The University of Queensland, Brisbane

Mirriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors)

1998

CSLI Publications

http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications

This paper deals with the voice system of Indonesian, and argues that certain of the constructions traditionally analysed as passives, should be given a different treatment, parallel to arguments by Kroeger (1993) for Tagalog. We examine the role of different conceptions of subject and their place in binding. We show that, unlike other Western Austronesian languages, the logical subject – l-subject for short (i.e., the semantically most prominent argument) plays little role in binding: being a logical-subject alone does not make an argument a binder. Syntactic prominence is crucial, and in particular the data on binding in Indonesian presented here further confirms the notion of syntacticised argument structured (a-str) first proposed in Manning (1994, 1996b) and also adopted in Arka (1998) wherein a central role is given to the notion of a-subject. Like other Austronesian languages, the (surface) grammatical subject (i.e., the SUBJ in the f-structure or gr-subject for short) plays little role, especially in the binding of morphologically complex reflexives. The data from binding is supported by other syntactic tests such as topicalisation with pronominal copy.

Indonesian transitive verbs can appear prefixed with meN- or di- or without a prefix. There is evidence that the Agent/l-subject Amir appearing with meN- (henceforth Agentive voice or AV) verbs in Indonesian as in (1) is syntactically the surface grammatical subject.

Among the important properties of the gr-subject in Indonesian are: (a) appears canonically in a preverbal position, (b) the only function that can be questioned by a clefted question word, relativised on or clefted, and (c) the only function that can be controlled, either as an equi-target of certain verbs or as the gapped function in controlled adverbial clauses. An additional test of a morphosyntactic character is that the 3sg pronoun can optionally be just ia rather than the usual dia when it is functioning as the gr-subject of a clause (adding adverbs etc. shows that this form is indeed grammatically not phonologically conditioned).

Thus, Amir in (1a) is the gr-subject because it comes preverbally, it can be relativised in a cleft sentence (to give a slightly different pragmatic implication):

It can be an equi-target:

It can be replaced by ia:

It is also widely agreed that the Agent of di- verbs expressed by a PP, as in (2), is an Oblique, while the Theme has grammatical subject properties. The grammatical relations in (2) thus mirror an English passive, and one might presume that di- is a passive marker, and we gloss it that way in (2). But actually the situation is a little more complicated, as we discuss below.

The situation is less clear in other constructions where the l-subject is not the gr-subject, namely when it is expressed by the pronominals saya/kamu/dia or the clitics ku-/kau-/-nya, in the sentences shown in (3). All these sentences have the Undergoer as gr-subject, and the verbs lack the meN- (i.e., the AV) marker, being either bare, or prefixed with di-. Many studies in Indonesian syntax are unclear as to quite what syntactic status to give such sentences. As suggested by the glosses, such sentences are normally appropriately translated into English with active sentences, but syntactically they have been analysed as passives by previous studies , apparently due to the clear property that the Undergoer is the gr-subject and comes sentence initially.

Kana (1986) explicitly claims that the l-subject or the initial subject (i.e., the initial-1 in RG terminology) in a sentence of the type in (3) is a final 1-Chomeur (i.e. a non-core argument, basically an Oblique). However, in what follows we show evidence that the pronominal immediately preceding the verb (3a), the proclitic (3b), and enclitic (3c) are still Term/core arguments. The evidence is mainly from binding, with some supporting evidence from a pronominal copy test, control, and discourse properties. Hence, in our view, the passive analysis for (3) is untenable.

Unlike -nya '3' (3c) (see also 2.3.3), the other enclitics -ku '1', -mu '2' and -kau '2' cannot be understood as l-subjects (4a), but only as undergoers (4b):

LFG has proposed a model of parallel representations, and in general prominence can be defined on any level. Accounts such as Dalrymple and T. Mohanan have made use of this to propose that some parts of binding theory may be sensitive to one level, and other parts to another level. In contrast, Manning has argued that the principal constraints of binding theory can be defined on a level of syntacticised a-str, while admitting that some anaphors may require additional constraints, such as also requiring the binder to be a gr-subject. Within this theory, term arguments outrank obliques in a-str, and within each of those groupings, prominence is based on thematic or Lexical Conceptual Structure prominence (following Hellan 1988).

In the AV constructions marked by meN-, the l-subject, a-subject and gr-subject are identical. For example, the relativization test shows that the agent saya in (5) is the gr-subject (5b). By way of contrast, the reflexive object cannot be relativised (5c). It is also the a-subject, a-commanding the reflexive theme diri saya (i.e. the object) in (5a), which we assume to have an argument structure as in (5d) – where the vertical bar is used to separate core or term arguments from obliques. By way of contrast, an attempt to make the gr-subject an anaphor fails as is shown in (5e).

In short, the l-subject/Agent in the AV construction is an a-subject (and also a gr-subject). Binding in (5) is straightforward and exactly as one would expect from well-known accusative type languages. The data thus far does not serve to isolate any particular analysis.

Binding properties show that non AV verbs cannot be lumped together as a homogenous class, traditionally simply called passives. In what follows, we discuss a variety of non AV verbs and examine the syntactic status of their l-subjects based on evidence from reflexive binding.

As shown in (6), an l-subject appearing as an Oblique PP cannot bind a reflexive functioning as a gr-subject. This is consistent with a passive analysis of this construction, with the l-subject being an oblique.

The same is true for pronominal agents which can appear either as an enclitic to the preposition oleh-nya or as a prepositional object oleh dia. They cannot bind a reflexive gr-subject.as shown by the contrast in (7):

The failure of binding in (6)-(7) shows that semantic binding does not apply in Indonesian. It is not the case that there is 'semantic' binding and all l-subjects are possible binders and can bind thematically lower arguments within their clause. Rather, it seems to be the case that, although the passive agent is an l-subject, the crucial fact is that it does not a-command the reflexive, since the reflexive gr-subject is higher in the a-str, because it is promoted in the passive .

It is not that the passive agent is inert with respect to the binding theory, however. Examine the following sentences with a three place predicate 'ask':

As expected according to the theory of Manning , the Agent oblique can bind other oblique arguments, such as the oblique theme in (8b), because it a-commands such arguments. The argument structure of (8b) would be as in (8c):

Di- verbs cannot appear with a non-third-person Agent:

Backgrounding of non-third persons is not possible with the di- passive, but it is possible with an otherwise similar construction: the ter- verb prefix. The prefix ter- has various functions such as expressing a sense of ability or possibility, which generally appears in negative sentences, as in (10a), or an accidental event with a non-volitional doer as in (10b).

In all these cases the Agent is backgrounded and can be expressed in a PP. In these constructions, the Agent again appears to be an oblique, as is shown by the inability to form (11b):

The l-subject of the type exemplified in (3a-b) can be of any person, but it must be a pronominal. A common noun cannot appear in this construction (unless it is used vocatively):

There are two forms for 1sg and 2sg, and the orthography writes the shorter, perhaps reduced ones as attached clitics, but all of them must appear immediately preceding the verb. (We are unsure at this point whether there is good phonological evidence for regarding any of them as phonologically attached.) Nothing can intervene in between: Sentence (13b) is bad because the auxiliary akan intervenes; (13c) is bad because an adverb intervenes. This suggests these words occupy a position at the left edge of the VP reserved for pronouns or pronominal clitics.

If the bare form of the verb is used, as in these examples, then the pronominal form cannot be omitted:

The fact that the Agent must be present might be an indication that it is a Term, rather than an Oblique. Note that sentence (14) is not acceptable in any interpretation, e.g., it cannot be interpreted as having a first or second person l-subject.

Also, there is good evidence that the sentence-initial NP in these examples is the gr-subject, rather than just some kind of preposed topic. For instance, it is the NP that is the equi-target (Chung 1976b):

Evidence from binding further shows that the Agent pronominal in this construction has a very different status to a passive agent. Indeed, we argue that it is really a Term, hence an a-subject. In the following sentences, the reflexive gr-subjects can be bound by the preverbal pronominals (16). Evidence that the reflexives are gr-subjects comes from their appearance in the canonical subject position and the possibility of cleft formation by yang (17). Attempts to cleft a non-subject reflexive (i.e. by making the verbs appear in AV) fail (18)-(19).

Crucially, this binding behaviour differs from that of the oblique agent appearing in a PP headed by oleh, of the type that was shown in (6). This suggests that the syntactic status of the l-subject appearing as a preverbal pronominal in a non AV verb exemplified in (16)-(17) differs from that of an l-subject appearing in the PP with the di- verb in (6). The di-verb with the PP agent is a passive construction with the Agent/l-subject being an oblique. The verb without meN- with a preverbal pronominal is not a passive verb. The l-subject is a Term, hence an a-subject. This corresponds to the idea that the sentence feels semantically 'active' (usually translated as an active), despite the fact that the non-agent argument is the surface gr-subject.

A construction with a cross mapping where an Agent a-subject is not a gr-subject, but still a term, and the gr-subject is a non-Agent core argument is an ergative construction . Following the terminology for Tagalog from Kroeger and Balinese by Arka and Wechsler and Arka , the Indonesian verbs with cross-mapping exemplified in (16)-(17) can be labelled as Objective Voice (OV) verbs. But this 'voice' should really be interpreted as an ergative construction within the language. Given the pervasive evidence from binding cross-linguistically , it is misleading to collapse OV/ergative constructions with passives, or indeed any of the traditional 'voices'.

Additional evidence for a preverbal pronoun being a term comes from control of complex arguments. It has been observed that the functional controller of a complex argument is restricted to a term (Bresnan 1982, Arka and Simpson 1998). For example, the sentence *To go there was asked of John by me is unacceptable because we cannot express the controller (of John) as a term argument, as an NP. Like Balinese (Arka and Simpson 1998), Indonesian shows a possible control into a complex argument acting as gr-subject, and crucially the controller must be a term:

Coba 'try' semantically has two arguments: a trier (a simple argument) and the thing tried (a proposition, a complex argument). It is a commitment type of verb, characterised by having a committer (i.e. the trier) as a controller. (20a) shows the AV construction with the controller as gr-subject (acceptable), (20b) shows the OV construction with the controller as a preverbal pronoun (acceptable), (20c) shows the controller as a non-term (oblique) and, crucially, the sentence is then unacceptable. This test again shows the preverbal pronoun grouping with other terms as opposed to obliques.

A little further evidence for the pronouns before the verb being term arguments can be derived from examining the construction where an NP becomes an external topic at the left margin of the clause, and then is repeated by a pronoun within the clause. This is possible when the pronoun is a term argument, as in (21a), but it is not possible with clear obliques such as the objects of prepositions, see (21b):

Note now that topicalization with pronominal copy is possible with the pronominal arguments that precede the verb, supporting our regarding them as term arguments:

The enclitic -nya attached to a head verb always expresses a core argument that is not the gr-subject (what we might term an OBJ or a term-complement). It can express an l-subject/agent as in (3c) or a patient functioning as an Object as in (23a). -nya cannot be the gr-subject (23b). That is, the structure in (23b) is forced to be an OV construction by dropping meN- making the preverbal pronominal agent dia a non gr-subject. We attempt to force the enlitic patient -nya to act as the gr-subject instead. It fails. In other words, although both the agent and patient arguments of the transitive verb are present in sentence (23b), the sentence is bad because it lacks a gr-subject; neither argument can act as the gr-subject. Note that a normal pronominal gr-subject can come post verbally (23c). The point is that -nya can appear attached to the verb only when another argument is the gr-subject: in the AV verb (marked by meN-, as in (23a)) where -nya is the undergoer, or else in the di- verb as in (3c) where -nya is the actor.

The enclitic -nya can also appear attached to the preposition expressing an Oblique agent (24a). As noted previously, the pronominal dia is also possible. These forms must again appear with a di- verb, hence the unacceptability of (24b). The enclitic -nya cannot be doubled with the appearance of the preverbal pronominal dia (24c-d). (Thus, the contrast between (24a) and (24c-d) suggests that di- is not really a pronominal, pace Kana (1986) who suggests that di- is a shortened form of dia.)

This behaviour contrasts strongly with the binding behaviour of the enclitic -nya attached to the head verb. Consider:

It can be concluded that the third person agent appearing in PP is an Oblique, whereas the pronominal clitic hosted by the head verb is not, but rather a term complement in an ergative construction. It is still a term and an a-subject and so can bind the reflexive gr-subject.. This perhaps in part motivates its interesting discourse function briefly mentioned below.

The binding evidence supporting regarding -nya as a term in a transitive clause is again backed up by evidence for the possibility of topicalization with a pronominal copy, which as we have seen is only possible with term arguments:

There is one final complication in the discussion of verbs with a di- prefix. Until now, we have shown examples with the agent expressed within a PP. But, somewhat surprisingly, di- verbs can also take a postverbal NP agent as in (27). Indeed, when the NP is indefinite as in (27a), the Agent NP is preferred to the PP. Some accounts suggest that this is possible because the preposition is in some sense optional, but this does not seem to be correct as a postverbal Agent NP is only possible when it is adjacent to the verb (Myhill 1988). Hence the acceptability contrast in (28a-d). This suggests that the agent NP occupies a different phrase structure position to the agent PP.

The question is what is the status of the postverbal NP agent. The fact that it occurs without a preposition suggests that it is a term argument. On the other hand, it cannot bind the gr-subject reflexive:

Furthermore, it cannot bind the theme object:

If the Agent NP ayah is a term, it should be a possible binder for dirinya because it is thematically the most prominent item. This suggests that it should be regarded as an oblique.

Further evidence comes from (possessor) topicalisation with a pronominal copy. Consider the possessor topicalisation of the subject (30a), of the object (30b) and of the postverbal agent NP (30c). Only the first two are acceptable. (Sentence (30d) shows the non topicalised version of (30c).)

Myhill (1988) in fact argues that the agent noun is here incorporated. It is unclear to us whether we would want to say that – Myhill is basing this analysis on the loose definition of incorporation from Mithun (1984:849) which covers cases where 'a verb and its direct object are simply juxtaposed to form an especially tight bond. The verb and noun remain separate words phonologically, but Ö the N loses its syntactic status as an argument of the sentence, and the VN unit functions as an intransitive predicate.' But it is interesting to note that in this case there is evidence of the agent noun preceding enclitic particles which are semantically modifying the verb. For example, Myhill gives the example in (31), where the particle -lah is giving emphasis to the temporal sequencing of the verb, and not to the agent noun.

On the other hand, this construction is definitely not the canonical case of noun incorporation widely discussed in the syntactic literature, since, as Myhill discusses, multiword agent NPs can appear in this construction. At any rate, all the available evidence suggests that the postverbal NP agent is not a term but an oblique, and so we will analyse it thus.

To summarize the discussion so far, binding suggests that an Agent/l-subject can have the syntactic expressions shown in Table 1. Given the a-str based binding theory, only the l-subject in AV (a), OV (b), and di-verb-nya (c.i) is a possible binder of term arguments within the same clause in Indonesian.

Table 1.