Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-8spss Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-02T04:04:19.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How universal is agent-first? Evidence from symmetrical voice languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Sonja Riesberg ,
Kurt Malcher  and
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
Sonja Riesberg*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln and The Australian National University
Kurt Malcher*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln
*
Abteilung für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Institut für Linguistik, Universität zu Köln, 50923, Köln, Germany, sonja.riesberg@uni-koeln.de
kurt.malcher@uni-koeln.de
sprachwissenschaft@uni-koeln.de
Get access

Abstract

Agents have been claimed to be universally more prominent than verbal arguments with other thematic roles. Perhaps the strongest claim in this regard is that agents have a privileged role in language processing, specifically that there is a universal bias for the first unmarked argument in an utterance to be interpreted as an agent. Symmetrical voice languages such as many western Austronesian languages challenge claims about agent prominence in various ways. Inter alia, most of these languages allow for both ‘agent-first’ and ‘undergoer-first’ orders in basic transitive constructions. We argue, however, that they still provide evidence for a universal ‘agent-first’ principle. Inasmuch as these languages allow for word-order variation beyond the basic set of default patterns, such variation will always result in an agent-first order. Variation options in which undergoers are in first position are not attested. The fact that not all transitive constructions are agent-first is due to the fact that there are competing ordering biases, such as the principles dictating that word order follows constituency or the person hierarchy, as also illustrated with Austronesian data.

Keywords

agent prominenceperson prominenceword ordersymmetrical voicewestern Austronesian

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 523 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adelaar, Alexander, and Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (eds.) 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Akamine, Jun. 2003. A basic grammar of Southern Sinama. Kyoto: Nakanishi.Google Scholar
Akamine, Jun. 2005. Sama (Bajau). In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 377–96.Google Scholar
Alday, Philip M., Schlesewsky, Matthias; and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2014. Towards a computational model of actor-based language comprehension. Neuroinformatics 12. 143–79. DOI: 10.1007/s12021-013-9198-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, Janet L. 2011. A role and reference grammar analysis of Kankanaey. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf dissertation.Google Scholar
Arka, I Wayan. 2003. Balinese morphosyntax: A lexical-functional approach. (Pacific linguistics 547.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Artawa, I Ketut. 1998. Ergativity and Balinese syntax (Parts 1, 2, and 3). (NUSA linguistic studies of Indonesian and other languages in Indonesia 42–44.) Jakarta: Universitas Katolik Indonesia.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax.) New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band 4: Wortstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Benton, Richard A. 1971. Pangasinan reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Choudhary, Kamal K., Schlesewsky, Matthias; and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2015. The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE 10(8):e0132819. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billings, Loren A. 2005. Ordering clitics and postverbal R-expressions: A unified analysis? Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, ed. by Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Dooley, Sheila Ann, 303–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Billings, Loren, and Kaufman, Daniel. 2004. Towards a typology of Austronesian pronominal clitics. Proceedings of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) 11 (ZAS papers in linguistics 34), ed. by Law, Paul, 15–29. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 1977. The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austronesian subgrouping: A preliminary report. University of Hawai 'i at Mānoa Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 1–15.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Revised edn. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/10191.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, and Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2009. The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 19–58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, Sherri, and Molen, Ena Vander. 2005. Word order and inverse in Manobo. Current issues in Philippine linguistics and anthropology: Parangal kay Lawrence Reid, ed. by Liao, Hsiu-chuan and Galvez Rubino, Carl R., 364–418. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Brickell, Timothy C. 2014. A grammatical description of the Tondano (Toundano) language. Melbourne: La Trobe University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/516057.Google Scholar
Brickell, Timothy C., and Schnell, Stefan. 2017. Do grammatical relations reflect information status? Reassessing preferred argument structure theory against discourse data from Tondano. Linguistic Typology 21. 177–208. DOI: 10.1515/lingty-2017-0005.10.1515/lingty-2017-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunye, Maria V. R., and Yap, Elsa P.. 1971. Cebuano grammar notes. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Phillip J. 1989. Some aspects of Pitu Ulunna Salu grammar: A typological approach. Arlington: University of Texas at Arlington master's thesis.Google Scholar
Chai, Nemia Melgarejo. 1971. A grammar of Aklan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Chen, Teresa M. 1987. Verbal constructions and verbal classification in Nataoran-Amis. (Pacific linguistics C-85.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Clayre, Beatrice. 2014. A preliminary typology of the languages of Middle Borneo. Advances in research on cultural and linguistic practices in Borneo, ed. by Sercombe, Peter, Boutin, Michael, and Clynes, Adrian, 123–51. Phillips, ME: Borneo Research Council.Google Scholar
Clemens, Lauren, and Coon, Jessica. 2018. Deriving verb-initial word order in Mayan. Language 94. 237–80. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clynes, Adrian. 1995. Topics in the phonology and morphosyntax of Balinese based on the dialect of Singaraja, North Bali. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Clynes, Adrian. 2005. Belait. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 429–55.Google Scholar
Conners, Thomas J. 2008. Tengger Javanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, Susanna. 1991. Functional change: The case of Malay constituent order. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, William D. 2010. A grammar of Madurese. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Philip W., Baker, John W., Spitz, Walter L.; and Baek, Mihyun. 1998. The grammar of Yogad: A functional explanation. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57. 626–57. DOI: 10.2307/414343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. (Publications in language sciences 7.) Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dillon, John Albert. 1994. A grammatical description of Tatana'. Arlington: University of Texas at Arlington master's thesis. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/9668.Google Scholar
Dita, Shirley. 2010. A reference grammar of Ibanag. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619. DOI: 10.2307/415037.10.1353/lan.1991.0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of subject, object and verb. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Anthropology, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/81.Google Scholar
DuBois, Carl D. 1976. Sarangani Manobo: An introductory guide. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Errington, Ross. 1979. A transition network grammar of Cotabato Manobo. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 3. 105–63.Google Scholar
Ferreirinho, Naomi. 1993. Selected topics in the grammar of Limos Kalinga, The Philippines. (Pacific linguistics B-109.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Forsberg, Vivian M. 1992. A pedagogical grammar of Tboli. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 9. 1–110.Google Scholar
Fugier, Huguette. 1999. Syntaxe Malagache. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Fukuda, Takashi. 1997. A discourse-oriented grammar of Eastern Bontoc. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 10. 6–119.Google Scholar
Garantjang, Ahmad, Kadjia, Dahlan, Basri, Hasan; and Nuhung, . 1984. Struktur bahasa Dondo. Palu: Pusat Bahasa.Google Scholar
Gelman, Rochel. 2009. Learning in core and noncore domains. Cognitive biology: Evolutionary and developmental perspectives on mind, brain, and behavior, ed. by Tommasi, Luca, Peterson, Mary A., and Nadel, Lynn, 247–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goudswaard, Nelleke. 2005. The Begak (Ida'an) language of Sabah. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of grammar, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Hung, Henrietta; and Travis, Lisa. 1992. SPEC of IP and SPEC of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 375–414. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haaksma, Rémy. 1933. Inleiding tot de studie der vervoegde vormen in de Indonesische Talen. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004596023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey, and Schnell, Stefan. 2016. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92. 591–618. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2016.0049.10.1353/lan.2016.0049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardjadibrata, R. R. 1985. Sundanese: A syntactical analysis. (Pacific linguistics.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2014. Animacy and inverse in Movima: A corpus study. Anthropological Linguistics 56. 294–314. DOI: 10.1353/anl.2014.0012.10.1353/anl.2014.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina, and Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54. 443–81. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2016-0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, Phyllis M. 1960. An Agta grammar. Manila: Bureau of Printing.Google Scholar
Hemmings, Charlotte. 2016. The Kelabit language: Austronesian voice, and syntactic typology. London: SOAS, University of London dissertation.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Person marking and grammatical relations in Sulawesi. Papers in Austronesian linguistics 3 (Pacific linguistics A-84), ed. by Steinhauer, Hein, 115–36. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005a. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 110–81.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005b. Tagalog. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 350–76.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages, ed. by Austin, Peter K. and Musgrave, Simon, 247–93. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2015. Notes on ‘noun phrase structure’ in Tagalog. Explorations of the syntax-semantics interface, ed. by Fleischhauer, Jens, Latrouite, Anja, and Osswald, Rainer, 315–37. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Primus, Beatrice. 2015. Prominence beyond prosody—A first approximation. pS-prominenceS: Prominences in Linguistics: Proceedings of the International Conference, ed. by De Dominicis, Amedeo, 38–58. Viterbo: DISUCOM.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Riesberg, Sonja. 2013. Symmetrical voice and applicative alternations: Evidence from Totoli. Oceanic Linguistics 52. 396–422. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43286357.10.1353/ol.2013.0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Wolff, John U.. 1999. Toratán (Ratahan). Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Hung, Silvia Yu-ju, and Billings, Loren. 2009. Topicality and pronominal ordering in two Manobo languages. Paper presented at the panel on ‘Pronoun-ordering typology’ at the 11th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Aussois, June 2009. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1106.Google Scholar
Hurlbut, Hope M. 1988. Verb morphology in Eastern Kadazan. (Pacific linguistics B-97.) Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, and Antonov, Anton. 2014. Direct/inverse systems. Language and Linguistics Compass 8. 301–18. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeng, Heng-hsiung. 1977. Topic and focus in Bunun. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Jiang, Haowen, and Billings, Loren. 2015. Person-based ordering of pronominal clitics in Rikavung Puyuma. An inverse analysis. AFLA 21: The proceedings of the 21st meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, ed. by Camp, Amber, Otsuka, Yuko, Stabile, Claire, and Tanaka, Nozomi, 87–106. Canberra: The Australian National University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/95329.Google Scholar
Jukes, Anthony. 2006. Makassarese (basa Mangkasara'): A description of an Austronesian language of South Sulawesi. Melbourne: University of Melbourne dissertation. Online: http://www.oxis.org/theses/jukes-2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2008. South Sulawesi pronominal clitics: Form, function and position. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 17. 13–65.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35. 1–49. DOI: 10.1515/THLI.2009.001.10.1515/THLI.2009.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2010a. The morphosyntax of Tagalog clitics: A typological approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2010b. The grammar of clitics in Maranao. Piakandatu ami Dr. Howard P. McKaughan, ed. by Billings, Loren and Goudswaard, Nelleke, 179–204. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines and SIL Philippines.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2011. Exclamatives and temporal nominalizations in Austronesian. Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, ed. by Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen, and Wrona, Janick, 721–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2017. Lexical category and alignment in Austronesian. The Oxford handbook of ergativity, ed. by Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane, and Travis, Lisa D., 589–630. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2018. Austronesian predication and the emergence of biclausal clefts in Indonesian languages. Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian language, ed. by Riesberg, Sonja, Shiohara, Asako, and Utsumi, Atsuko, 207–45. Berlin: Language Science.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel, and Chen, Victoria. 2017. Clausal constituency and historical Austronesian morphosyntax. Paper presented at the 24th meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 24), University of Washington, April 7–9, 2017.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, Harland. 1988. Cotabato Manobo grammar. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 7. 1–123. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/25582.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R. 2005. Kimaragang. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 397–428.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J., with Huang, Chenglong. 2003. A grammar of Qiang: With annotated texts and glossary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–91. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25164901.Google Scholar
Lee, Celeste, and Billings, Loren. 2004. Clitic-pronoun clusters in Central Philippine. SEALS XIV, vol. 1: Papers from the 14th annual meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2004 (Pacific linguistics E-5), ed. by Khanittanan, Wilaiwan and Sidwell, Paul, 193–203. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Leslie, Alan M. 1995. A theory of agency. Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate, ed. by Sperber, Dan, Premack, David, and Premack, Ann James, 121–41. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Leto, Claudia, Alamudi, Winarno S., Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Kuhnt-Saptodewo, Jani, Riesberg, Sonja; and Basri, Hasan. 2005–2010. DoBeS Totoli documentation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1839/00-0000-0000-0005-24BE-F.Google Scholar
Liu, Adlay Kun-long. 2004. On relativization in Squliq Atayal. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University master's thesis.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayani, Luh Anik. 2013. A grammar of Tajio: A language spoken in Central Sulawesi. Cologne: Universität zu Köln dissertation. Online: https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/6963/.Google Scholar
McConvell, William P. 2016. The morphosyntax of basic verbal clauses in Batui in comparative perspective. Canberra: Australian National University, ms.Google Scholar
McConvell, William P. 2017. Preliminary study of voice and transitivity in Rampi'. Canberra: Australian National University master's thesis.Google Scholar
McDonnell, Bradley. 2016. Symmetrical voice constructions in Besemah: A usage-based approach. Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara dissertation.Google Scholar
McKaughan, Howard P. 1958. The inflection and syntax of Maranao verbs. Manila: Bureau of Printing.Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity. 2015. From absolutely optional to only nominally ergative: The life cycle of the Gurindji ergative suffix. Borrowed morphology, ed. by Gardani, Francesco, Arkadiev, Peter, and Amiridze, Nino, 189–218. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614513209.189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Helen W., and Miller, Jeanne. 1976. Mamanwa grammar. Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/4440.Google Scholar
Miller, Mark T. 2007. A grammar of West Coast Bajau. Arlington: The University of Texas at Arlington dissertation.Google Scholar
Miller, Mark T. 2014. A comparative look at the major voice oppositions in Sama-Bajaw languages and Indonesian/Malay. Papers from 12-ICAL, vol. 2: Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages, ed. by Arka, I Wayan and Mas Indrawati, N. L. K., 303–12. Canberra: Australian National University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/12059.Google Scholar
Mirikitani, Leatrice T. 1972. Kapampangan syntax. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne, and Chafe, Wallace. 1999. What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 23. 569–96. DOI: 10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit.10.1075/sl.23.3.05mitCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Gotama, Franz. 2002. Sundanese. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
New, Joshua, Cosmides, Leda; and Tooby, John. 2007. Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104. 16598–603. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0703913104.10.1073/pnas.0703913104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogloblin, Alexander K. 2005. Javanese. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 590–624.Google Scholar
Oiwa-Bungard, Mayumi. 2017. Morphology and syntax of gerunds in Truku Seediq: A third function of Austronesian ‘voice’ morphology. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Mānoa dissertation.Google Scholar
Peng, Adam, and Billings, Loren. 2008. Binukid pronominal clisis. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 17. 179–212. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/25806.Google Scholar
Pennington, Ryan. 2013. Topic as evidence for nominative case in Ma Manda. Language & Linguistics in Melanesia 31(2). 1–26. Online: https://www.silpacific.org/resources/archives/66286.Google Scholar
Pearson, Matt. 2018. Predicate raising and perception verb complements in Malagasy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36. 781–849. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-017-9388-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2011. Core participant marking in Khumi. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2). 73–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quick, Philip A. 2007. A grammar of the Pendau language of central Sulawesi, Indonesia. (Pacific linguistics 590.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Quick, Philip A. 2008. Is there a VP in Pendau? Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 19. 67–83. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/25618.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea, and Travis, Lisa. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. The syntax of verb initial languages, ed. by Carnie, Andrew and Guilfoyle, Eithne, 117–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rasoloson, Janie, and Rubino, Carl. 2005. Malagasy. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 456–88.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A. 1966. An Ivatan syntax. Honolulu: Oceanic Linguistics.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A. 1970. Central Bontoc: Sentence, paragraph and discourse. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/8567.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence, and Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics 5. 433–90.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja. 2014. Symmetrical voice and linking in western Austronesian languages. (Pacific linguistics 646.) Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja. 2018. Optional ergative, agentivity and discourse prominence—Evidence from Yali (Trans-New Guinea). Linguistic Typology 22. 12–50. DOI: 10.1515/lingty-2018-0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja, and Primus, Beatrice. 2015. Agent prominence in symmetrical voice languages. STUF—Language Typology and Universals 68. 551–64. DOI: 10.1515/stuf-2015-0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2004. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2015. Word order. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edn., vol. 25, ed. by Wright, James D., 644–56. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Robinson, Laura C. 2005. A sketch grammar of Tindal Dusun. (Working papers in linguistics 36(5).) Honolulu: Department of Linguistics, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa. Online: http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/research/WorkingPapers/wp-robinson.pdf.Google Scholar
Robinson, Laura C. 2011. Dupanungan Agta: Grammar, vocabulary, and texts. (Pacific linguistics 635.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems (Pacific linguistics 518), ed. by Wouk, Fay and Ross, Malcolm, 17–62. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust (Pacific linguistics 601), ed. by Adelaar, Alexander and Pawley, Andrew, 295–326. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Rubino, Carl R. G. 1997. A reference grammar of Ilocano. Santa Barbara: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Rubino, Carl R. G. 2005. Iloko. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 326–49.Google Scholar
Ruffolo, Roberta. 2004. Topics in the morpho-syntax of Ibaloy, Northern Philippines. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Sanicas Daguman, Josephine. 2013. A grammar of Northern Subanen. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Sauppe, Sebastian. 2017. The role of voice and word order in incremental sentence processing: Studies on sentence production and comprehension in Tagalog and German. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2066/176833.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju. 1991. Pathways of the development of the ergative in Central Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1). 109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul, and Otanes, Fe T.. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Graham. 1986. On ergativity in Fore and other Papuan languages. Papers in New Guinea linguistics 24 (Pacific linguistics A-70), ed. by Laycock, Donald C., Seiler, Walter, Bruce, Les, Chlenov, M. A., Shaw, R. Daniel, Holzknecht, Susanne, Scott, Graham, Nekitel, Otto, Wurm, S. A., Goldman, L. R., and Fingleton, J. S., 167–75. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2012. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Alexander D. 2017. The western Malayo-Polynesian problem. Oceanic Linguistics 56. 435–90. DOI: 10.1353/ol.2017.0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, James N., Adelaar, Alexander, Djenar, Dwi Noverini; and Ewing, Michael C.. 2010. Indonesian reference grammar. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Spelke, Elizabeth S., and Kinzler, Katherine D.. 2007. Core knowledge. Developmental Science 10. 89–96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spitz, Walter L. 2001. Hiligaynon/Ilonggo. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Suter, Edgar. 2010. The optional ergative in Kâte. A journey through Austronesian and Papuan linguistic and cultural space: Papers in the honour of Andrew Pawley (Pacific linguistics 615), ed. by Bowden, John, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Ross, Malcolm, 423–40. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Svelmoe, Gordon, and Svelmoe, Thelma. 1974. Notes on Mansaka grammar. (Language data, Asian-Pacific series 6.) Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanangkingsing, Michael. 2009. A functional reference grammar of Cebuano. Taipei: National Taiwan University dissertation.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1). 93–107.10.32655/LTBA.14.1.04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Dodrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsukida, Naomi. 2005. Seediq. In Himmelmann & Adelaar, 291–325.Google Scholar
van den Berg, René. 1996. The demise of focus and the spread of conjugated verbs in Sulawesi. Papers in Austronesian linguistics 3 (Pacific linguistics A-84), ed. by Steinhauer, Hein, 89–114. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
van den Berg, René, and Busenitz, Robert L.. 2012. A grammar of Balantak, a language of Eastern Sulawesi. (eBook 40.) Dallas: SIL International. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/49492.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanoverbergh, Morice. 1955. Iloko grammar. Baguio: Catholic School Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, Dan, and Weaver, Marilou. 1964. Ranking of personal pronouns in Agusan Manobo. Oceanic Linguistics 3. 161–70. DOI: 10.2307/3622946.10.2307/3622946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfenden, Elmer. 1975. A description of Hiligaynon syntax. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/8844.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U. 1972. A dictionary of Cebuano Visayan. 2 vols. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U. 1996. The development of the passive verb with pronominal prefix in Western Austronesian languages. Reconstruction, classification, description—Festschrift in honor of Isidore Dyen, ed. by Nothofer, Bernd, 15–40. Hamburg: Abera.Google Scholar
Woollams, Geoff. 1996. A grammar of Karo Batak, Sumatra. (Pacific linguistics.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Woollams, Geoff. 2005. Karo Batak. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 534–61.Google Scholar
Wu, Jing-lan Joy. 2006. Verb classification, case marking, and grammatical relations in Amis. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 1992. A syntactic and semantic study of Tsou focus system. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University master's thesis.Google Scholar
Zobel, Erik. 2005. Buol. In Adelaar & Himmelmann, 625–48.Google Scholar
Zorc, R. David Paul, and de la Cruz, Beato A.. 1968. A study of the Aklanon dialect, vol. 1: Grammar. Washington, DC: Peace Corps. Online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED145705.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment-inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61. 283–305. DOI: 10.2307/414146.10.2307/414146CrossRefGoogle Scholar