nanenjika Rajaona
b. child John chased
c. rice Rasoa offered the guests
d. child Rasoa bought clothes for
zaza nenjehen-dRajaona
vary natolo-dRasoa ny vahiny
zaza nividianan-dRasoa akanjo
In each of the Malagasy RCs above the string following the head N, zaza >child= or vary
>rice=, is a P1 interpreted as a property, exactly as in a nuclear S. (If it had combined
with a full DP on its right the whole thing would have been an S and interpreted as one).
So the constituents of RCs in Malagasy are all expressions that occur with the same
meaning in simple Ss12 and DPs. There is no need to invoke new objects such as empty
categories (ec=s) and vbo=s. We might stress that in the English column in (56) we are
not claiming that all strings following the head N are triggers for ec=s and vbo=s. That in
(56a) is not. But that in the town where Max was captured it is, since we must force an
apparent complete S, Max was captured to be a predicate of places.
The English expressions on the left in (56) do yield triggers for these new objects.
Namely in all cases except (56a) the learner must interpret strings that do not occur as
(interpreted) constituents in simple Ss. For example in Rasoa offered the guests some
rice the string Rasoa offered the guests is not assigned a meaning. Invoking an ec (or
resumptive pronoun) and a vbo is a simple way to convert these strings to semantic P1s,
familiar from simple Ss.
We may anticipate an objection to our analysis of RCs on the grounds that internal to
Malagasy it is insufficiently general. How will we handle other Aextraction@ structures
such as wh-questions and clefts (from which wh-questions are formed in Malagasy)?
(57) a. Rabe no nanao izany
Rabe Foc didAV that
It was Rabe who did that
b. Iza no nanao izany?
Who Foc didAV that?
Who (was it who) did that?
There are many differences between wh-Qs/clefts and RCs in Malagasy. For example
the interrogative words such as iza >Who?=, inona >What?=, etc. are not used as relative
pronouns. And importantly, the Focus particle no, is specific to cleft constructions. On
the other hand (with some systematic exceptions) the string following no is a P1 (any
voice). The clefted constituent typically binds the argument of the post-no P1. So (57a)
above entails nanao izany Rabe >Rabe did that=, but it differs from it in presupposing
that
someone did it. So the initial DP can be negated: Tsy Rabe no nanao izany >It wasn=t
Rabe who did that=. The core paradigm for clefts is:
(58) DP no P1
So, except for the Focus particle no, the constituents of core clefts are used in interpreting
nuclear Ss. So clefts don=t force extraction either, though they present complications not
present in RCs. Here is one illustration. (59a) is well formed with a CV verb as
expected, but (59b) is also fine with an AV verb and its nominative Agent fronted..
(59) a. Aiza no nipetrahan-dRabe?
Where Foc past+[[I sit] ANA]+Rabe.gen
Where does Rabe live?
b. Aiza Rabe no mipetraka?
Where Rabe.nom Foc pres+I+sit
Where does Rabe live?
A full discussion of clefts in Malagasy is (well) beyond the scope of this paper.
4. Conclusion: A question of point of view The most striking properties of basic clause
structure in Malagasy concern the construction of complex verbs. Most Ss present these
structures, though ones with NP, AP and PP predicates may not. Even here many types
of nominals are built from predicates and they inherit without change the case and theta
role selection features of that predicate (Ntelitheos 2005). For example,
(60) ny tsy f+i+tiav+ana+Rabe (fitiavan-dRabe) azy
the not nom+[[AV+love]+CV]+Rabe.gen 3acc
Rabe=s not loving her
So the perspective I would like to close with is: To discover the grammar of Malagasy
seek out the ways it builds complex predicates. Below we offer a few suggestions
concerning where to look. But first, contrast this perspective with what we may call the
dominant theme of the generative grammar of English: namely, the nature of and
constraints on movement rules, specifically movement of nominal expressions. This
work has resulted in many empirically non-trivial syntactic constraints on the formation
of RCs for example. These constraints hold vacuously in Malagasy. That is, expressions
that would be ruled out by these constraints are not generated for independent reasons
(not because we have an overt constraint blocking them). For example, No Vacuous
Quantification is satisfied in (61) since what follows the first N is not a P1. Analogously
for the Coordinate Structure Constraint, (62b), and Subjacency, (63b).
(61) *ny trano nenjehin-dRabe ny jiolahy
the house chased-by-Rabe the thief
The house that Rabe chased the thief
(62) a. milalao ao an-trano ny zazalahy sy ny zazavavy
play
there in-house the boys and the girls
The boys and the girls are playing in the house
b. *ny zazavavy milalao ao an-trano ny zazalahy sy
the girls (that) play there in-house the boys and
(63) a. nandositra ny olona nangalatra ny omby
ran-away the person stole+AV the cow
the person who stole the cow ran away
b. *hitako ny omby nandositra ny olona nangalatra
I+see the cow (that) ran-away the person (who) stole
So Malagasy satisfies these constraints, but stating them in its grammar is redundant.
But they are not redundant in a grammar of English. If we removed them the grammar
would badly overgenerate. So we support a more general view than usual of Auniversal
constraints@. They are properties shared by all highly valued grammars for natural
languages. Typically they are merely entailed by the independent definition of the
generative mechanisms in of any given language. Usually they are not a functional part
of its grammar since to be universal they must pick the lowest common denominator
cross linguistically and so, as in Malagasy, be entailed by language specific patterns.
We conclude with four types of complex predicates whose formation involves crossverb dependencies (see Polinsky and Potsdam 2005). They are intended both to indicate
topics of further research and to enrich the inventory of P1s, the better to see just what
the class of relative clauses (wh-questions, etc.) is.
[1] Pn = Vmotion+Pn. In (64a) a verb of motion combines with a transitive I-verb >to
study= forming, we claim, a P2. The past tense motion verb governs a future/irrealis hon >study=, as that action is future relative to the motion. However the locative
complement of >went to study foreign languages= is marked with a past tense deictic
tany
>past+fairly-far+not visible= (present non-visible = any, present visible = eny, etc.) as the
complex verb niakatra hianatra >went up to study= is past. (64b) illustrates that this
complex V has a non-AV form, one that is forced when we relativize the Theme >foreign
languages=. It also shows the difficulty in reading non-AV verbs as passive.
(64) a.
b.
[niakatra hianatra teny vahiny tany Antananarivo] i Soa
past+I+go+up fut+I+study lg foreign past+loc Antananarivo art Soa
Soa went up to study foreign languages in Antananarivo
ny teny vahiny [niakaran=i Soa hianarana tany Antananarivo]
the lg foreign past+[I+go-up]+CV+art Soa.gen fut+[I+study]+CV there Ant.
the foreign languages Soa went up to Antananarivo to study
*the foreign languages that were gone up by Soa to Antananarivo to be studied
[2] Pn = Vaspect/desire/intent + Pn with the verbs both AV or both non-AV.
(65) a.
b.
[n+i+kasa h+aN+vaky (nikasa hamaky) io boky io] Rabe
past+I+intend fut+AN+read that book that Rabe
Rabe intended to read that book
[no+kasa+ina-dRabe (nokasain-dRabe) ho vaky+ina (vakina)] io boky io
past+intend+INA+Rabe.gen fut read+INA
Rabe intended to read that book
*Rabe intended that that book get read
c.
that book that
ny boky nokasain-dRabe ho vakina
the book that Rabe intended to read
* the book that was intended by Rabe to be read (by someone)
Both the AV and TV forms of intend select a future (irrealis) complement verb with the
Agent understood to be Rabe in both cases
[3] Raising to Object, hosted by over 50 verbs (Paul and Rabaovololona 1998).
(66) a.
manantena ianao fa n+aN+taov+ana-Rabe (nanaovan-dRabe) trano Rasoa
pres+AN+hope 2sg.nom that past+[AV+do]+CV+Rabe.gen house Rasoa
You hope that Rabe made a house for Rasoa
b.
[manantena an-dRasoa ho nanaovan-dRabe trano] ianao
(RTO)
pres+AN+hope acc-Rasoa as past+AN+do+ANA-Rabe.gen house you.nom
You hope Rabe made a house for Rasoa
c.
[+antena+ina+nao (antenainao) ho nanaovan-dRabe trano] Rasoa
pres+hope+INA+2sg.gen as made+ANA-by Rabe.gen house Rasoa
You hope Rabe made a house for Rasoa
d.
ny vehivavy [antenainao ho nanaovan-dRabe trano]
the woman hoped+INA+2sg.gen as past+AN+build+ANA-Rabe.gen house
the woman you hoped Rabe built a house for
??the woman who is hoped by you to have been built a house for by Rabe
The bracketed constituent in (66c) satisfies criteria for being a P1. For example the
yes/no question particle ve occurs between it and the following DP, the whole thing
meaning AIs Rasoa hoped by you to have been made a house for by Rabe?@. The use of
that P1 in (66d) is perhaps slightly more natural than in (66c). And a reviewer points out
that if we just put the matrix verb in (66a) in the -ina form, as in (66b), but keep the
complement clause as is we obtain (67a) in which the complement clause is the P1
argument. However we can relativize on the final DP position, yielding (67b).
(67) a. antenainao fa nanaovan-dRabe trano Rasoa
hope+INA+2sg.gen that made+ANA+Rabe.gen house Rasoa
You hope that Rabe made a house for Rasoa
b. ny vehivavy antenainao fa nanaovan-dRabe trano
The woman you hope that Rabe made a house for
This differs from (66d) just by fa vs ho, which my consultants generally prefer. However
(67b) is still good enough that we should generate it. And if our analysis so far is to
apply the substring of (67a) consisting of everything except the last DP Rasoa should be
analyzable as a P1. Curiously it satisfies our criterion, hosting ve.
(68) antenainao fa nanaovan-dRabe trano ve Rasoa?
Do you hope that Rasoa was made a house for by Rabe?
Complex predicates like those in (66c,d) are the major mechanism for relativizing
(questioning, etc.) arguments of complement clause verbs. Verb voice is used crucially
here, as the Araised@ object, an-dRasoa in (66b) must satisfy the theta requirements and
selectional restrictions of the tensed P1 following ho. Virtually all verbs that take
complement clause objects permit Raising to Object, as in (66b). See Sabel (2005).
[4] In (69a) we see that verbs like >help= which take complement verbs don=t impose
Agent identity on the two verbs. And it is unnatural to force it with a reflexive object,
but it can quite naturally be done using a reciprocal verb, (69b).
(69) a.
[n+aN+ampy (nanampy) azyj h+i+tsara ny fanadinana] isikai
past+AV+help
3acc fut+AV+judge the exams we.incl
We helped them grade the exams
b
[n+if+aN+ampy h+i+tsara ny fanadinana] isika
past+Rec+AV+help fut+AV+judge the exams we.incl
We helped each other grade the exams
c.
[nifanampian+tsika hitsarana] ny fanadinana
past+[Rec+[AV+help]+CV]+1.gen.pl.incl fut+[[I+judge]+CV] the exams
We helped each other grade the exams
d.
ny fanadinana [nifanampian-tsika hitsarana]
the exams past+[Rec+[AV+help]+CV]+1.gen.pl.incl fut+[[I+judge]+CV]
the exams we helped each other grade
*the exams that were reciprocally helped by us to be graded
In sum: What W. Austronesian languages are good at is building predicates. DP
positioning is derivative.
References
Abinal, R.P. et V. Malzac (1963) Dictionnaire Malgache-Français. Mission
Catholique de Tananarive. Paris: Editions Maritimes et d=Outre-Mer (reprint
from 1888 edition).
Aldridge, Edith. 2002. Nominalization and WH-movement in Seediq and Tagalog.
Language and Linguistics 3.2 Special Issue: Nominalization in Formosan Languages,
Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed). Academia Sinica. Pp. 393 B 427.
Anderson, S. 2000. In Lexicon in Focus B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich (eds) Adad.
Verlag. Pp. 123 B 143.
Andrianierenana, L. 1996. Morphological causatives in Malagasy. In The Structure of
Malagasy M Pearson and I. Paul (eds). UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17.
Pp. 58 B 76.
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.
University of Chicago Press.
[BJR] Baker, M., K. Johnson, and I. Roberts.1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic
Inquiry 20:219 B 251.
Culicover, P.W. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax Oxford
Erwin, Sean. 1996. Quantity and moras: An amicable separation. In The Structure
of Malagasy vol I. M. Pearson and I. Paul (eds). Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA.
pp. 2 S31.
Guildersleeve, B.L. and G. Lodge. 1913. Gildersleeve=s Latin Grammar Macmillan &
Co. Ltd. London.
[GHT] Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and
Spec of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 10:375 S 414.
Haspelmath, M. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. In Studies in
Language 14.1:25 B 72.
Huang, Lillian. 2002. Nominalization in Mayrinax Atayal. Language and Linguistics 3.2
Special Issue: Nominalization in Formosan Languages, Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed).
Academia Sinica. pp 197 B 227.
Hyams, Nina, Cecile Manorohanta and Dimitris Ntelitheos. 2004. The Acquisition of
the Malagasy Voicing System. Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA.
Keenan, Edward L. 1972. Relative Clause Formation in Malagasy (and some related
some not so related languages. The Chicago Which Hunt University of Chicago.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Subject and Topic C. Li
(ed). Academic Press.
Keenan, Edward L. 1995. Predicate-argument structures in Malagasy. In Grammatical
Relations C. Burgess, K. Dziwirek, and D. Gerdts (eds). CSLI. Stanford. pp.171 B 217
Keenan, E.L. 2000. Morphology is structure: A Malagasy test case. In Paul, Phillips, and
Travis (eds) Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics pp.27 B 49. Kluwer
Keenan, Edward L. and Cecile Manorohanta. 2001. A quantitative study of voice in
Malagasy. in Oceanic Linguistics vol 40:67 B 85.
[K&P] Keenan, Edward L. and Miriam Polinsky. 1998. Malagasy Morphology. In The
Handbook of Morphology. A. Spencer and A. Zwicky (eds) Blackwell. pp. 563 B
624.
Keenan, E.L. and Baholisoa Ralalaoherivony. 2000. Raising from NP in Malagasy.
Linvisticae Investigationes 23:1:1 B 44.
[K&R] Keenan, Edward L. and Jean-Paulin Razafimamonjy. 2004. Reciprocals in
Malagasy. in Oceanic Linguistics vol. 43.1:177 B 207.
[K&S] Keenan, E.L. and E.P. Stabler. 2003. Bare Grammar CSLI, Stanford.
Koopman, H. 2005. Malagasy imperatives. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics:12.
Kroeger, Paul. 1988. Verbal focus in Kimaragang. In Papers in Western Austronesian
Linguistics No. 3:217 B 40. Pacific Linguistics, A-78.
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. CSLI,
Stanford.
Ntelitheos, D. 2005. Variation in the distribution of genitive subjects in Malagasy. 35th
Michigan Linguistic Society, Lansing.
Paul, Ileana. 1996. The Malagasy genitive. In Pearson & Paul, The Structure of
Malagasy Vol I, UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17. Pp 76 B 92.
Paul, Ileana. 1999. Malagasy Clause Structure. PhD Diss. Dept. of Linguistics,
McGill University
Paul, Ileana and Lucie Rabaovololona. 1998. Raising to object in Malagasy. In The
Structure of Malagasy vol II I. Paul (ed). Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA. pp.50 B 65.
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A= element. in Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 23:381 B 457.
Phillips, V. 2000. The interaction between prefix and root: the case of maha- in
Malagasy. In Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics I. Paul, V. Phillips, L. Travis
(eds) Kluwer, Dordrecht. Pp. 85 B 105.
Polinsky, M. and E. Potsdam. 2005. Malagasy control and its theoretical implications.
BLS 30.
Prentice, D.J. 1971. The Murut Languages of Sabah Pacific Linguistics Series
C B No.18. The Australian National University. Canberra, Australia.
Rabenilaina, R-B. 1993. Le verbe malgache B Etude des formes predicatives.
Ambozontany: Fianarantsoa, Madagascar.
[R&T] Rackowski, Andrea and Lisa Travis. 2000. V-Initial Languages: X or XP
movement and adverbial placement. In The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages.
Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds) OUP Pp. 117 B 143.
Rahajarizafy, Antoine. 1960. Essai sur la grammaire malgache Imprimerie
Catholique, Antanimena, Tananarive
[RR] Rajemisa-Raolison, Regis. 1971. Grammaire malgache. Fianarantsoa.
Randriamasimanana, C. 1986. The Causatives of Malagasy Univ. of Hawaii Press.
Richards, N. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In I. Paul, V. Phillips, and L.
Travis (eds). Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics Pp 105 B 116. Kluwer
Ross, M. 2006. The argument structure of undergoer voice clauses in Formosan and
other Philippine-type languages. Presented at AFLA 13, Tsing Hua Univ. Taiwan
Sabel, J. 2005. Grammatical functions in Malagasy syntax and the >Complements only=
restriction. Presented at AFLA XII, UCLA
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor- topic, or
none of the above. in C. Li (ed) Subject and Topic 1976:491 B 518. Academic Press.
Schachter, P. and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar UC Press.
Spencer, A. 1995. Incorporation in Chukchi. Language 71:439 B 489.
Van Valin, R.D. 1992. Incorporation in universal grammar: a case study in theoretical
reductionism. J. Linguistics 28:199 B 220.
Wechsler, Stephen and I.Wayan Arka. 1998. Syntactic Ergativity in Balinese. In
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:387 B 441.
Footnotes
1
In addition to Malagasy (Madagascar) we include here Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes
1972, Kroeger 1993) and Philippine languages generally, Timugon (Prentice 1971),
Kimaragang Dusun (Kroeger 1988), Balinese (Wechsler and Arka 1998), Atayal (Huang,
2002) and Seediq (Aldridge 2002).
2
Erwin (1996) and Pearson (2005) show that many roots are consonant final, in
distinction to their standard dictionary form (Abinal & Malzac 1963). If a vowel is
supplied via a suffix the final consonant, possibly mutated, is pronounced. With no
suffix the consonant drops. For example, from the root taov- >do= we derive manaov 
manao >does, makes= with loss of -v, but imperative manaovy and circumstantial (later)
anaovana. We are not concerned here with the morphophonology of affixation and I
tend to give roots in their dictionary form.
3
Linguists often accord a special, and pretheoretically unclear, status to this DP using
terms such as Asubject@, Atopic@, Apivot@, or Atrigger@ . We do not do so here, limiting
ourselves solely to what we can structurally identify.
4
Examples are given in standard orthography. Possessor formation involves
prenasalization of the result of converting the /r/ of Rabe to the post alveolar affricate /dr/.
So orthographic n-dR is a single phoneme, a prenasalized affricate /ndr/.
5
Following K&S the set of expressions of a language is the closure of the lexicon under
the structure building functions of the language. Morphological functions, like AN, are
among those in Malagasy. Another one with a much larger domain is Merge. It
combines Pn+1's with argument expressions to form Pn=s.
6
Ultimately we need a richer, intensional, semantics, but for now simplicity rules.
7
Failure to behave like Passive is now well acknowledged (Pearson 2005). We note:
Imperatives the non-AV -ina, a-, and -ana verbs (see later) present imperative
forms, as do the AV verbs (Koopman 2005). In fact these are the normal forms used
when there is a choice. In a recent acquisition study (Hyams, Manorohanta and
Ntelitheos 2004) covering three children aged 18 - 30 months over an 8 month period,
K&M (Keenan & Manorohanta 2004) report that all 26 of the imperatives in the data
were non-AV forms. In general it is the addressee phrase that is missed out in
imperatives regardless of voice. So that will be the nominative for AV imperatives, (a),
but the genitive complement of non-AV forms in a-, -ina and Bana, (b,c,d):
a. manolóra (m+aN+tólotra+a) vary azy!
(Stress marked)
serve+AV pres+aN+offer+imp rice them
serve them rice
b. tolóry (tólotra+y) vary izy
serve+GV offer+imp rice they
serve them rice
c. atolóry (a+tólotra+y) azy ny vary
serve TV+offer+imp them the rice
serve them the rice
d. anolóry ([aN+tolotra]+ana+y) vary azy ny lovia vaovao
serve+CV rice them the dishes new
Use the new dishes to serve them rice
As always the P1 argument, when present, must be definite. Imperative suffixes differ
for AV verbs and non-AV ones, being the same for a-, -ina and -ana verbs.
Selection Both AV and non-AV forms are selected by modal auxiliaries. mahazo
>permitted= and mahay >able= select AV verbs, their TV roots azo and hay select nonAV
verbs. Replacing AV by non-AV verbs in (i.a) and (ii.a) yields ungrammaticality.
i. a.
b.
ii. a.
b.
mahazo manao (m+aN+tao(v)) izany aho
permitted
pres+aN+do that I
I can do that
Tsy azoko (azo + ko) atao izany
Not
can + 1.sg.gen a+do that
I can=t do that
mahay manoratra (m+aN+soratra) amin=io penina io aho
pres+can write pres+aN+write with=that pen that I
I am able to write with that pen
tsy haiko (hay + ko) anoratana (aN+soratra+ana) io penina io
not able+1.sg.gen
aN+write+ana that pen that
I can=t write with that pen
Control With verbs of desire, aspect, and intent control is vested in the Agent:
a.
n+i+kasa (ny) hamaky (h+aN+vaky) io boky io aho
past+I+intend (the) fut+AN+read that book that 1.sg.nom
I intended to read that book
b.
nokasaiko (no+kasa+ina+ko) (ny) hovakina (ho+vaky+ina) io boky io
past+intend+INA+1.sg.gen (the) fut+read+ina that book that
I intended to read that book
A second type of Agent Phrase control is seen in coordinate structures, as in (a) and (b),
from Keenan 1995 (taken from Malagasy novels):
a. araka izao [[ahitana-i sy ahafantara-nareoi] ahy] izao
according this [[[see+CV and know+CV]+2.gen.pl] 1.sg.acc] this
according to that which you see and (you) understand of me
b. ataoko fa [voa+jery-i sy voa+dinikaoi] tsara ireo sary teo
I+think that [[TV+see and TV+examine+2.sg.gen] good those pictures there]
I think that those pictures there have been seen (by you) and examined well by you
K&M show that Agent phrases of TV verbs are present or controlled in more than 2/3 of
their occurrences. So in distinction to English passives verbs, TV verbs derived from
transitive roots seem not to be intransitive. And third, the other side of this coin, Agents
of verbs in all voices can control other missing Agents, as the same examples show.
7
Occasionally it suffixes -anana.
8
In two cases not discussed here the P1 argument of an ANA verb may be selected by
the original AV verb. (1) The P1 argument may be the Theme understood partitively, see
Paul (1999). Thus APlease buy (me) some paper@ could be rendered Mba ividiano ny
taratasy with a CV imperative and definite P1 argument ny taratasy >the paper=. M.
Ross
(2006) notes a partial affectedness reading deriving from Alocative voice@ in Puyuma
(Formosan). Second, occasionally CV forms get pressed into duty when appropriate INA
forms lack. Thus reciprocal verbs, with prefix if-, are not in the domain of INA, so to
talk about >the many things we taught each other= we would say ny zavatra betsaka
nifampianarantsika with a CV form of AV Areciprocally cause to learn@.
9
Adding basic tense interpretation is straightforward: verbs just map intervals to what
they currently denote, and the interval gets passed up stepwise to the P0 level. We omit
this here because we are not studying tense marking.
10
Indifferently we could put pairs like (aN-,enjika) in the domain of Merge, setting its
value to AN(enjika).
11
The P1 of a RC may be preceded by izay (morphologically constant) interpreted as:
IZAY(P)(A) = A {x|P(x) = True}. A is a N denotation, P a P1 one. Thus RCs with or
without izay are both directly interpreted and yield RCs denoting the same set.
12
As a reader points out, this is only true for a certain (admittedly extensive) range of
RCs. A P1 headed by CV verb can take a DP to its right to form a P0 only if it is one
denoting a place, instrument, means, matter, benefactee, recipient. According to
[RR:112-113] complements of time, cause, purpose, manner, point of view, and price
must occur fronted in the cleft construction in otherwise simple Ss:
Rahampitso no handehanantsika
Tomorrow Focus fut+[AN+go]+ANA+1pl.incl
It is tomorrow that we will go
If we find a verb that can take a complement in the latter category (say Time) but not in
any of the former (place, instrument, etc.) the CV form of that verb couldn=t be learned
based on experience with nuclear Ss but would require a cleft, question or relative clause.
It is perhaps worth noting that, impressionistically, cleft Ss are much more widely used in
spoken Malagasy than the comparable AIt was X who...@ in English.