Austronesian voice
The grammars of many Austronesian languages privilege one argument in each sentence — the so-called “subject” or “pivot” — with processes such as questioning, topicalization, and relativization all privileging this “subject/pivot” argument, and use verbal “voice” morphology to indicate the choice of this argument. My ongoing work contributes to new understandings of the notion of “subject/pivot” and the relationships between case, voice, and movement in these languages, through original fieldwork.
Philippine-type voice systems
A major interest area of mine is the nature of so-called “Philippine-type” syntax, which exhibit a correspondence between “voice” morphology on the verb, morphological case on nominals, and the availability of Ā-movement, with multiple non-agent-demoting undergoer voices. Theodore Levin, Coppe van Urk, and I have argued that voice morphology is extraction marking, reflecting the choice of argument moved to a particular position. The relevant position is a mixed A/Ā-position, which then receives or is associated with nominative case.
-
Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk, 2020.
“The typology of nominal licensing in Austronesian voice system languages.”
Proceedings of AFLA 26, pages 71–87. -
Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk, 2017.
“Ergativity and Austronesian-type voice systems.”
Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, pages 373–396. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.16 -
Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk, 2015.
“What makes a voice system? On the relationship between voice marking and case.”
AFLA 21: The Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, pages 51–68.
In recent work based on previous fieldwork on Squliq Atayal, I argue that the syntax of subject promotion involves removal of its case (K), with what has traditionally been described as “nominative” being the absence of case.
-
2014.
“Subject marking on non-subjects in Squliq Atayal.”
Proceedings of the 20th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 20).
I have argued that attested patterns of non-subject extractions offer important hints for the syntax of Philippine-type languages and, in particular, the organization of their verbal phases. Theordore Levin and I have considered patterns of clitic pronouns in Philippine-type languages. Viewing cliticization as an instance of syntactic movement, we can explain the typologically attested patterns of clitic pronouns based on a view of the vP phase edge where “subject” DPs and non-subject agents, but not non-subject themes, are accessible for syntactic operations from above. My student Cheryl Lim and I have also studied patterns of non-subject extractions in Bikol, which again supports the view that both “subjects” and non-subject agents both occupy the vP phase edge.
-
Hsieh and Erlewine, 2025.
“Tagalog clitics.”
Draft handbook chapter. -
Erlewine and Lim, 2023.
“Bikol clefts and topics and the Austronesian extraction restriction.”
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41:3, pages 911–960. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-022-09555-0 -
2023.
“Learning the organization of the verbal phase in Philippine-type and Indonesian-type languages.”
Presented at the 26th International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL 26) and the Workshop on Verbal Domains, University of Newcastle. -
Erlewine and Levin, 2021.
“Philippine clitic pronouns and the lower phase edge.”
Linguistic Inquiry 52:2, pages 408–425. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00374 -
Erlewine and Levin, 2018.
“Clitic pronouns and the lower phase edge.”
Heading in the Right Direction: Linguistic Treats for Lisa Travis, pages 136–145.
Voice and extraction in Indonesian-type languages
Although so-called “Indonesian-type” languages have lost much of the morphology associated with so-called “Philippine-type” syntax (in particular, with loss of case morphology and much of the voice alternations), they still exhibit vestiges of a subject-only restriction on Ā-extraction.
In recent work with Carly Sommerlot, I have advanced a new approach to the morphology and syntax of Malayic languages. Key to our approach is a two-head organization of the verbal phase that splits the phase head (Voice) and the agent-introducing head (v), and the adoption of phase-based cyclic Spell-Out and Cyclic Linearization. Our approach applies to the well-studied Standard Malay and Indonesian, but also to a range of understudied regional varieties, including (Suak Mansi) Desa, which was previously undescribed before Carly’s fieldwork and serves as an important case study that motivates our approach.
-
Erlewine and Sommerlot, to appear.
“Voice and extraction in Malayic.”
Language. -
Erlewine and Sommerlot, 2024.
“The Malayic verbal phase and Cyclic Linearization.”
Presented at AFLA 30, LSA 100, NELS 54. -
Erlewine and Sommerlot, 2023.
“Malayic active voice meN-: One prefix or two?.”
Presented at the Linguistic Society of Japan and the Affixes symposium, University of Turku. -
2016.
“Review of Yosuke Sato Minimalist Interfaces: Evidence from Indonesian and Javanese.”
Oceanic Linguistics 55:1, pages 298–306. DOI: 10.1353/ol.2016.0000
I have also investigated the left periphery and patterns of Ā-extraction in Toba Batak, an understudied Austronesian language of northern Sumatra, Indonesia. Contrary to the claims of previous work on the language, I show that multiple DPs can be simultaneously fronted, though only in limited configurations.
-
2018.
“Extraction and licensing in Toba Batak.”
Language 94:3, pages 662–697. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0039 -
2016.
“Multiple extraction and voice in Toba Batak.”
AFLA 23: The Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, pages 81–95.
Restricted probing for subject-only extraction
One ingredient of my analysis for the Ā-extraction restrictions in Philippine-type languages, as well as in Toba Batak, is the idea that an Ā-probe can be specified to target the closest DP. Kenyon Branan have discussed some of the applications and implications of this idea.
-
Branan and Erlewine, to appear.
“Locality and (minimal) search.”
Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program. -
Branan and Erlewine, 2024.
“Ā-probing for the closest DP.”
Linguistic Inquiry 55:2, pages 375–401. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00459