Cover not available
Part of
Antipassive: Typology, diachrony, and related constructions
Edited by Katarzyna Janic and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
[Typological Studies in Language 130] 2021
► pp. 579–620

Chapter 18
When an antipassive isn’t an antipassive anymore

The Actor Voice construction in Kelabit

| University of Oxford
This paper presents the Actor Voice (av) construction in Kelabit, a Western Austronesian language spoken in Northern Sarawak, Malaysia. It compares Kelabit av with prototypical antipassives and related constructions in the more conservative Western Austronesian languages, using case studies of West Greenlandic and Tagalog. On the basis of morphosyntactic, semantic and discourse diagnostics, the paper demonstrates that Tagalog av constructions have the semantic and discourse characteristics of antipassives but are syntactically transitive. In contrast, Kelabit av, which is also syntactically transitive, has a mixture of semantic and discourse properties: some antipassive-like but many active-like. This has important implications for Western Austronesian and the theory of alignment shift, as well as the ways in which antipassives vary and change over time.
Keywords: Antipassive, Alignment Shift, Austronesian, West Greenlandic, Tagalog, Kelabit
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Antipassives
  • 3.The av construction in Tagalog and the Philippines
    • 3.1Morphosyntax
    • 3.2Semantics
    • 3.3Discourse
    • 3.4Summary
  • 4.The av construction in Kelabit
    • 4.1Morphosyntax
    • 4.2Semantics
    • 4.3Discourse
    • 4.4Summary
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 23 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.130.18hem
References (90)
References
Adelaar, Alexander. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: A historical perspective. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 350–376. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2013. Voice variation in Austronesian languages of Indonesia: Introduction. In Voice Variation in Austronesian Languages of Indonesia, Alexander Adelaar (ed.), 1–3. Jakarta: NUSA.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2004a. Antipassive and specificity in Tagalog. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of AFLA 11, Paul Law (ed.), 1–14. Berlin: Zentrum fur Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie, und Universalienforschung.Google Scholar
. 2004b. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118(10): 1440–1469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Antipassive in Austronesian alignment change. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds), 331–345. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122(3): 192–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arka, I Wayan. 2017. The core-oblique distinction in some Austronesian languages of Indonesia and beyond. Linguistik Indonesia 35(2): 100–142.Google Scholar
Arka, I. Wayan & Ross, Malcolm (eds). 2005. The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bellwood, Peter. 2013. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, rev. edn. Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar
Berge, Anna. 2011. Topic and Discourse Structure in West Greenlandic Agreement Constructions. Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1987. On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 53(2): 194–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis: List of Formations and Glossary [University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 2–4]. Urbana IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2006. The origin of the Kelabit voiced aspirates: A historical hypothesis revisited. Oceanic Linguistics 45(2): 311–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Brainard, Sherri. 1994. Voice and ergativity in Karao. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Talmy Givón (ed.), 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Cheryl. 1983. Topic continuity in written English narrative. In Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Linguistic Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed.), 313–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clayre, Beatrice. 2005. Kelabitic languages and the fate of ‘focus’: Evidence from the Kerayan. In The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies, I. Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross (eds), 17–57. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2014. A preliminary typology of the languages of Middle Borneo. In Advances in Research on Cultural and Linguistic Practices in Borneo, Peter Sercombe, Michael Boutin & Adrian Clynes (eds), 123–151. Phillips, Maine ME: Borneo Research Council.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter & Gabriella Hermon. 2008. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118(10): 1500–1553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1988. Passive and voice. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 9–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, Ann. 1987. Transitivity and Discourse Continuity in Chamorro Narratives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. The antipassive in Chamorro: Variations on the theme of transitivity. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 561–593. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. A functional typology of antipassives. In Voice: Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 16], Barbara A. Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 49–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, Ann, Fox, Barbara A. & Givón, Talmy. 1984. The discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8(1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, François. 1983. An aspectual distinction in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 22(1–2): 175–206.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drossard, Werner. 1984. Das Tagalog als Repräsentant des aktivischen Sprachbaus. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2008. The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, Peter K. Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds), 22–44. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Van ValinJr., Robert D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Gault, JoAnn Marie. 1999. An Ergative Description of Sama Bangingiʼ. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 295–321. Athens OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 1994. Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The Story of Zero. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hemmings, Charlotte. 2015. Kelabit voice: Philippine-type, Indonesian-type or something a bit different? Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 383–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The Kelabit Language, Austronesian Voice and Syntactic Typology. PhD dissertation, SOAS, University of London.Google Scholar
. 2017. Documentation of the Kelabit Language, Sarawak, Malaysia. London: SOAS, Endangered Languages Archive. [URL]. Accessed on 02/01/2021
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1991. The Philippine challenge to universal grammar. University of Köln Working Papers 15.Google Scholar
2005a. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 110–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2005b. Tagalog. In The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 350–376. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Alfred B. 1978. Linguistic relations among Bornean peoples with special reference to Sarawak: An interim report. Studies in Third World Societies 3: 1–44.Google Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna. 2013. L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives. PhD Dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Kalmar, Ivan. 1979. The antipassive and grammatical relations in Eskimo. In Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 117–143. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Katagiri, Masumi. 2005. Voice, ergativity and transitivity in Tagalog and other Philippine languages: A typological perspective. In The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies, I. Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross (eds), 153–174. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Lexical category and alignment in Austronesian. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 589–628. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Dryer, Matthew. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages. In Clause Structure, Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 325–361. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2017. Ergativity and Language Change in Austronesian Languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993a. Another look at subjecthood in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 24(2): 1–15.Google Scholar
1993b. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2004. Analyzing Syntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Voice and Case in Tagalog: The Coding of Prominence and Orientation. PhD dissertation, University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
. 2014. Event-structural prominence and forces in verb meaning shifts. In Causation in Grammatical Structure, Bridget Copley & Fabienne Martin (eds), 372–428. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latrouite, Anja & Van ValinJr., Robert D. 2014. Referentiality and telicity in Lakhota and Tagalog. In Meaning and Grammar of Nouns and Verbs, Doris Gerland, Christian Horn, Anja Latrouite & Albert Ortmann (eds), 401–426. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2004. Transitivity and Ergativity in Formosan and Philippine Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. & Sag, Ivan A. 1998. Argument structure, valence, and binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 107–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Peter W. 1996. A comparative ethnolinguistic survey of the Murut (Lun Bawang) with special reference to Brunei. In Language Use and Language Change in Brunei Darussalam, Peter W. Martin, Conrad Oz̊óg & Gloria Poedjosoedarmo (eds), 268–279. Athens OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In Voice: Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 27], Barbara A. Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Antipassive propensities and alignment. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagaya, Naonori. 2009. The middle voice in Tagalog. Journal of the South East Asian Linguistics Society 1: 159–188.Google Scholar
Needham, Stephanie & Ida Toivonen. 2011. Derived arguments. In Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 401–421. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Nolasco, Ricardo M. 2005. What Philippine ergativity really means. Taiwan-Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 23–24 June.
O’Brien, Colleen. 2016. Are Philippine languages ergative? Evidence from Western Subanon. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa: Working Papers in Linguistics 47(2): 1–15.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1994. The pragmatics of voice in a Philippine language: Actor-focus and goal-focus in Cebuano narrative. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Talmy Givón (ed.), 317–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2005. Antipassive constructions. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 438–441. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2017. Antipassive. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea & Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds), 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rude, Noel. 1988. Ergative, passive, and antipassive in Nez Perce: A discourse perspective. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], 547–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saclot, Maureen Joy. 2006. On the transitivity of the actor focus and patient focus constructions in Tagalog. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Palawan, Philippines.
. 2011. Event structure in Tagalog. PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Lawrence A. Reid. 2008. Tagalog. In The World’s Major Languages, Bernard Comrie (ed.), 833–855. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Bodil Kappel. 2003. West Greenlandic antipassive. Nordlyd 31(2): 385–399.Google Scholar
Smith, Alexander D. 2017. The Languages of Borneo: A Comprehensive Classification. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Spreng, Bettina. 2010. On the conditions for antipassives. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(7): 556–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 2009 [1997]. Formosan clause structure: transitivity, ergativity, and case marking. In Formosan Linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s Contributions, Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), 657–680. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academica Sinica.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Pawley, Andrew & Reid, Lawrence A. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Stephen A. Wurm & Lois Carrington (eds), 145–170. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1988. Antipassives in Warrungu and other Australian languages. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], 595–650. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walters, Dennis. 1994. Discourse-based evidence for an ergative analysis of Cebuano. UTA Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 127–140.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1975. Ergativity of Grammatical Processes: A Study of Greenlandic Eskimo. MA thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy F. 2016. Reassessing the position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa among the Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1): 162–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Bril, Isabelle
2024. Adversative and experiential applicative constructions in Northern Amis (Austronesian). Linguistics 62:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Janic, Katarzyna & Charlotte Hemmings
2021. Alignment shift as functional markedness reversal. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
Janic, Katarzyna & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2021. Chapter 1. The multifaceted nature of the antipassive construction. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.