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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Return to all projects