|
Malagasy Voice Morphology as Wh-Agreement Matthew Pearson Reed College
Malagasy clauses generally include a right-peripheral topic DP, here called the pivot. As in other Philippine-type languages, the grammatical role of the pivot is specified by voice morphology on the verb. The sentences in (1), with the pivot italicized, illustrate the actor-topic (AT), theme-topic (TT), and circumstantial-topic (CT) forms, respectively. Pivot/voice alternations play a central role in the grammar: notably, the selection of voice is constrained in constructions involving A′-extraction of a DP, with subject extraction requiring the AT form (2), and object extraction requiring the TT form (3) (Keenan 1976, et al.).
Normally the pivot is treated as the grammatical subject. The non-AT voices are then taken to encode mappings of non-agents to the subject function, comparable to passive constructions in other languages; while the asymmetries in (2)–(3) are captured via a constraint barring extraction of non-subjects. In earlier work I argued against this view, presenting evidence that the pivot occupies an A′-position similar to the topic position in V2 languages like Icelandic. In this paper I consider the consequences of the A′-pivot analysis for the treatment of voice and extraction asymmetries. My major claims are summarized here: i. Voice morphology expresses the Case features of an A′-chain, making it analogous to wh-agreement in Chamorro and related languages (Chung 1982, 1998; cf. Richards 1997, Donohue and Maclachlan 2000). Malagasy clauses contain an A′-position which must be filled, explaining why voice is not confined to wh-questions, relative clauses, etc. ii. To account for (2)–(3), I suggest that pivot movement and operator movement compete for the same A′ landing site (cf. English, where topic fronting and wh-fronting are in complementary distribution). I thus avoid the stipulation that only subjects may extract. I begin by reviewing evidence for locating the pivot in an A′-position, and for treating voice as wh-agreement. E.g., I show that voice and wh-agreement behave in parallel fashion with regard to long-distance dependencies: When a wh-phrase moves from an embedded clause in Chamorro, it does not trigger agreement on every verb in its scope, but only on the embedded verb, while the higher verb agrees with the clause containing the trace (Chung and Georgopoulos 1988). Likewise when a Malagasy pivot is linked to a gap in an embedded clause, the voice of the embedded verb identifies the role of the gap, while the voice of the higher verb identifies the role of the clause containing the gap. I then consider the affixes that comprise the different Malagasy voice forms. These I treat as functional heads associated with case-checking, which are spelled out only when their specifiers contain a trace, in accordance with a generalized ‘doubly-filled comp’ filter: The AT prefix m- spells out the nominative case-checking head, while the TT suffix -in spells out the accusative case-checking head. I also discuss the suffix -an (found on the CT form and certain TT forms), which I treat as an applicative morpheme. Specifically, I adopt Marantz’s (1993) VP-shell model of applicatives, associating -an with the higher V head.
(1) a. Mamono ny akoho amin’ny antsy ny mpamboly AT.kill Det chicken with-Det knife Det farmer “The farmer(pivot) kills the chickens with the knife”
b. Vonoin’ ny mpamboly amin’ny antsy ny akoho TT.kill Det farmer with-Det knife Det chicken “The farmer kills the chickens(pivot) with the knife”
c. Amonoan’ ny mpamboly ny akoho ny antsy CT.kill Det farmer Det chicken Det knife “The farmer kills the chickens with the knife(pivot)”
(2) a. Iza no namono ny akoho tamin’ny antsy? who Foc Pst.AT.kill Det chicken Pst.with-Det knife “Who killed the chickens with the knife?”
b. * Iza no novonoina tamin’ny antsy ny akoho? who Foc Pst.TT.kill Pst.with-Det knife Det chicken “Who killed the chickens with the knife?”
(3) a. * Inona no namono tamin’ny antsy ny mpamboly? what Foc Pst.AT.kill Pst.with-Det knife Det farmer “What did the farmer kill with the knife?”
b. Inona no novonoin’ ny mpamboly tamin’ny antsy? what Foc Pst.TT.kill Det farmer Pst.with-Det knife “What did the farmer kill with the knife?”
REFERENCES:
Chung, S. 1982. Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13:39-77. Chung, S. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chung, S. and C. Georgopoulos. 1988. Agreement with gaps in Chamorro and Palauan. Agreement in Natural Language, ed. M. Barlow & C. A. Ferguson. Stanford: CSLI Press. Donohue & Maclachlan Keenan, E. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. Subject and Topic, ed. C. Li. New York: Academic Press. Marantz, A. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, ed. S. Mchombo. Stanford: CSLI Press. Richards, N. 1997. What Moves Where When in Which Language? Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
|