This paper argues that the thematic introduction of applied arguments and their syntactic licensing are independent components in the syntax of applicative constructions in Tagalog. I present novel data on Tagalog external possession, showing that external possessors and other nominals that remain unlicensed in their thematic position move to the specifier of an athematic raising applicative head (
It is by now generally agreed upon that objects can raise to a derived object position for licensing or discourse effects (
In this paper, I present novel data on external possession in Tagalog, which provide support for (i) an applicative analysis of external possession and (ii) a raising applicative approach to applicative morphology in the language in general. As in other Philippine-type languages, Tagalog voice morphology tracks what is called the pivot (
(1)
a.
B<in>ili-∅
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ang
libro]
book
[para
for
sa
bata].
child
‘The woman bought the book for the child.’
b.
B<in>ilh-
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
bata].
child
‘The woman bought the child a book.’
The Locative Voice affix -
(2)
Schachter & Otanes (
a.
<In>ayos-∅
<
[niya]
3
[ang
buhok
hair
ni
Tina].
Tina
‘She arranged Tina’s hair.’
b.
<In>ayus-
<
[niya]
3
[ng
buhok]
hair
[si
Tina].
Tina
‘She arranged Tina’s hair.’
This paper argues that external possession in Tagalog is a case of possessor raising rather than control as it does not introduce a new thematic role and is not limited to animate or affected arguments. External possession is, however, restricted to transitive verbal predicates with particular event properties, suggesting that the possessor first merges in the syntax as a thematic low applicative rather than a DP-internal possessor. I propose that the thematic low applicative cannot license the possessor; the possessor must therefore raise to an athematic applicative position for licensing and nominative pivot marking by Voice. This athematic applicative head is spelled out as the Locative Voice affix in Tagalog. My proposal therefore takes Locative Voice morphology not to be a thematic applicative but a raising applicative, which triggers movement of an argument for licensing purposes but does not assign it a new thematic role (
The raising applicative approach developed for external possessors can be extended to all Locative Voice constructions in Tagalog. Pivots associated with Locative Voice encompass a wide range of thematic relations but nonetheless exhibit identical syntactic behaviour. A raising applicative analysis of Locative Voice provides a natural account of this: arguments that are introduced in a variety of thematic positions may raise to the same applicative position, marked by Locative Voice. A raising applicative analysis of Circumstantial Voice, previously taken to be a thematic high applicative in the literature (
Applied arguments, despite also participating in the voice system of the language, are syntactically distinct from core arguments in a crucial way. Unlike agents and themes, applied arguments are generally never assigned genitive Case (3a); they must be marked as the nominative pivot (3b) (
(3)
a.
*B<in>ili-∅/
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ang
libro]
book
[ng
bata].
child
Intended: ‘The woman bought a/the child a book.’
b.
B<in>ilh-
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
bata].
child
‘The woman bought the child a book.’
In the approach advanced in this paper, agents and themes are licensed and assigned Case in-situ. Applied arguments, on the other hand, are not licensed in their thematic position and must move to the raising applicative position for licensing and to be made accessible to Voice for nominative Case assignment. My proposal thus accounts for the obligatory promotion of applied arguments to pivot, which must be explained in any approach to voice morphology in Tagalog and other Philippine-type languages.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 lays out my basic assumptions about the interaction of nominal licensing and Case assignment in the Tagalog voice system. The two basic voice types, Agent Voice and Patient Voice, arise when the external argument-introducing head Voice assigns nominative pivot marking to the agent and to the theme, respectively. In Section 3, I introduce novel data on external possession in Tagalog, showing that external possessors are restricted to themes of transitive change of state predicates but need not be affected. In Section 4, I make the case that external possession in Tagalog involves movement of the possessor from a thematic low applicative to an athematic raising applicative position, spelled out by Locative Voice. The possessor is then assigned nominative Case by Voice. I show that the raising applicative analysis can easily be extended to provide a unified analysis of thematically distinct Locative Voice pivots. Section 5 provides evidence for Circumstantial Voice as a raising applicative in instrumental and causative constructions. Locative Voice and Circumstantial Voice are shown to be two morphological reflexes of the same raising applicative head. Section 6 concludes.
Tagalog is standardly described as having four main voice distinctions, as shown in (4). As in other languages with Philippine-type voice alternations, Tagalog voice morphology tracks what is often referred to as the pivot argument (
(4)
a.
[ang
babae]
woman
[ng
liham]
letter
[para
for
sa
bata].
child
‘The woman wrote a letter for the child.’ Agent Voice
b.
S<in>ulat-∅
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ang
liham]
letter
[para
for
sa
bata].
child
‘The woman wrote the letter for the child.’ Patient Voice
c.
S<in>ulat-
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
liham]
letter
[ang
bata].
child
‘The woman wrote the child a letter.’ Locative Voice
d.
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
liham]
letter
[ang
bata].
child
‘The woman wrote a letter for the child.’ Circumstantial Voice
Aldridge (
I assume that external arguments are introduced by the functional head Voice (
I assume that nominals bear uninterpretable
In sum, all nominals must undergo both nominal licensing and Case assignment. The basic system is illustrated in (5) and (6). In (5), υ licenses its DP complement via
(5)
In (6), υ licenses its complement via
(6)
Voice has the dual role of licensing and assigning Case to an external argument and determining the nominative pivot of the clause. A consequence of this is that Voice (and only Voice) can bear the
Pivots are privileged arguments in their syntax and interpretation. Most clauses have exactly one pivot, which is interpreted as definite/specific. Pivots can also undergo A’-extraction, while non-pivot arguments generally cannot (
The major voice forms in Tagalog may now be derived. The four voices for
(7)
Some voice/aspect forms of
Following Rackowski (
A syntactic derivation for the Agent Voice construction in (8) is sketched in (9). The internal argument is licensed and assigned genitive Case by υ. Voice licenses the external argument and assigns it nominative Case, marking it as the pivot of the clause. The derivation proceeds with Voice and υ bearing one bundle of valued
(8)
Nag-sulat
[ako]
1
[ng
liham].
letter
‘I wrote a letter.’ Agent Voice
(9)
The derivation for the corresponding Patient Voice construction in (10) is given in (11). Here υ licenses the theme but does not assign it genitive Case. The theme is therefore assigned structural nominative Case by Voice, which marks it as the pivot of the clause. Voice then licenses and assigns genitive Case to its specifier, ending up with two bundles of valued
(10)
S<in>ulat-∅
<
[ko]
1
[ang
liham].
letter
‘I wrote the letter.’ Patient Voice
(11)
In the proposed approach, the source of the morphological alternation between Agent Voice and Patient Voice constructions is the number of
(12) | a. | Asp[ |
b. | Asp[ |
In the perfective, Voice is realised as
(13) | a. | Voice[ |
b. | Voice[ |
In Deal (2010), the context of insertion for the ergative case marker in Nez Perce similarly references two
The other two major voice types, the Locative Voice and Circumstantial Voice, involve essentially the same ingredients as Patient Voice, but with the addition of Appl, which licenses its specifier but does not bear a Case feature. The applied argument cannot receive Case from Appl and must therefore be assigned structural nominative Case by Voice instead. This derives the fact that applied arguments are always nominative in Tagalog.
The Circumstantial Voice prefix
(14)
a.
I-t<in>akbo
[ng
bata]
child
[ang
kaibigan
friend
niya].
3
‘The child ran for her friend.’ Benefactive
b.
I-p<in>am-punas
[ko]
1
[ang
trapo].
rag
‘I wiped with the rag.’ Instrument
The derivation for (15), based on a high applicative analysis of Circumstantial Voice, is given in (16). υ licenses the theme and assigns it genitive Case. While Appl licenses the applied argument in its specifier, it has no Case to assign. Voice therefore assigns structural nominative Case to the applied argument, which becomes the pivot of the clause. Voice then licenses and assigns genitive Case to its specifier, ending up with two bundles of
(15)
I-s<in>ulat
[ko]
1
[ng
liham]
letter
[ang
bata].
child
‘I wrote a letter for the child.’ Circumstantial Voice
(16)
In Section 5, I argue that Circumstantial Voice is better analysed as a raising applicative construction, where the applied argument moves to the Appl head shown in (16) from a lower position. Common to both the high applicative and raising applicative approaches, however, is that Voice assigns nominative Case to the applied argument in an ECM-like configuration, marking it as the pivot. Voice bears two valued
The Locative Voice suffix -
(17)
a.
B<in>ilh-an
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
tindahan].
store
‘The woman bought a book at the store.’ Locative
b.
B<in>igy-an
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
bata].
child
‘The woman gave the child a book.’ Goal
c.
B<in>ilh-an
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
bata].
child
‘The woman bought the child a book.’ Benefactive
Locative Voice has been analysed as a thematic low applicative construction (
In this section, I showed that the Tagalog voice system can be understood as the interaction between the case assignment properties of external argument-introducing heads and
This section provides the empirical basis for Section 4, where I argue for an applicative analysis of external possession in Tagalog. After providing a brief description of internal possession (Section 3.1), I introduce the basic syntactic and discourse properties of external possession in Tagalog (Section 3.2). In Section 3.3, I present the argument structure restrictions on external possession, showing that it is limited to themes of externally-caused change of state verbs. This theme restriction on external possession is found in closely related Cebuano (
In simple nominal possession, a genitive possessor modifies a nominative-marked possessum (18). This case marking reflects the status of the entire possessed DP as a pivot. As demonstrated in (19), the genitive possessive structure may recurse.
(18)
ang/*ng
libro
book
ng
bata
child
‘the/*a child’s book’
(19)
ang/*ng
libro
book
ng
kaibigan
friend
ng
kapatid
sibling
ko
1
‘my sibling’s friend’s book’
(20)
ng
isa=ng
one=
libro
book
ng
bata
child
‘one of the child’s books’
A typical example of DP-internal possession in a clausal context is given in (21). The possessed theme in (21) is marked nominative and serves as the pivot of the clause, which is reflected by Patient Voice morphology on the verb. The possessor can be complex, as shown in (22). The possessor and possessum behave as a single constituent; the possessor can be neither focus-clefted (23) nor questioned (24) to the exclusion of the possessum; either movement would constitute a subextraction violation.
(21)
G<in>upit-∅
<
[ko]
1
[ang
buhok
hair
ng
bata]
child
kahapon.
yesterday
‘I cut the child’s hair yesterday.’ Internal poss.
(22)
G<in>upit-∅
<
[ko]
1
[ang
buhok
hair
ng
kaibigan
friend
ng
bata].
child
‘I cut the child’s friend’s hair.’
(23)
*[Ng/ang
bata]
child
ang
g<in>upit-∅
<
ko
1
[ang
buhok ___].
hair
Intended: ‘It was the child whose hair I cut.’
(24)
*[Sino]
who.
ang
g<in>upit-∅
<
mo
2
[ang
buhok ___]?
hair
Intended: ‘Whose hair did you cut?’
In external possession, by contrast, it is the possessor itself that is the nominative pivot, one that must co-occur with a Locative Voice-marked verb, as shown in (25). The possessum is interpreted as the theme of the verb but is marked genitive and cannot be further modified by a DP-internal genitive possessor. Like internal possessors, an external possessor can be complex, as shown in (26). Unlike its internal counterpart, the external possessor can be separated from its possessum by a temporal adverb (25) and extracted independently of the possessum under focus (27) or a question (28). Thus the external possessor behaves like a regular Locative Voice pivot.
(25)
G<in>upit-
<
[ko]
1
[ng
buhok
hair
(*niya)]
3
kahapon
yesterday
[ang
bata].
child
‘I cut the child’s hair yesterday.’ External poss.
(26)
G<in>upit-an
<
[ko]
1
[ng
buhok]
hair
[ang
kaibigan
friend
ng
bata].
child
‘I cut the child’s friend’s hair.’
(27)
[Ang
bata]
child
ang
g<in>upit-an
<
ko
1
[ng
buhok] ___.
hair
‘It was the child whose hair I cut.’
(28)
[Sino]
who.
ang
g<in>upit-an
<
mo
2
[ng
buhok] ___?
hair
‘Whose hair did you cut?’
Similar information structural facts hold in Hungarian (
Because of the difference in their choice of pivot, the internal and external possession strategies in Tagalog can result in a specificity distinction. The entire internally possessed theme in (29a), for example, is marked nominative, which gives rise to an indefinite specific interpretation of the broken table leg (since tables typically have more than one leg). In its external possession counterpart in (29b), it is one or more indefinite non-specific table legs that are broken.
(29)
a.
P<in>utol-∅
<
[ko]
1
[ang
paa
leg
ng
mesa].
table
‘I broke a specific leg off the table.’ Internal poss.
b.
P<in>utul-
<
[ko]
1
[ng
paa]
leg
[ang
mesa].
table
‘I broke some leg(s) off the table.’ External poss.
The same contrast is found in the internal–external possession pair in (30). In fact, (30a) is compatible with a reading where the house only has one window.
(30)
a.
B<in>asag-∅
<
[ko]
1
[ang
bintana
window
ng
bahay].
house
‘I shattered {the, a specific} window of the house.’ Internal poss.
b.
B<in>asag-
<
[ko]
1
[ng
bintana]
window
[ang
bahay].
house
‘I shattered some window(s) of the house.’ External poss.
Importantly, examples (29b) and (30b) also show that there is no animacy and therefore no affectedness requirement on the external possessor in Tagalog. In this respect, Tagalog differs from languages with dative external possessors such as French (
(31)
a.
In-ubos-∅
[ko]
1
[ang
pera
money
ng
lolo
grandfather
ko].
1
‘I used up my grandfather’s money.’ Internal poss.
b.
In-ubus-
[ko]
1
[ng
pera]
money
[ang
lolo
grandfather
ko].
1
‘I used up my grandfather’s money.’ External poss.
I should point out that the relevant notion of “affectedness” here boils down to whether the external possessor receives an “affectee” thematic role in addition to its possessor role. It has been noted that the use of possessor datives in German, for example, is only felicitous when the animate possessor is living; this has been used as evidence that the possessor is assigned an additional affectee thematic role in the syntax (
(32)
a.
In-ubos-∅
[ko]
1
[ang
pera
money
ng
lolo
grandfather
ko=ng
1
patay].
die
‘I used up my deceased grandfather’s money.’ Internal poss.
b.
*In-ubus-
[ko]
1
[ng
pera]
money
[ang
lolo
grandfather
ko=ng
1
patay].
die
Intended: ‘I used up my deceased grandfather’s money.’ *External poss.
However, this living requirement applies to all animate Locative Voice pivots, including goals, as in (33).
(33)
B<in>igy-
<
[ko]
1
[ang
lolo
grandfather
ko(*=ng
1
patay)]
die)
[ng
libro].
book
‘I gave my (*deceased) grandfather a book.’
While the grandfather must be living in order for (33) to be felicitous, my consultants do not report that the grandfather is any sense affected beyond simply being the recipient of the book. I therefore conclude that neither goals nor external possessors are assigned an additional affectee thematic role in Tagalog.
As in many languages, external possession in Tagalog is limited to possessed themes of transitive verbs. Intransitive predicates are incompatible with external possession. The pivot of the Locative Voice form of the unergative verb
(34)
a.
T<um>akbo
<
[ang
kaibigan
friend
ng
bata].
child
‘The child’s friend ran.’ Internal poss.
b.
#T<in>akbuh-
<
[ng
kaibigan]
friend
[ang
bata].
child
Intended: ‘The child’s friend ran.’ *External poss.
(35)
a.
B<um>agsak
<
[ang
puno
tree
ng
bata].
child
‘The child’s tree fell over.’ Internal poss.
b.
#Na-bagsak-
[ng
puno]
tree
[ang
bata].
child
Intended: The child’s tree fell over. *External poss.
External possession is also incompatible with external arguments, such as transitive subjects, as shown in (36b). Benefactive pivots, which condition Circumstantial Voice on the verb (37a), likewise cannot launch external possessors (37b).
(36)
a.
Nag-basag
[ang
kaibigan
friend
ng
bata]
child
[ng
plorera].
vase
‘The child’s friend broke a vase.’ Internal poss.
b.
#B<in>asag-
<
[ng
kaibigan]
friend
[ang
bata]
child
[ng
plorera].
vase
Intended: ‘The child’s friend broke a vase.’ *External poss.
(37)
a.
I-t<in>akbo
[ko]
1
[ang
kaibigan
friend
ng
bata].
child
‘I ran for the child’s friend.’ Internal poss.
b.
#T<in>akbuh-
<
[ko]
1
[ng
kaibigan]
friend
[ang
bata].
child
Intended: ‘I ran for the child’s friend.’ *External poss.
The object restriction on external possession in Tagalog, while also found in the closely related language Cebuano (
Not all themes can launch an external possessor in Tagalog. As in French (
(38)
a.
Gusto
like
[ko]
1
[ang
buhok
hair
ng
bata].
child
‘I like the child’s hair.’ Internal poss.
b.
*Gusto
like
[ko]
1
[ng
buhok]
hair
[ang
bata].
child
Intended: ‘I like the child’s hair.’ *External poss.
(39)
a.
T<in>ingn-an
<
[ko]
1
[ang
buhok
hair
ng
bata].
child
‘I looked at the child’s hair.’ Internal poss.
b.
*T<in>ingn-an
<
[ko]
1
[ng
buhok]
hair
[ang
bata].
child
Intended: ‘I looked at the child’s hair.’ *External poss.
There are also many non-stative transitive verb roots that are incompatible with external possession, such as
(40)
a.
K<in>ain-∅
<
[ni
Luz]
Luz
[ang
mga
mani
peanut
ng
bata].
child
‘Luz ate the child’s peanuts.’ Internal poss.
b.
#K<in>ain-
<
[ni
Luz]
Luz
[ang
bata]
child
[ng
mga
mani].
peanut
Intended: ‘Luz ate the child’s peanuts.’ *External poss.
(41)
a.
B<in>ili-∅
<
[ni
Luz]
Luz
[ang
mga
mani
peanut
ng
bata].
child
‘Luz bought the child’s peanuts.’ Internal poss.
b.
#B<in>ilh-
<
[ni
Luz]
Luz
[ang
bata]
child
[ng
mga
mani].
peanut
Intended: ‘Luz bought the child’s peanuts.’ *External poss.
(42)
a.
T<in>unaw-∅
<
[ni
Luz]
Luz
[ang
ice
ice
cream
cream
ng
bata].
child
‘Luz melted the child’s ice cream.’ Internal poss.
b.
#T<in>unaw-
<
[ni
Luz]
Luz
[ng
ice
ice
cream]
cream
[ang
bata].
child
Intended: ‘Luz melted the child’s ice cream.’ *External poss.
Finally, ditransitive roots in Tagalog such as
(43)
a.
[ko]
1
[ang
libro
book
ng
bata]
child
[kay
Kiko].
Kiko
‘I gave Kiko the child’s book.’ Internal poss.
b.
*B<in>igy-
<
[ko]
1
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
bata]
child
[kay
Kiko].
Kiko
Intended: ‘I gave Kiko the child’s book.’ *External poss.
(44)
a.
B<in>igy-
<
[ko]
1
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
kaibigan
friend
ng
bata].
child
‘I gave the child’s friend a book.’ Internal poss.
b.
*B<in>igy-
<
[ko]
1
[ng
libro]
book
[ng
kaibigan]
friend
[ang
bata].
child
Intended: ‘I gave the child’s friend a book.’ *External poss.
Applicatives therefore cannot feed possessor raising in Tagalog. In Nez Perce, by contrast, external possessors of ditransitive themes are banned (45b) but goals may be externally possessed (45a) (
(45)
‘aayat-om
woman-
hikwyek-ey’-se-∅
3
‘iin-e
1
picpic
cat.
cuu’yem
fish.
a.
‘The woman fed
b.
*‘The woman fed a/the cat
Thus ditransitive goals can feed external possession in Nez Perce but not in Tagalog (44).
More examples of monotransitive roots and their compatibility with external possession are listed in (46) and (47).
(46)
Examples of roots compatible with external possession
(47)
Examples of roots incompatible with external possession
The generalisation emerges that external possession is only possible with roots whose transitive forms are
External possession has received two major kinds of approaches in the literature: possessor raising and control. Possessor raising analyses assume that external possession involves movement of a possessor argument to a non-thematic position (
Possessor raising analyses have generally assumed that the external possessor is base generated inside the possessed DP (
The fact that external possession is limited to a particular class of verbs in Tagalog suggests that the possessor is an argument of a verbal functional head. I argue that the possessor originates in the specifier of a low applicative (LowAppl) head, which establishes a possession relation between the possessor and theme (
The proposed derivation for (48) is given in (49). LowAppl licenses its possessum complement via
(48)
G<in>upit-an
<
[ko]
1
[ng
buhok]
hair
[ang
kaibigan
friend
ng
bata].
child
‘I cut the child’s friend’s hair.’
(49)
In the current proposal, the possessor is introduced by a (phonologically silent) thematic low applicative head. Syntactically, low applicatives have been shown to only be compatible with dynamic transitive predicates (
The possessor originates as the specifier of a low applicative but must raise out of the LowApplP. Evidence for this movement comes from the fact that adverbial modifiers can intervene between the possessor and possessum, as exemplified in (50). This is unexpected if the applied argument and theme form a minimal LowApplP constituent (
(50)
G<in>upit-an
<
[ko]
1
[ng
buhok]
hair
kahapon
yesterday
[ang
bata].
child
‘I cut the child’s hair yesterday.’
The analysis of external possession presented in this section finds support in previous work on raising-type applicatives (
In sum, the external possessor in Tagalog raises from its thematic LowAppl position to the specifier of RaisAppl for licensing. This licensing makes the possessor eligible for nominative Case assignment by Voice. This approach accords with the observation made by Marantz (
A puzzle posed by Locative Voice constructions in Tagalog is that Locative Voice pivots can express a number of different non-possessor thematic roles, including locative, goal and benefactive relations; examples of each are repeated in (51).
(51)
a.
B<in>ilh-an
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
tindahan].
store
‘The woman bought a book at the store.’ Locative
b.
B<in>igy-an
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
bata].
child
‘The woman gave the child a book.’ Goal
c.
B<in>ilh-an
<
[ng
babae]
woman
[ng
libro]
book
[ang
bata].
child
‘The woman bought the child a book.’ Benefactive
The raising applicative analysis offers a way to unify the various thematic relations associated with Locative Voice. The pivot arguments represented in (51) may be base generated in different thematic positions, but they all raise to the Locative Voice raising applicative head in order to be licensed. An alternative analysis in which there is no unified projection to which each pivot argument raises would require the Locative Voice suffix -
Some previous proposals have identified the Locative Voice element with a low applicative head (
(52)
Kaufman (
a.
Ni-lakar-an
[ng
bata]
child
[ang
daan].
road
‘The child walked along the road.’
b.
S<in>igaw-an
<
[ni
Romeo]
Romeo
[si
Jojo].
Jojo
‘Romeo shouted at Jojo.’
It has been pointed out that the ability of unergatives to take -
Notice, however, that the raising applicative head is indeed syntactically high; it merges above υ. I propose that the locative argument in an example like (52a) is base generated as the complement of a phonologically null locative preposition P (see also
(53)
The preposition responsible for introducing locative pivots does not license or assign Case to its complement. The analysis echoes Baker’s (
Tagalog also has the more standard preposition which licenses its complement and assigns it oblique Case in locative PPs, exemplified in (54).
(54)
L<um>akad
<
[ako]
1
[sa
daan].
road
‘I walked on the road.’
Notice that it is now the subject of the clause that is the pivot, tracked by Agent Voice on the verb.
In sum, external possessors in Tagalog are best analysed as being introduced by a thematic low applicative but licensed by a higher, raising applicative and assigned nominative Case by Voice. The external possessor is marked as the nominative pivot because Voice is the only structural Case assigner in the language. The raising applicative approach to external possessors can furthermore be extended to provide a unified analysis of all Locative Voice constructions in Tagalog.
While I adopt the term
The spirit of the raising applicative proposal is to treat the thematic role assignment function of low applicatives as independent of their syntactic licensing function. I propose to take this approach one step further by arguing that high applicatives also involve raising. That is, just like low applied arguments (and complements of non-licensing prepositions), high applied arguments are also associated with two positions: a lower position for thematic role assignment and a higher position for syntactic licensing. This conclusion is supported by Massam (
Recall that Circumstantial Voice pivots are typically associated with benefactive arguments and instruments. When the pivot is an instrument, as in (55b), the Circumstantial Voice prefix
(55)
a.
[ng
bata]
child
[ang
kaibigan
friend
niya].
3
‘The child ran for her friend.’ Benefactive
b.
[ko]
1
[ang
trapo].
rag
‘I wiped with the rag.’ Instrument
Additional examples with transitive predicates are given in (56). These examples suggest that it is not the head associated with
(56)
a.
[ko]
1
[ng
silya]
chair
[ang
trapo].
rag
‘I wiped a chair using the rag.’
b.
[ko]
1
[ng
adobo]
adobo
[ang
kaldero].
pot
‘I cooked adobo using the pot.’
The proposed derivation for (56a) is given in (57). The theme is licensed and assigned genitive Case by υ. The instrument argument is introduced and assigned its thematic role as the specifier of an instrumental applicative (HighAppl), which merges above υP and is spelled out as
(57)
Massam (
The Locative Voice and Circumstantial Voice constructions therefore both involve a thematic projection and a raising applicative projection. I furthermore argue that the two constructions involve the
(58) | a. | RaisAppl ↔ -an / __ υ |
b. | RaisAppl ↔ i- |
Further evidence of Circumstantial Voice as a raising applicative as well as the morphosyntactic conditioning on the spell-out of the raising applicative comes from causatives of transitives. Causatives of transitives exhibit surprising voice morphology when the theme is the pivot; theme pivots condition Circumstantial Voice on the verb (
(59)
a.
[ako]
1
[sa
bata]
child
[ng
libro].
book
‘I made the child read a book.’ Causer
b.
P<in>a-basa-∅
<
[ko]
1
[ang
bata]
child
[ng
libro].
book
‘I made the child read a book.’ Causee
c.
[ko]
1
[sa
bata]
child
[ang
libro].
book
‘I made the child read the book.’ Theme
If Circumstantial Voice is the spell-out of a thematic high applicative, there would be no explanation for its robust use in tracking the theme pivot in causatives of transitives. If, on the other hand, Circumstantial Voice is taken to be a raising applicative to which lower arguments may move, such an explanation is possible.
Following Nie (
(60)
In the Circumstantial Voice causative in (61), it is the theme that is the pivot. Because the theme pivot requires a form of RaisAppl, it must be assumed that the theme is not licensed in situ and must raise to RaisAppl for licensing. The proposed structure is given in (62). In this derivation, υ neither licenses nor assigns Case to its complement. The theme therefore moves to the specifier of RaisAppl in order to be licensed and be eligible for Case assignment. Voice then merges and assigns the theme nominative Case, promoting it to pivot.
(61)
[ko]
1
[sa
bata]
child
[ang
libro].
book
‘I made the child read the book.’ Circumstantial Voice
(62)
RaisAppl may only attract DPs to its specifier, thereby enabling the theme DP to raise past the causee PP. Because the embedded Voice head intervenes between the raising applicative head and the verb, the applicative is spelled out as the Circumstantial Voice prefix
Thus Locative Voice and Circumstantial Voice reveal themselves to be two morphological reflexes of the same raising applicative head. This captures the insight that languages with overt applicative morphology generally have a single syntactic position for applicatives, and that low and high applicatives are in complementary distribution (
I have argued in this paper that the Tagalog Locative Voice and Circumstantial Voice constructions are best understood as applicative constructions involving an athematic raising applicative. External possessors and other nominals that remain unlicensed in their thematic position move to the specifier of the raising applicative in order to be licensed and eligible for nominative Case assignment by Voice. This proposal ties together several language-specific and cross-linguistic insights. It provides a unified analysis of the thematic DPs that can be encoded as Locative Voice and Circumstantial Voice pivots. The single, high position for the raising applicative also offers an explanation for why Locative Voice and Circumstantial Voice morphology are in complementary distribution but both voice types can combine with unergative predicates.
My approach also provides further support for a derived applicative position (
A final question that arises concerns how the properties of applicatives in languages without overt applicative marking on the verb, such as English and German, compare to those in languages with such overt marking. Applied arguments in German, for example, are generally marked dative and cannot undergo at least some types of passivisation (
<> = infix, 1
More precisely, the Agent Voice is taken to be both an antipassive and intransitive marker in Aldridge (
(i) Rackowski ( a. B< < [ang plorera]. vase ‘The vase fell.’ b. [ng plorera] vase [ang bata]. child ‘The child slammed down a vase.’
Because Patient Voice forms are also obligatorily transitive, I only analyse the antipassive-like
An anonymous reviewer wonders whether it is a language-specific property of Voice in Tagalog that it is able to license and assign Case to arguments in different structural positions. Voice in ergative languages arguably also behaves this way, assigning absolutive Case to the theme as well as ergative Case to the agent. The dual licensing property of Voice, then, is not idiosyncractic to Tagalog but applies other languages. Furthermore, it has been proposed in the literature on symmetric double object constructions in Bantu that Appl may assign Case to the theme or to its external argument, deriving extraction symmetries between the theme and applied argument (
Tagalog exhibits a kind of differential object marking (DOM) in Agent Voice extraction contexts in which direct object pronouns and proper names can appear but must be marked with oblique case (
(i) Sino who. ang naka-kita sa/*ng akin 1 at and ng isa=ng one= aso? dog ‘Who saw me and a (non-specific) dog?’
Wolff (
Travis (
While for
I assume that the impossibility of the genitive possessum in (19) has to do with specificity, where possessed DPs are preferentially specific and therefore nominative, although see Sabbagh (
Most Locative Voice forms that are incompatible with external possession can nonetheless receive directional or locative interpretations, such as ‘The friend ran to the child’ for (34b) and ‘The tree fell onto the child’ for (35b); such forms with alternate interpretations are marked with #.
While more research is needed on the precise characterisation of the roots permit external possession, one potential diagnostic for external vs internal causation in Tagalog is compatibility with the adverbial
(i) a. Na-tunaw [ang ice ice cream cream ng bata] child nang mag-isa. by.itself ‘The child’s ice cream melted of its own accord.’ b. *Na-gupit [ang buhok hair ng bata] child nang mag-isa. by.itself Intended: ‘The child’s hair got cut of its own accord.’
Internal and external possession in complementary distribution would be another possible argument for an external possessor that raises from a DP-internal position (see
υ assigns genitive to the possessum rather than the possessor because Case can only be assigned to nominals that have already been licensed. When υ merges in the derivation, the possessum has been licensed by LowAppl, but the possessor remains unlicensed. Thus only the possessum is eligible for genitive Case from υ.
Cuervo (
(i) Schachter & Otanes ( In-ayus-an [niya] 3 [ng buhok] hair [si Tina]. Tina ‘She arranged Tina’s hair.’
Tagalog has flexible postverbal word order. Evidence from linear order is therefore used cautiously, as a diagnostic for constituency but not necessarily hierarchical structure.
Because Voice licenses the applied argument, the theme must therefore be licensed by other means, namely by υ, which assigns it genitive Case; this is consistent with the generalisation that the theme in applicative constructions receives inherent Case (
I abstract away from the particular form of Agent Voice in this example; see footnote 2.
Both goals and locatives can appear as oblique PPs in Tagalog. As an anonymous reviewer points out, external possessors cannot appear as an oblique PP. External possession requires a static possession relation between the possessor and theme. I assume that static possessors, unlike dynamic transfer-of-possession goals, cannot be generated within a PP.
The prefix
The identity of the head that introduces the causee is not crucial here. All that is necessary for the spell-out of the raising applicative as the Circumstantial Voice prefix
Locative Voice causatives are only found with a subset of verbs that are lexically specified to take Locative Voice themes, such as
Thank you to my Tagalog consultants, especially Henrison Hsieh. Thanks also to Hagen Blix, Stephanie Harves, Richard Kayne, Kuo-Chiao Lin, Alec Marantz, Kate Mooney, Norvin Richards and audiences at NYU and AFLA 25 and 26 for their feedback at various stages of this work. Comments from three anonymous reviewers greatly helped to improve the paper. Any errors are my own.
This research was supported in part by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship #752-2016-0096.
The author has no competing interests to declare.