Syntactic Ergativity in Balinese: an Argument Structure Based Theory

Transcription

1 [Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol. 16, pp , 1998] Syntactic Ergativity in Balinese: an Argument Structure Based Theory Stephen Wechsler University of Texas at Austin I Wayan Arka Udayana University and University of Sydney mailing address: Prof. Stephen Wechsler Department of Linguistics Calhoun 501 University of Texas Austin, Texas (512) (512) (fax)

2 (Wechsler) (Arka) 2

3 1 Syntactic Ergativity in Balinese: an Argument-Structure Based Theory * Abstract: This paper argues that variation between syntactically accusative and ergative clauses in Balinese results from different mappings between argument structure and syntactic realization. Our version of argument structure, essentially the ARG- S feature of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, is the locus of anaphoric binding conditions. We further assume that passive, causative, and applicative are morpholexical operations on argument structure. This set of assumptions allows us to explain: (i) why conditions on Balinese binding are generally thematic and independent of surface grammatical relations or phrase structure position; and (ii) the specific exceptions to such thematic conditions that arise with raised arguments, direct/oblique alternations, and passive by-phrases.

4 2 0. Introduction: syntactic ergativity. Research on syntax is bringing us ever closer to the universal system underlying the syntactic expression of semantic arguments. At the interface between syntax and lexical meaning lies an initial level, sometimes called argument structure, at which a predicate s semantic or conceptual form is concretized for syntactic expression. The challenge is to discover the universal properties of that level, while still explaining the observed diversity of the world s languages. Syntactically ergative languages in which the mapping from arguments to surface grammatical relations is roughly opposite to the more familiar accusative languages throw this universal interface into sharp relief. Many Austronesian languages have both accusative and ergative clauses, allowing a comparison within a single language. In this paper we look at one such mixed accusative/ergative language, Balinese (Austronesian; Bali and Lombok). In a syntactically accusative language the agent argument of a basic transitive clause shares with the sole argument of a typical intransitive such important interclausal properties as accessibility to relativization, raising, and sometimes control. 1 But in a small handful of syntactically ergative languages the most celebrated example being Dyirbal these subjectoriented properties pick out not the agent but the patient (Dixon 1979, 1994). (When shallower intraclausal properties such as case-marking or agreement drive the grouping, such a language (or clause) is said to be morphologically ergative. Morphologically ergative languages are considerably more common than syntactically ergative languages.)

5 3 In our terminology, arguments characterized by the subject-oriented syntactic properties are called GRAMMATICAL SUBJECTS, or simply SUBJECTS (on this terminology see footnote 4). We will show (in Section 1) that the preverbal NPs in the Balinese sentences (1) and (2) (ia (s)he and bawi-ne the pig, respectively) are both subjects, in this sense: 2 (1) Ia pules. 3 sleep (s)he is sleeping. (2) Bawi-ne punika tumbas tiang. (high register) 3 pig-def that OV.buy 1 I bought the pig. (2) contains a verb in Objective Voice (OV). But the same verb in Agentive Voice (AV), indicated by a homorganic nasal prefix replacing the initial consonant, takes its agent as subject: (3) Tiang numbas bawi-ne punika. (h.r.) 1 AV-buy pig-def that I bought the pig. To distinguish from the AV verb form (here numbas), the unmarked form of the verb is called Objective Voice (OV); hence tumbas in (2) is glossed OV.buy. We argue that the preverbal position is the subject position, regardless of which voice marking appears. If we are correct in that claim, then transitive patient in

6 4 (2) and intransitive sole argument in (1) are grouped together as subjects, so (2) is a syntactically ergative clause. In contrast, (3) is a syntactically accusative clause. We offer and defend a general theory of ergativity in terms of a static mapping from a particular version of argument structure to grammatical relations, i.e., the features determining grammatical expression. Argument structure is the site for binding (universally) and control (of some varieties, in some languages); most other subject properties depend on grammatical relations. Section 1 reviews evidence that the Balinese pre-verbal NP, whether patient (as in (2)) or agent (as in (3)), is the subject. In section 2 we show that clauses like (2) are underived transitives and not passives, and that (3) is not an antipassive construction in the usual sense (the AV morpheme does not demote the Theme). Section 3 introduces binding facts. Section 4 presents a general theory of argument structure and linking. In Sections 4 and 5 this theory is supported by evidence from binding, subject-to-object raising verbs, applicatives, causatives, ditransitives, and passives. In Section 6 we focus on binding in raising constructions. 1. The Balinese preverbal argument as subject. Our theoretical framework includes an argument structure but no D- structure, so the term subject unambiguously denotes, for us, the surface or grammatical subject: the argument picked out by relativization, raising, and other subject-oriented properties. The most prominent argument in argument structure will be called the A-SUBJECT. 4 The A-subject is crucially distinct from the (grammatical) subject. (For example, the Agent I is the A-subject in both (2)

7 5 and (3) above, but it is the (grammatical) subject only in (3); in (2) the grammatical subject is the Patient, the pig. ) In this section we show that the preverbal arguments of OV, AV, and intransitive verbs group together as (surface, grammatical) subjects Relativization. If a language allows relativization at all, it allows subjects to relativize (Keenan and Comrie 1977). In Balinese only the purported subjects can be relativized, as shown in (4)a and (5)a (examples (4) and (5) adapted from Artawa 1994). Objects as in (4)b and (5)b, and obliques, as in (6)b, cannot be relativized. 5 (4)a. anak-e cenik [ane gugut cicing] ento. person-def small [REL OV.bite dog] that the child whom the dog bit b. *cicing [ane anak-e cenik ento gugut]. dog [REL person-def small that OV.bite] the dog that bit the child (5)a. I Warta [ane maca koran]. Art Warta [REL AV.read newspaper] Warta who read the newspaper

8 6 b. *koran [ane I Warta maca]. newspaper [REL Art Warta AV.read] the newspaper that Warta read (6)a. Ia ngejang pipis-ne di paon 3 AV.put money-3poss at kitchen He put his money in the kitchen. b. *di paon ane ia ngejang pipisne at kitchen REL 3 AV.put money-3poss in the kitchen, where he put his money 1.2. Subject-to-subject raising. Raising to subject is known to be restricted to embedded subjects crosslinguistically (Zaenen, Maling, and Thráinsson 1985; Chung 1978). On the other hand there do not seem to be any languages where raising is restricted to Topics only. Balinese has many raising predicates which allow raising only of the purported subject argument (as noted by Artawa 1994). In this intransitive verb example the subject ia (s)he can be raised to the position to the left of the matrix predicate ngenah seem : 6 (7)a. ngenah ia mobog. seem 3 lie It seems that (s)he is lying.

9 7 b. Ia ngenah mobog. 3 seem lie (s)he seems to be lying. Now consider embedded transitive verbs, first an OV verb (8) and then an AV verb (9): (8) a. Ngenah sajan [kapelihan-ne engkebang ci]. seem much mistake-3poss OV.hide 2 It is very apparent that you are hiding his/her wrongdoing. b. Kapelihan-ne ngenah sajan engkebang ci. mistake-3poss seem much OV.hide 2 c.?*ci ngenah sajan kapelihan-ne engkebang. 2 seem much mistake-3poss OV.hide In example (8)a the bracketed clause is complement of the predicate ngenah seem / apparent. Since the embedded verb engkebang hide is in OV form, its theme kapelihan-ne his/her mistake is the subject and its agent ci you is object. Being the embedded subject, the theme kapelihan-ne can be raised, as shown in (8)b, while the embedded agent ci, being a non-subject, cannot raise, as shown in (8)c. In (9)a the embedded verb ngengkebang hide appears in its AV form, so the arguments are reversed from (8)a: now the agent ci is the embedded subject and theme kapelihan-ne is the object.

10 8 (9) a. ngenah sajan [ci ngengkebang kapelihan-ne]. seem much 2 AV.hide mistake-3poss It is very apparent that you are hiding his/her wrongdoing. b. Ci ngenah sajan ngengkebang kapelihan-ne. 2 seem much AV.hide mistake-3poss c.?*kapelihan-ne ngenah sajan ci ngengkebang. mistake-3poss seem much 2 AV.hide As expected, the embedded agent ci, being the subject, can raise (as in (9)b), while the theme kapelihan-ne, being a non-subject, cannot raise (as in (9)c). In short, raising picks the subject of the embedded proposition, regardless of thematic role. To take another example, the predicate enggal quick has all the same raising properties shown above for ngenah seem. (10)a gives the unraised version; in (10)b the embedded subject has been raised, while (10)c shows a failed attempt to raise the embedded object: (10)a. Enggal tiang ngadep umah. quick 1 AV.sell house b. Tiang enggal ngadep umah. 1 quick AV.sell house It is quick for me to sell a house. c. *Umah enggal tiang ngadep. house quick 1 AV.sell

11 9 The raising predicate keweh difficult provides a third example, as in this sentence from a Balinese novel: (11) Peteng-ne ento Nyoman Santosa keweh ngidemang paningalan night-def that Nyoman Santosa difficult AV.close eyes That night, it was difficult for Nyoman Santosa to close (his) eyes. In (11) the embedded subject Nyoman Santosa is raised. The sentence becomes bad if the object paningalan eyes is raised instead: (12) * Peteng-ne ento paningalan keweh Nyoman Santosa ngidemang night-def that eyes difficult Nyoman Santosa AV.close That night, it was difficult for Nyoman Santosa to close (his) eyes. An anonymous reviewer has raised the possibility that our purported raising predicates are really adverbs. While we cannot absolutely eliminate this as a possible analysis, there are two reasons for believing that they are predicates and not adverbs. First, they can appear in only three positions: sentence-initial (13)a, sentence-final (13)b, and immediately following the subject (13)c. Other positions are impossible, as shown in (13)d.

12 10 (13) a. ngenah sajan [ia ngalihang I Nyoman gae di Jakarta] seem much [3 AV.find.APPL I Nyoman job in Jakarta] b. [ia ngalihang I Nyoman gae di Jakarta] ngenah sajan. [3 AV.find.APPL I Nyoman job in Jakarta] seem much c. ia ngenah sajan ngalihang I Nyoman gae di Jakarta. 3 seem much AV.find.APPL I Nyoman job in Jakarta d. ia ngalihang (*ngenah sajan) I Nyoman (*ngenah sajan) gae 3 AV.find.APPL I Nyoman job (*ngenah sajan) di Jakarta. in Jakarta It is very apparent that (s)he found Nyoman a job in Jakarta. This distribution suggests a predicate, which can take a clausal complement (13)a, clausal subject (13)b, or appear in the raising configuration (13)c. This parallels raising predicates English: (14) a. It is likely [that she will find Nyoman a job in Jakarta]. b. [That she will find Nyoman a job in Jakarta] is likely. c. She is likely to find Nyoman a job in Jakarta. The raising predicate keweh difficult has the same distribution:

13 11 (15) a. Keweh [ia ngalihang I Nyoman gae di Jakarta] difficult 3 AV.find-APPL I Nyoman job in Jakarta b. [Ia ngalihang I Nyoman gae di Jakarta] keweh. c. Ia keweh ngalihang I Nyoman gae di Jakarta. d. Ia ngalihang (*keweh) I Nyoman (*keweh) gae (*keweh) di Jakarta It is difficult for him/her to find a job for I Nyoman in Jakarta. In contrast, the placement of uncontroversial adverbial expressions like pidan ago is considerably freer: (16) a. (Pidan) ia ngalih-ang Nyoman gae di Jakarta.. ago 3 AV.find-APPL Nyoman job in Jakarta b. Ia (pidan) ngalihang Nyoman gae di Jakarta. c. Ia ngalihang (pidan) Nyoman gae di Jakarta. d. Ia ngalihang Nyoman (pidan) gae di Jakarta. e. Ia ngalihang Nyoman gae (pidan) di Jakarta. f. Ia ngalihang Nyoman gae di Jakarta (pidan). (S)he found a job for Nyoman in Jakarta a while ago. Similarly, the manner adverb sanget-sanget in a very hard manner / with great effort (lit. very-very ) can intervene between a verb and its object.

14 12 (17) a. (Sanget-sanget) ia nepak gamelan-e. very-very 3 AV.hit gamelan-def b. Ia (sanget-sanget) nepak gamelane. c. Ia nepak (sanget-sanget) gamelane. d. Ia nepak gamelane (sanget-sanget). (S)he was hitting the gamelan really hard. So our purported raising predicates differ from adverbs in distribution. Moreover, the raising-type distribution correlates with the possibility of verbal inflection. For example, (18) shows that the raising predicate enggal quick accepts the causative suffix -ang (on causatives, see Section 5.1) and participates in the OV/AV alternation. Notice how the voice marking on the matrix predicate (ng)enggal-ang cause to be quick determines the position of the subject of the subordinate predicate nyemak take (namely tiang, the first person pronoun): (18) a. Enggal-ang tiang nyemak pipis-ne. OV.quick-CAUS 1 AV.take money-3poss I quickly took his/her money. (Lit. I made it quick to take his/her money. ) b. Tiang ngenggal-ang nyemak pipis-ne 1 AV.quick-CAUS AV.take money-3poss I quickly took his/her money. (Lit. I made it quick to take his/her money. ) The NP tiang clearly bears a grammatical relation to enggal since that NP s position is regulated by voice marking. More specifically, the observed

15 13 alternation parallels what we have seen for transitive predicates, where the agent NP follows the OV-verb but precedes the AV-verb (details of this alternation must wait until Section 4 below). In contrast to enggal, true adverbs cannot be inflected in this way: (19) pidan ago -> *pidan-ang ago-caus ibi yesterday -> *ibi-ang /*ngibiang yesterday-caus (OV/AV) mani tomorrow -> * maniang/*ngemaniang tomorrow-caus (OV/AV) sajan very (much) -> * sajanang/*nyajanang very-caus (OV/AV) The following sentences illustrate the contrast between raising predicates and adverbials: (20) a. Ia enggal kema 3 quick go.there (S)he went there quickly. b. Ia ngengal-ang kema 3 AV.quick-CAUS go.there (S)he made it quick to go there. (21) a. Ia ibi kema. 3 yesterday go.there (S)he went there yesterday. b. *Ia ngibi-ang kema. 3 AV.yesterday-CAUS go.there (S)he made yesterday be the day to go there.

16 14 In short, the correlation between distribution and inflection suggests that certain Balinese elements such as enggal quick, ngenah seem, and keweh difficult are true raising predicates. To return to the main point of this section, raising predicates pick out the preverbal NP for raising, whether it is the agent (of an AV verb) or theme (of an OV verb). This lends support to our contention that this argument is the subject of its clause Subject-to-object raising. In the Balinese subject-to-object raising (SOR) construction, the subject of an embedded predicate is syntactically dependent upon the superordinate predicate. Consider this example (from Artawa 1994, p. 148): (22)a. Nyoman Santosa tawang tiang mulih. (name) OV.know 1 go.home I knew that Nyoman Santosa went home. b. Tiang nawang Nyoman Santosa mulih. 1 AV-know (name) go.home I knew that Nyoman Santosa went home. The SOR verb tawang know takes the embedded subject Nyoman Santosa as a syntactic dependent, hence subject to the same alternations as semantic arguments. Specifically, this raised NP appears in the subject position of an OV SOR verb (as in (22)a) or object position of an AV SOR verb (as in (22)b). (Note

17 15 that in this case there is no possibility of an adverb analysis.) When the downstairs predicate is transitive then only our purported downstairs subject can raise into the higher clause. (23) illustrates this fact for all four combinations of AV and OV on the matrix and embedded predicates (all four sentences have the same logical relations, indicated by the translation below): (23)a. Ia nawang Wayan lakar tangkep polisi. 3 AV.know Wayan FUT OV.arrest police b. Wayan tawang=a lakar tangkep polisi. Wayan OV.know=3 FUT OV.arrest police c. Ia nawang polisi lakar nangkep Wayan. 3 AV.know police FUT AV.arrest Wayan d. Polisi tawang=a lakar nangkep Wayan. police OV.know=3 FUT AV.arrest Wayan He knew that the police would arrest Wayan. In (24) we have attempted to raise the embedded object instead of the subject, again taking all four combinations. This systematically fails:

18 16 (24)a. *Ia nawang polisi Wayan lakar tangkep. 3 AV.know police Wayan FUT OV.arrest b. *polisi tawang=a Wayan lakar tangkep. police OV.know=3 Wayan FUT OV.arrest c. *Ia nawang Wayan polisi lakar nangkep. 3 AV.know Wayan police FUT AV.arrest d. *Wayan tawang=a polisi lakar nangkep. Wayan OV.know=3 police FUT AV.arrest He knew that the police would arrest Wayan. In short, only our purported subject can be raised in the SOR construction Control. Control is another classic subject test: in many languages only a subject can be controlled (Zaenen, Maling, and Thráinsson 1985). 7 Once again, only the pre-verbal argument, whether the Theme of an OV verb or the Agent of an AV verb, can be a controllee: (25)a. Tiang edot [ teka]. 1 want come I want to come.

19 17 b. Tiang edot [ meriksa dokter]. 1 want AV.examine doctor I want to examine a doctor. c. Tiang edot [ periksa dokter]. 1 want OV.examine doctor I want to be examined by a doctor. In contrast with the examples in (25), the agent in the following sentence is not the downstairs subject and cannot be therefore controlled: (26)a. *Tiang edot [dokter periksa ]. 1 want doctor OV.examine (I want to examine a doctor.) b.?*tiang edot [dokter meriksa ]. 1 want doctor AV.examine (I want to be examined by a doctor.) Turning to majanji promise, in this type of commitment relation, the promiser must have semantic control over the action promised (Farkas 1988, Kroeger 1993, Sag and Pollard 1991). The promiser should therefore be the actor of the downstairs verb. This semantic constraint interacts with the syntactic constraint that the controllee must be the subject to predict that the controlled VP must be in AV voice, which places the Agent in subject role. This prediction is borne out:

20 18 (27) a. Tiang majanji maang Nyoman pipis. 1 promise AV.give Nyoman money b. *Tiang majanji Nyoman baang pipis. 1 promise Nyoman OV.give money c. *Tiang majanji pipis baang Nyoman. 1 promise money OV.give Nyoman I promised to give Nyoman money. The same facts obtain for other control verbs such as paksa force Extraposition. A last distinguishing characteristic of subjects is the possibility of extraposition. In marked discourse contexts such as focal contrast, the subject can be extraposed: (28)a. Nasi-ne amah cicing. (SVO) rice-def OV.eat dog A dog ate the rice. b. Amah cicing nasi-ne. (VOS) eat dog rice-def A dog ate the rice. What happened to the rice is that it was eaten by a dog (not some other fate).

21 19 (29)a. Tiang ngae umah. (SVO) (h.r.) I AV.build house I built a house. b. ngae umah tiang (VOS) AV.build house I I built a house. What I did was build a house (not some other activity). Extraposition blindly picks whichever NP is our purported subject, irrespective of voice-marking or thematic role. In contrast, objects cannot be easily extraposed. For example, the benefactive object cannot be easily extraposed (30)b, whereas the agent subject can (30)c. (30)a. Tiang nge-maang Wayan nasi. (S V O rec O th ) 1 AV.give Wayan rice I gave Wayan rice. b.??tiang nge-maang nasi Wayan. (*S V O th O rec ) 1 AV.give rice Wayan c. Nge-maang Wayan nasi tiang. (V O rec O th S) AV.give Wayan rice 1 I gave Wayan rice. What I did was give Wayan rice. Turning to the OV form in (31), the agent tiang I is not the subject; in neutral order it appears post verbally (31)a. Crucially, the agent cannot be extraposed, as

22 20 shown in (31)b. But the benefactive Wayan is the subject, so it can be extraposed (31)c: (31)a. Wayan baang tiang nasi (S V O agt O th ) Wayan OV.give 1 rice I gave Wayan rice. b. * Wayan baang nasi tiang (*S V O th O agt ) Wayan OV.give rice 1 I gave Wayan rice. c. Baang tiang nasi Wayan (V O agt O th S) OV.give 1 rice Wayan I gave Wayan rice. What I did was give Wayan rice. In short, all and only subjects can be extraposed in Balinese. To summarize Section 1: raising to subject, raising to object, control, relativization, and extraposition all support the claim that the NP appearing to the left of the verb is the subject. This is true irrespective of the verb s voice marking. In other words, the voice marking regulates subject selection. 2. Complement nominals The complement Agent of an OV verb. While the Agent of an AV verb must appear as the subject, the subject of a mono- or ditransitive OV verb is any term (NP) argument except the Agent, as shown in (33). The term TERM is used in this paper to refer to a direct argument,

23 21 as distinct from oblique arguments. In Balinese all terms are NP s while obliques are PP s. The Agent of the OV verb instead appears in one of three forms. First, it can take the form of a third person pronominal clitic =a (or =na, if the host is vowel-final) on the verb (low register only): (32) Buku-ne jemak=a book-def OV.take=3 (S)he took the book. (33)a. Bungkusan dadua jemak-ang=a Nyoman Santosa package two OV.take-APPL=3 (name) (s)he brought two packages for Nyoman Santosa. b. Nyoman Santosa jemak-ang=a bungkusan dadua (name) OV.take-APPL=3 package two (s)he brought two packages for Nyoman Santosa Alternatively, the Agent can be realized as an indefinite NP (34). (34)a. I Wayan gugut cicing /*cicinge ento. Art Wayan OV.bite dog /dog that A/*the dog bit Wayan. b. ia alih [dagang celeng uli Badung] 3 OV.look.for trader pig from Badung A pig trader from Badung looked for him/her. Finally, the Agent can be expressed as a post-v free pronoun (see (2) above).

24 Discourse topics, the function of AV/OV, and the definiteness restriction. A full treatment of the definiteness restriction illustrated in (34) must await further research, but we will make some general remarks here. As in many of its Austronesian relatives, Balinese uses the subject (=pivot) position for discourse topics (indeed, many Austronesianists prefer the term topic to subject ). One consequence is that these languages typically have important conditions on the distribution of definites; for example, Tagalog definite patient arguments must appear in nominative case, i.e. must be subjects (= pivots ) (Foley and Van Valin 1984, p ; Kroeger 1993). The discourse correlates of subjecthood also allow us to explain the primary function of the OV/AV alternation: namely, to provide a means for designating the appropriate argument as discourse topic. In the following passage from a Balinese novel, the topic of the discourse is the narrator. Since the narrator is the agent of the seeing action in the first sentence, that verb appears in AV form nepukin, AV.see, so that the agent is the subject (35)a. The narrator is still the discourse topic in the second sentence but is not the agent of the waiting event, so the OV form, ati-ati-na OV.wait-wait-3, must be used (35)b. (35) a. Tiang lakar mulih, bas makelo ten nepukin i meme. 1 will go.home too long NEG AV.see Art mother I will go home, it s too long (for me) not to see (my) mother.

25 23 b. Mirib-ne ati-ati-na, apang ten kadenanga ngambul. apparently-def OV.wait-wait-3 so NEG OV.think=3 run.away so that she doesn t think that I m running away; it seems she is waiting for me. This example illustrates how a speaker often must switch back and forth between OV and AV to preserve topic continuity. (The third person singular pronominal clitic anaphorically refers to mother, and the first person singular pronoun has been pro-dropped in both the see and the wait clauses. The other verb in (35)b, kadenanga OV.think-3, is a subject-to-object raising verb.) Returning to the definiteness restriction on post-v agent NPs, definiteness (or perhaps specificity) and topichood are closely related, so one might expect a tendency for definite NP s to be subjects rather than complements. Given the cross-linguistic tendency for agents to be discourse topics (Dixon 1994), the pull towards topichood is even stronger for a definite agent than a definite non-agent. In other words, the two factors of definiteness and agentivity may conspire to force a definite agent into the subject function, thus prohibiting definite agent complements. However, this cannot be the whole answer. First, non-subject definite agents are possible in passive by-phrases (see Section 5.3). Second, pronouns, which are definite, are not subject to the definiteness restriction (e.g. (2) above). The mystery of the definiteness restriction must be left for future research The postverbal NP arguments as terms. Following Bresnan and Kanerva (1989), Alsina and Mchombo (1993), and others, we assume that alternations such as passive, antipassive, causative, and

26 24 applicative result from morpholexical operations on argument structure which add or suppress roles. But we argue that the ergative/accusative alternation results from applying two different subject selection rules to the same argument structure. These selection rules are encoded in the OV/AV distinction. In this section we motivate this approach by showing how Balinese voice marking differs from typical argument-structure changing rules such as passive and antipassive. Could the OV construction be a passive? This view is untenable, as the OV has none of the properties typical of passives. First, there is no passive verb morphology: OV is morphologically unmarked. Instead, it is the morphologically marked voice (AV) that resembles actives in accusative languages. Second, the post-verbal agent in OV is not the oblique by-phrase characterizing passives, but rather is a term. Prima facie evidence for this claim is that in Balinese, which lacks morphological case, all obliques are expressed as PPs, while terms are NPs. The post-verbal agent is always an NP (or clitic pronoun). Also, passive agent phrases are optional (and often analyzed as adjuncts; Grimshaw 1990), but the OV agent is crucially obligatory. 9 Third, the OV agent launches floating quantifiers (FQ), a property restricted to terms in Balinese (and perhaps in all languages; see Schachter 1977 p. 286ff). This restriction on FQ is illustrated here with intransitive matakon and transitive nakonin, both meaning ask (the latter is an applied form; see Section 5.2 below):

27 25 (36)a. Ia matakon [teken tiang] ibi ajak makejang. 3 ask to 1 yesterday accompany all (i) They all asked me yesterday. (ii)?*(s)he asked us all yesterday. b. Ia nakonin tiang ibi ajak makejang. 3 AV-ask 1 yesterday accompany all (i) They all asked me yesterday (ii) (s)he asked us all yesterday The quantifier ajak makejang can only be construed with terms, yielding only one interpretation for (36)a, but allowing two for (36)b. 10 As shown by the glosses, this quantifier yields a plural interpretation when it quantifies over a singular pronoun. Turning to OV verbs, we find that the complement agent can launch quantifiers: (37)a. Pipise jemak tiang ibi ajak makejang. money OV.take 1 yesterday accompany all (i) We all took the money. (ii) *I took all the money. b. Ia dengokin tiang ibi ajak makejang 3 OV.visit 1 yesterday accompany all (i) We all visited him/her yesterday (ii) I visited them all yesterday Reading (ii) is unavailable in (37)a because ajak makejang only applies to animates. Modulo this restriction, this quantifier can be launched by any term.

28 26 In addition, the post-verbal agent is tightly bound to the verb, like an object. An extraposed subject (see (28)) cannot intervene (from Artawa 1994, p. 30): (38)a. Siap-e uber cicing ke jalan-e. S V O agent PP chicken-def OV.chase dog to street-def A dog chased the chicken into the street. b. uber cicing ke jalan-e siap-e. V O agent S PP c. *uber siap-e cicing ke jalan-e. *V S O agent PP d. *siap-e uber ke jalan-e cicing. *S V PP O agent And it is generally difficult for other complements to intervene, as shown in (38)d. In sum, the post-verbal agent has all the properties of a direct complement of the verb, and no characteristics of obliques or adjuncts. Balinese has a passive construction which, in contrast with OV, has the properties noted above as typical of passives. It is morphologically marked and the agent appears as an optional PP by-phrase. Binding facts further illustrate a crucial difference between passive and the OV: while the OV agent can bind the subject (see (40)-(41) below), a passive by-phrase cannot. (See Section 5.3.) This difference follows from the theory to be presented in Section 5. On that theory, passive alters argument structure while the OV/AV voice distinction does not affect argument structure, but only the mapping between argument structure and grammatical relations.

29 27 Lastly, we consider the possibility that the AV construction could be analyzed as an antipassive. Antipassivization demotes the theme argument, which has the effect in a syntactically ergative system of making the agent a subject (or an absolutive, in an ergative case system). But we must reject the antipassive analysis, as there is no evidence that the theme in a Balinese AV clause is oblique; the arguments given above can be replicated for the theme complement: for example, it is an NP, not a PP; and it too can launch quantifiers: (39) Wayan nakonin tiang ibi ajak makejang Wayan AV-ask 1 yesterday accompany all Wayan asked us all yesterday. In short, the effect of the AV morphology is not to demote the theme, but rather to simply make the agent (actually the A-subject) the subject. This is captured by the subject-selection account proposed in Section 4.2 below. 3. Sketch of an analysis Binding in brief. Binding relations in Balinese depend, roughly speaking (but see below), on the thematic status of the arguments and not on surface configurational relations such as c-command (as assumed in standard GB configurational binding theory) or grammatical relations (as assumed in standard LFG binding theory). 11 This situation is familiar from many Austronesian languages (Andrews 1985, Kroeger 1993, Schachter 1984, inter alia). An Agent asymmetrically binds

30 28 a Theme, regardless of how these roles map onto the grammatical relations. Hence with an OV verb, the complement Agent can bind into a subject: (40) Ragan idane cingakin ida. (h.r.) self OV.see 3 (S)he saw himself/herself. (41) Awakne tingalin=a. self OV.see=3 (S)he saw herself/himself. But the opposite binding relation, where the Theme subject binds an Agent object, is impossible. (42) *Wayan tingalin awakne Wayan OV.see self (lit. Himself saw Wayan.) When we turn to AV, the subject Agent binds a complement Theme: (43) Ia ningalin awakne. 3 AV.see self (S)he saw herself/himself. This suggests that binding is defined at argument structure rather than grammatical relations or c-command at s-structure (Andrews 1985, Schachter 1984, inter alia). We concur with this view, although our version of argument structure differs slightly from some others (see the following section).

31 29 We should also note in passing that Balinese binding observes a linear precedence condition. Balinese allows backward binding of reflexives; see, e.g., (40) above, where the anaphor precedes its binder. This is not always possible however. A full NP does not allow backward binding (44)a. When the antecedent precedes the reflexive as in (44)b, binding is successful. (44) a. *Awakne gugut cicing self OV-bite dog A dog bit itself b. Cicing ngugut awakne dog AV-bite self A dog bit itself. Backwards binding by quantified noun phrases (QNP s) is also strongly resisted. Consider the pair of OV sentences in (45). Both sentences share the same argument structure where the possessive NP is a-commanded by the QNP which binds it. Normally in a ditransitive either the goal or theme can appear as subject (see (59) below). However, when binding applies then the binder must precede the bindee (45)a, otherwise the sentence is bad (45)b.

32 30 (45) a. Sabilang anak cenik i jemak-ang tiang bungkusan-ne i every person small OV-take-APPL 1 package-3poss For every child I brought his/her package. b.?*bungkusan-ne i jemak-ang tiang sabilang anak cenik i. package-3poss OV-take-APPL 1 every person small (For every child I brought his/her package.) As a final example, consider the double oblique constructions with the verb matakon ask in (46): the person asked (i.e goal role) is marked by sig to/at and the thing asked (i.e theme) is marked by unduk about. The PP s can appear in either order: (46) a. Tiang matakon sig Nyoman-e unduk I Wayan-e. 1 ask to Nyoman-DEF about I Wayan-DEF I asked (to) Nyoman about I Wayan. b. Tiang matakon unduk I Wayan-e sig Nyoman-e 1 ask about I Wayan-DEF to Nyoman-DEF I asked (to) Nyoman about I Wyan. (Lit. I asked about I Wayan to Nyoman. ) The sig-pp (goal) can bind the unduk-pp (theme) only when the binder precedes the bindee, but not in the reverse order:

33 31 (47) a. Tiang matakon sig sabilang anak-e i ane teka unduk umah-ne i 1 ask to every person-def REL come about house-3poss I asked (to) every person i who came about his/her i house. b. *Tiang matakon unduk umah-ne i sig sabilang anak-e i ane teka. 1 ask about house-3poss to every person-def REL come * I asked about his/her i house (to) every person i who came. (47)b is bad because the pronominal precedes the operator that binds it. To conclude, Balinese binding obeys the following linear order condition: (48) A pronominal (anaphor or ordinary pronoun) cannot precede a nonpronominal that binds it. Note that this correctly allows cases of backwards binding by pronominals, as in (40). Identical or similar conditions have been proposed for other languages (cp. Langacker 1969, Barss and Lasnik 1986, Bresnan 1995b, inter alia). This linear order condition will not be discussed further in this paper (see Arka and Wechsler 1996 for more on this issue); instead we will focus on ARG-S based binding conditions HPSG binding theory. We represent argument structure with the lexical feature ARG-S whose value is a list (ordered set). This feature for the Balinese verb for see (both OV and AV forms) is roughly as follows (see (51) for more detail):

34 32 (49) [ARG-S < seer, seen >] As Manning (1994) points out, the behavior of binding in syntactically ergative languages constitutes prima facie evidence for the binding theory in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG; Pollard and Sag 1992, 1994). Local binding is universally defined on ARG-S rather than phrase structure or grammatical relation. In the following statements of HPSG binding theory, A-COMMAND refers to the ordering relation on ARG-S; e.g. in (49) the seer argument a-commands the seen. 12 (50) HPSG Binding Theory 13 Principle A. An a-commanded anaphor must be locally a-bound. Principle B. A personal pronoun must be locally a-free. Principle C. A non-pronoun must be a-free. Definitions: In the feature [ARG-S < x, y, >], x is said to a-command y. x locally a-binds y = x a-commands y, x and y coindexed x a-binds y = x a-commands some z dominating y, x and y coindexed x is (locally) a-free = x is not (locally) a-bound Ergative and accusative clauses are alike with respect to binding conditions, but differ in the mapping between ARG-S and the VALENCE lists SUBJ (subject) and COMPS (complements), which specify how the arguments are syntactically realized (see below). For example, (51) gives the approximate HPSG lexical signs for ningalin see (AV) and tingalin see (OV) as in (40) and (41) respectively (from Manning and Sag 1995).

35 33 (51) a. ningalin ( AV.see ): b. tingalin ( OV.see ): PHON < ningalin > SUBJ < [1] > VALENCE COMPS < [2] > ARG S < [1]NP i,[2]np j > seeing - relation CONTENT SEER i SEEN j PHON < tingalin > SUBJ < [2] > VALENCE COMPS < [1] > ARG S < [1]NP i,[2]np j > seeing - relation CONTENT SEER i SEEN j The AV and OV verb forms represented in (51)a and b are built on the same stem, specifying phonology, semantic content, and argument structure information. The two verb forms differ only in their valence features and inflectional morphology (see Section 4.2). An HPSG lexical sign is a 2xn attribute-value matrix, that is, a set of features (attribute-value pairs). The value of each feature is either an embedded attribute-value matrix (such as the values of VALENCE and CONTENT), an atom, or a list of elements (such as the values of SUBJ, COMPS, ARG-S, and PHON). 14 The boxed numerals [1] and [2] are tags indicating structure-sharing (reentrancies) between elements in this matrix. For example, in (51)a the tag [1] beside NP i indicates that the element NP i appears in two places at once: as sole element in the list value of the feature SUBJ and as first element in the list value of the feature ARG-S. The lower-case letters i and j are tags for indices, which correspond roughly to the notion of referential index. Referring to (51)a,b, the referential indices associated with the first and second items in the ARG-S list are the SEER and the SEEN arguments, respectively. Note that in (51)a (the accusative verb) the NP i and NP j realizing the SEER and SEEN roles are subject and complement respectively; while in (51)b this mapping is reversed. It is also

36 34 worth noting that (51)b does not represent a passive verb, since NP i is a term argument and not an oblique or adjunct. Items in the list values for SUBJ and COMPS are effectively cancelled from these lists as phrases of the appropriate type are concatenated with the head (cp. categorial grammar), as in this simple Subject-Verb-Complements ditransitive clause: V SUBJ < > COMPS < > (=S) (52) 1 NP V SUBJ < 1 NP> COMPS < > (=VP) V SUBJ < 1 NP> COMPS < 2 NP, 3 NP> 2 NP 3 NP A small system of immediate dominance schemata and linear precedence constraints licenses all phrases. We will not spell them out here (see Pollard and Sag 1994 for one proposal), but note only that the clause structure we posit for Balinese, as for English, is essentially that depicted in (52). Also, note that in Balinese and English ditransitives, the two complement NPs are linearly ordered according to their COMPS list ordering (see Pollard and Sag 1987, p. 174). So far, our main theoretical claim is the following: at the lexical level, a predicate is associated with a hierarchically arranged set of arguments (its ARG-S value). One argument is designated as subject and the rest as a list of complements. We further claim that binding (of reflexive anaphors and pronoun

37 35 binding by quantified NPs) universally takes place at argument structure. We believe this model, which posits nothing beyond the essential design of HPSG, is sufficient to describe ergative, accusative and mixed systems as in Austronesian. Section 4 spells out a general theory governing the mapping between argument structure and valence lists, universally and for Balinese. 4. Linking and the theory of argument structure. The problem of argument realization has two parts: the determinants of argument structure itself (Section 4.1); and the mapping from argument structure to valence features (Section 4.2) Theory of Argument Structure The ordering on argument structure elements closely reflects the predicate s meaning, in two different ways (cp. Manning 1994): (53) Theory of ARG-S ordering. a. terms outrank obliques. b. arguments within each group are ordered by the lexico-semantics of the verb. For the purpose of Balinese, terms are NPs and obliques are PPs (in a casemarking language, NPs in oblique case might be classified as obliques). Regarding (53)b, one might assume a thematic hierarchy like ag < go < th < loc, or adopt an alternative such as Wechsler 1995 or Davis The particular

38 36 system is not crucial and will not be discussed further here; we assume that it is universal, although this is not crucial to our argument. Ranking by the term/oblique distinction as in (53)a reflects the lexicosemantic grounding of the notion oblique, in that obliques are marked by semantically contentful morphology (adposition or case) indicating semantic role type. Governed adpositions and oblique case markers are not merely formal devices but have semantic content which is systematically related to that of the governing verb (Gawron 1986, Wechsler 1994, 1995). Since the morphological resources for indicating oblique relations vary across languages (though governed by tendencies), we do not assume that a given verb (concept) will have the same ARG-S in every language: e.g., benefactive arguments might tend to be obliques in one language, terms in another. Even within a single language, term/oblique alternations are common (dative, locative, and factitive alternations, e.g.) and subject to lexical idiosyncrasy. Thus the ARG-S for a given verb cannot be blindly derived from the verb s meaning alone, but instead derives from knowledge of the lexicon of the language in question, including the morphological resources available for marking obliques, maximum number of terms allowed, and so on. Turning now to syntactic justification, binding provides evidence since it occurs at ARG-S. Take term arguments first. The claim that term arguments are ranked for the purpose of binding relations is well-accepted, and considerable further support from Balinese is given in Section 5 below. In accusative languages argument structure ranking tends to correlate with grammatical relation hierarchies (subj < 1st-obj < 2nd-obj), linear order (at least in subject-initial

39 37 languages, and prior to wh-movement), and c-command. This makes it more difficult to show that argument structure is relevant to binding. But Hellan (1988, p. 162), citing Elisabet Engdahl, gives an ingenious demonstration from Norwegian, an accusative SVO language. Norwegian ditransitives are symmetrical in the sense that either object passivizes (Åfarli 1989), so the equivalent of John was shown Mary is ambiguous ( John was shown to Mary or Mary was shown to John ). Hellan (1988, p. 162) observes that such constructions become unambiguous if we impose a binding relation, as in the following: (54) Barnet i ble fratatt sine i foreldre. (Norwegian) child was from-taken self s parents The child i was deprived of self s i parents. NOT: *The child i was taken from self s i parents. The source (malefactive) argument can bind into the theme, but not vice versa. For us this simply means that the source NP outranks the theme at ARG-S: (55) [ARG-S < NP(ag), NP(source), NP(th)] It is harder to explain in terms of c-command (at s-structure or later) or even ranking of grammatical relations (as in Bresnan 1995b, inter alia), since normally either source or theme can appear as the passive subject.

40 38 Turning to the relative ranking of obliques, we can cite well-known contrasts like the English translations of the following examples (Postal 1971, p. 36); the same facts obtain in Balinese: (56)a Tiang ngomong teken Made i unduk awakne i 1 AV.talkto Made about self I talked to Made i about himself i. b. *Tiang ngomong unduk Made i teken awakne i. 1 AV.talk about Made to self *I talked about Made i to himself i. c. [ARG-S < NP[ag], PP[go] i, PP[th]:ana i >] As expected, the thematically higher goal can bind the lower theme, but not vice versa. Note that (56)b is not ruled out because of the complement order. PP s of this kind can normally occur in either order, in Balinese as in English. The over-arching distinction between terms and obliques (53)a has been supported on the basis of anaphoric binding facts by Hellan (1988, p. 164), Dalrymple (1993, p. 172ff), and Manning (1994). Alternations like the following illustrate the impossibility of a purely thematic account which fails to make this distinction: 15 (57)a. Mary showed the twins i each other i. a'. Mary showed the twins i to each other i.

41 39 b. I sold the slave i himself i b'. I sold the slave i to himself i c. [ARG-S <NP[ag], NP[go] i, NP[th]:ana i >] c'. [ARG-S <NP[ag], NP[th] i, PP[go]:ana i >] In (57)a,b,c the Goal a-commands the Theme while in (57)a,b,c the Theme, being a term, a-commands the oblique Goal. Further evidence for our model of argument structure comes from other processes defined on it: relation-changing operations like applicative, passive, and causative (Section 5 below), and linking rules (Section 4.2) Subject selection ( linking ). Recall that the A-subject of a Balinese AV verb must appear as the (grammatical) subject: (58) Ia meli-ang I Wayan potlot-e ento. 3 AV-buy-APPL ART Wayan pencil-def that (s)he bought Wayan the pencil. Also, for any intransitive verb, whatever its voice marking, the sole term is the subject. On the other hand, the subject of a mono- or ditransitive OV verb is any term (NP) argument except the A-subject. Thus a ditransitive OV verb has two linking possibilities:

42 40 (59)a. Potlote ento beli-ang=a I Wayan. pencil-def that OV.buy-APPL=3 Art Wayan (s)he bought Wayan the pencil. b. I Wayan beli-ang=a potlote ento. Art Wayan OV.buy-APPL=3 pencil-def that (s)he bought Wayan the pencil. c. *Ia beli-ang I Wayan potlot-e ento. 3 OV.buy-APPL Art Wayan pencil-def that (s)he bought Wayan the pencil. The following universal subject and complement linking rules account for this: (60) Subject and complement linking (universal). I. Subjects. a. intransitives: Link subject to the single ARG-S term. b. transitives: Link subject to a term which is: i. the A-subject, if verb is of sort acc-verb; or ii. not the A-subject, if verb is of sort erg-verb. II. Complements. Link any remaining ARG-S items to the COMPS items, preserving order. We sort verbs into two universal types acc-verb and erg-verb, according to which linking rule it follows. These rules are formalized as follows. For any verb (modulo pro-drop, etc.) the ARG-S value is the sequence union (u) of the SUBJ and COMPS values. 16 The ARG-S of an active (OV or AV but not passive) verb matches that of its stem:

43 41 (61) verb: active-verb: SUBJ [1] VALENCE COMPS [2] ARG S [1] [2] STEM v stem ARG S [1] STEM v stem ARG S[1] Active verbs are sorted into accusative and ergative (62)a. For an accusative verb, the A-subject is the SUBJect (62)b. For an ergative verb transitivity is crucial, so verb stems are sorted into intransitive (i.e., exactly one term NP) and (mono- or di-) transitive (i.e., more than one term NP). This is shown in (63). For ergatives, if intransitive, then the single argument is the subject; if transitive, then any NP except the A-subject maps to SUBJ ((62)c): (62) a. active-verbo acc-verb erg-verb SUBJ < [1] > b. acc-verb: c. erg-verb: ARG S < [1], > SUBJ < [1] > SUBJ < [1] > ARG S < [1], > ARG S < [], [1], > STEM intrans stem STEM trans stem (63) a. v-stemo intrans-stem trans-stem b. intrans-stem: [ARG-S <NP[term]> & list(non-term)] (exactly 1 NP) c. trans-stem: [ARG-S <NP[term], NP[term], >] (more than 1 NP) Most languages have only one type: English uses the acc-verb type, Dyirbal the erg-verb type. Many Austronesian languages allow both, including Toba Batak (Schachter 1984), Karo Batak (Woollams 1996), Tagalog (Kroeger 1993, inter alia), and of course Balinese.

44 42 The dots ( ) in (62)b and c are to be interpreted as zero or more arguments of any kind. Focussing for now on acc-verb and the left option for erg-verb, note that when there are no terms among those unspecified arguments, we have an intransitive (since the only term is [1]). Hence intransitives can be of either the acc-verb or erg-verb type. Indeed intransitives are split: some bear the AV homorganic nasal prefix (or sometimes the prefix ma-), while others do not. Artawa (1994, 92ff) notes that the nasal prefix intransitives tend to be agentive while the others tend not to be. In that sense Balinese resembles what Dixon (1979) calls Split S-marking languages, which are also called active languages. Using Dixon s three terms A (agent of transitive), O (theme of transitive), and S (subject of intransitive), we may say that these languages have two classes of intransitive verbs: for some intransitives, the subject patterns with A, for others with O. Among Austronesian languages, Acehnese works this way, according to Durie (1985). Artawa (1994, 92ff) and Clynes (1995) both suggest a Split-S analysis of Balinese. On this view the nasal prefix would be encoding the semantic agentivity (volitionality, perhaps) of the subject, rather than encoding the fact that the subject is the A-subject, as our analysis claims. On the Split-S view we could simplify our analysis by eliminating the disjunction between transitive and intransitive linking sorts in (62)c. Informally, the new rules would be: (64) a. AV: subject is the Agent. b. OV: subject is not the Agent.

45 43 However, the correlation for intransitives between agentivity and the nasal prefix is only a tendency. For example, bangun get up is a bare (unprefixed) intransitive, yet it is semantically agentive: it can be used in imperatives (65)a or modified with volitional adverbials like deliberate (65)b. Most strikingly, semantically identical verbs may be unprefixed in one register, and prefixed in the other. The corresponding high register verb is ma-tangi (ma- is a variant of the nasal prefix for intransitives): (65) a. (cai) bangun! (low register) (you) get up b. Ia ngelap bangun (low register) 3 deliberate get up (S)he got up on purpose. c. (Tu) ma-tangi! (high register) 2 get up (you) get up. Also, not all nasalised intransitive verbs express actions. For example, from the precategorial root tenggel we can get nenggel, meaning in the edge of something/ in the position of a boundary of something : (66) Buku-ne nenggel di mejane book-def at.the.edge.of at table-def The book is at the edge of the table.