1887
image of Predicting voice choice in symmetrical voice languages
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Western Austronesian symmetrical voice languages exhibit at least two basic transitive constructions. This paper investigates what factors influence speakers’ choice of one voice over another in natural spoken discourse. It provides a thorough assessment of all factors that have been proposed to be relevant for voice choice in the literature on symmetrical voice systems. Using the Indonesian language Totoli as a case study, we show that unlike in languages with asymmetrical voice alternations, argument-related properties such as topicality, activation state, animacy, etc. do not play a major role in voice choice in symmetrical voice languages. We argue that for symmetrical voice alternations other factor groups are relevant than for asymmetrical voice alternations and that the clear structural differences between the two alternation types are mirrored in functional differences.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20061.rie
2021-09-27
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdullah Munshi, bin Abdul Kadir
    1932Hikayat Abdullah, Jalid yang pertama (Malay Literature Series 4). Singapore: Malay Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arka, I. Wayan
    2009 On the zero (voice) prefix and bare verbs in Austronesian languages of Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, inBethwyn Evans (ed.), Discovering history through language: Papers in honour of Malcolm Ross. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 247–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asikin-Garmager, Eli Scott
    2017 Sasak voice. Iowa City: University of Iowa PhD dissertation. Available at doi:  10.17077/etd.dfu5gcvv (last access5 September 2021).
    https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.dfu5gcvv
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1). 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bardají i Farré, Maria, Sonja Riesberg & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    . submitted. Limited-control predicates in western Austronesia: stative, dynamic, or none of the above?
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumann, Stefan & Arndt Riester
    2012 Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. InGorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Prosody and meaning, 119–162. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261790.119
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261790.119 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bencini, Giulia & Virginia Valian
    2008 Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language59. 97–113. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bock, J. Kathryn
    1986 Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology18(3). 355–387. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bracks, Christoph A.
    2020 The syntax-prosody interface in Totoli. Cologne: University of Cologne PhD dissertation.
  11. Bracks, Christoph A., Datra Hasan, Maria Bardají i Farré, Sumitro Pogi & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    2017–2020Totoli Documentation Corpus 2. Language Archive Cologne. Available at: https://lac2.uni-koeln.de/de/ (last access5 September 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brainard, Sherri
    1994 Voice and ergativity in Karao. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.28.17bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.28.17bra [Google Scholar]
  13. Branigan, Holly P. & Katherine Messenger
    2016 Consistent and cumulative effects of syntactic experience in children’s sentence production: Evidence for error-based implicit learning. Cognition157. 250–256. 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Brickell, Timothy C.
    2014 A grammatical description of the Tondano (Toundano) language. Melbourne: La Trobe University PhD dissertation. hdl.handle.net/1959.9/516057
  15. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1980The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen, Victoria & Bradley McDonnell
    2019 Western Austronesian voice. Annual Review of Linguistics5(1). 173–195. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011718‑011731
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011731 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohen, Jacob
    1988Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cooreman, Ann
    1983 Topic continuity and the voicing system of an ergative language: Chamorro. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse. A quantitative cross-linguistic study, 425–489. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3.10coo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.10coo [Google Scholar]
  20. 1988 The antipassive in Chamorro: Variations on the theme of transitivity. InMasayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 561–593. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.16.19coo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.16.19coo [Google Scholar]
  21. Cramér, Harald
    1946Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cumming, Susanna
    1991Functional change: The case of Malay constituent order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110864540
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110864540 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dryer, Matthew S.
    1994 The discourse function of the Kutenai inverse. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 65–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.28.06dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.28.06dry [Google Scholar]
  24. Estival, Dominique
    1985 Syntactic priming of the passive in English. Text5(1–2). 7–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ewing, Michael C.
    2005Grammar and inference in conversation: Identifying clause structure in spoken Javanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.18 [Google Scholar]
  26. Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin
    1984Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Garcia, Rowena, Jeruen E. Dery, Jens Roeser & Barbara Höhle
    2018 Word order preferences of Tagalog-speaking adults and children. First Language38(6). 617–640. 10.1177/0142723718790317
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723718790317 [Google Scholar]
  28. Garcia, Rowena & Evan Kidd
    2020 The acquisition of the Tagalog symmetrical voice system: Evidence from Structural Priming. Language Learning and Development16(4). 399–425. 10.1080/15475441.2020.1814780
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2020.1814780 [Google Scholar]
  29. Givón, Talmy
    1983 Introduction. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse. A quantitative cross-linguistic study, 3–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1994Voice and inversion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.28 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2005 Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research34(4). 365–399. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2014 Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2). 274–307. 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  34. Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell
    2015Annotations using GRAID (Grammatical Relations and Animacy in Discourse). Bamberg: Opus. Available at: https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/21446 (last access5 September 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2016 The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language92. 591–618. 10.1353/lan.2016.0049
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0049 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hemmings, Charlotte
    2016 The Kelabit language: Austronesian voice and syntactic typology. London: University of London, SOAS PhD dissertation.
  37. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    1999 The lack of zero anaphora and incipient person marking in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics38, 231–269. 10.1353/ol.1999.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.1999.0010 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2001Sourcebook on Tomini-Tolitoli Languages. General information and word lists. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2005 The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological overview. InAlexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–181. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2010 Language endangerment scenarios: A case study from northern Central Sulawesi. InMargaret Florey (ed.), Endangered languages of Austronesia, 45–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Meytal Sandler, Jan Strunk & Volker Unterladstetter
    2018 On the universality of intonational phrases – a crosslinguistic interrater study. Phonology35(2). 207–245. 10.1017/S0952675718000039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675718000039 [Google Scholar]
  42. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Sonja Riesberg
    2013 Symmetrical voice and applicative alternations: Evidence from Totoli. Oceanic Linguistics52(2). 396–422. 10.1353/ol.2013.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2013.0021 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hopper, Paul J.
    1983 Ergative, passive, and active in Malay narrative. InFlora Klein-Andreu (ed.), Discourse perspectives on syntax, 67–88. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hopper, Paul J. & Sarah Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2). 251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis
    2006 Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics15(3). 651–674. 10.1198/106186006X133933
    https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jackendoff, Ray
    1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kidd, Evan
    2012 Individual differences in syntactic priming in language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics33(2). 393–418. 10.1017/S0142716411000415
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000415 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kroeger, Paul
    1993Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kroeger, Paul & Sonja Riesberg
    . forthcoming. Voice and transitivity. InAlexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper eds. The Oxford guide to the Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Latrouite, Anja
    2011 Voice and case in Tagalog: The coding of prominence and orientation. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf PhD dissertation.
  51. Lazard, Gilbert
    2002 Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica36. 141–190. 10.1515/flin.2002.36.3‑4.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.141 [Google Scholar]
  52. Leto, Claudia, Winarno S. Alamudi, Jani Kuhnt-Saptodewo, Sonja Riesberg, Hasan Basri & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    2005–2010DoBeS Totoli Documentation. DoBeS Archive MPI Nijmegen. Available at: https://dobes.mpi.nl/ (last access5 September 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Levinson, Steven C., Penelope Brown, Eve Danzinger, Lourdes De León, John B. Haviland, Eric Pederson & Gunther Senft
    1992 Man and tree & space games. InSteven C. Levinson (ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2, 7–14. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. McDonnell, Bradley
    2016 Symmetrical voice constructions in Besemah: A usage-based approach. Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara PhD dissertation.
  55. Navarro, Danielle J.
    2015Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners (Version 0.5). Adelaide: University of Adelaide.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pastika, I. Wayan
    1999 Voice selection in Balinese discourse. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.
  57. Payne, Thomas E.
    1994 The pragmatics of voice in a Philippine language. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 318–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.28.16pay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.28.16pay [Google Scholar]
  58. Pickering, Martin J. & Victor S. Ferreira
    2008 Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin134(3). 427–459. 10.1037/0033‑2909.134.3.427
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 [Google Scholar]
  59. Prince, Ellen F.
    1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InPeter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Quick, Phil
    2005 Topic continuity, voice and word order in Pendau. InI. Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: Some new empirical studies, 221–242. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2017R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (last access5 September 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin
    1998 Building verb meanings. InMiriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 97–143. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Riesberg, Sonja
    2014 Symmetrical voice and linking in western Austronesian languages. Pacific Linguistics646. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614518716
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518716 [Google Scholar]
  64. Riester, Arndt & Stefan Baumann
    2017 The RefLex scheme – Annotation guidelines. Vol 14 of SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Schachter, Paul
    1976 The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 1977 Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. InPeter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations, 279–306. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Schiborr, Nils N., Stefan Schnell & Hanna Thiele
    2018RefIND – Referent Indexing in Natural-language Discourse: Annotation guidelines (v1.1). Bamberg / Melbourne: University of Bamberg / University of Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sheskin, David J.
    2011Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Strobl, Carolin, James Malley & Gerhard Tutz
    2009 An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods14(4). 323–348. 10.1037/a0016973
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973 [Google Scholar]
  70. Svartvik, Jan
    1966On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Tsunoda, Tasaku
    1985 Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics21. 385–396. 10.1017/S0022226700010318
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010318 [Google Scholar]
  72. Van Valin, Robert D.
    2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla
    1997Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  74. Weiner, Judith E. & William Labov
    1983 Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics19. 29–58. 10.1017/S0022226700007441
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007441 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wouk, Fay
    1996 Voice in Indonesian discourse. Studies in Language20(2). 361–410. 10.1075/sl.20.2.05wou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20.2.05wou [Google Scholar]
  76. 1999 Sasak is different: A discourse perspective on voice. Oceanic Linguistics38(1). 91–114. 10.2307/3623394
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3623394 [Google Scholar]
  77. Zúñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä
    2019Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316671399
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316671399 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20061.rie
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20061.rie
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: symmetrical voice ; discourse ; Totoli ; western Austronesian ; voice choice
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error