Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 46:2 (2022) ► pp.453–516

Predicting voice choice in symmetrical voice languages

All the things that do not work in Totoli

 | Universität zu Köln | CNRS–LACITO | The Australian National University CoEDL
 | Universität zu Köln
 | Universität zu Köln
 | Universität zu Köln
Western Austronesian symmetrical voice languages exhibit at least two basic transitive constructions. This paper investigates what factors influence speakers’ choice of one voice over another in natural spoken discourse. It provides a thorough assessment of all factors that have been proposed to be relevant for voice choice in the literature on symmetrical voice systems. Using the Indonesian language Totoli as a case study, we show that unlike in languages with asymmetrical voice alternations, argument-related properties such as topicality, activation state, animacy, etc. do not play a major role in voice choice in symmetrical voice languages. We argue that for symmetrical voice alternations other factor groups are relevant than for asymmetrical voice alternations and that the clear structural differences between the two alternation types are mirrored in functional differences.
Keywords: western Austronesian, symmetrical voice, voice choice, discourse, Totoli
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language, corpus and methods
    • 2.1Totoli
    • 2.2Corpus
    • 2.3Corpus annotation
    • 2.4Summary and note on statistics model
  • 3.Argument-related factors
    • 3.1Argument-inherent properties: Animacy and humanness
    • 3.2Discourse-related properties: Activation state, topicality, discourse reference function, generalizability
      • 3.2.1Topicality
      • 3.2.2Activation state and argument realization
      • 3.2.3Tracking use
      • 3.2.4Generalizability
  • 4.Verb/clause-related factors
    • 4.1Grounding
      • 4.1.1Discourse transitivity and subordination
      • 4.1.2Valency-increasing morphology
    • 4.2Collostruction strength
  • 5.Structural priming
  • 6.Interactivity and text type
  • 7.Statistical analysis
  • 8.Discussion
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 27 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20061.rie
References (77)
References
Abdullah Munshi, bin Abdul Kadir. 1932. Hikayat Abdullah, Jalid yang pertama (Malay Literature Series 4). Singapore: Malay Publishing House.Google Scholar
Arka, I. Wayan. 2009. On the zero (voice) prefix and bare verbs in Austronesian languages of Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, in Bethwyn Evans (ed.), Discovering history through language: Papers in honour of Malcolm Ross. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 247–70.Google Scholar
Asikin-Garmager, Eli Scott. 2017. Sasak voice. Iowa City: University of Iowa PhD dissertation. Available at DOI logo (last access 5 September 2021).
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardají i Farré, Maria, Sonja Riesberg & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. submitted. Limited-control predicates in western Austronesia: stative, dynamic, or none of the above?
Baumann, Stefan & Arndt Riester. 2012. Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Prosody and meaning, 119–162. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bencini, Giulia & Virginia Valian. 2008. Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 591. 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18(3). 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bracks, Christoph A. 2020. The syntax-prosody interface in Totoli. Cologne: University of Cologne PhD dissertation.
Bracks, Christoph A., Datra Hasan, Maria Bardají i Farré, Sumitro Pogi & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2017–2020. Totoli Documentation Corpus 2. Language Archive Cologne. Available at: [URL] (last access 5 September 2021).
Brainard, Sherri. 1994. Voice and ergativity in Karao. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Holly P. & Katherine Messenger. 2016. Consistent and cumulative effects of syntactic experience in children’s sentence production: Evidence for error-based implicit learning. Cognition 1571. 250–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brickell, Timothy C. 2014. A grammatical description of the Tondano (Toundano) language. Melbourne: La Trobe University PhD dissertation. [URL]
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chen, Victoria & Bradley McDonnell. 2019. Western Austronesian voice. Annual Review of Linguistics 5(1). 173–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cooreman, Ann. 1983. Topic continuity and the voicing system of an ergative language: Chamorro. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse. A quantitative cross-linguistic study, 425–489. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. The antipassive in Chamorro: Variations on the theme of transitivity. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 561–593. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cramér, Harald. 1946. Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cumming, Susanna. 1991. Functional change: The case of Malay constituent order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1994. The discourse function of the Kutenai inverse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 65–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estival, Dominique. 1985. Syntactic priming of the passive in English. Text 5(1–2). 7–21.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garcia, Rowena, Jeruen E. Dery, Jens Roeser & Barbara Höhle. 2018. Word order preferences of Tagalog-speaking adults and children. First Language 38(6). 617–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Rowena & Evan Kidd. 2020. The acquisition of the Tagalog symmetrical voice system: Evidence from Structural Priming. Language Learning and Development 16(4). 399–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse. A quantitative cross-linguistic study, 3–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Voice and inversion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4). 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2). 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2015. Annotations using GRAID (Grammatical Relations and Animacy in Discourse). Bamberg: Opus. Available at: [URL] (last access 5 September 2021).
. 2016. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 921. 591–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hemmings, Charlotte. 2016. The Kelabit language: Austronesian voice and syntactic typology. London: University of London, SOAS PhD dissertation.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1999. The lack of zero anaphora and incipient person marking in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 381, 231–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Sourcebook on Tomini-Tolitoli Languages. General information and word lists. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological overview. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010. Language endangerment scenarios: A case study from northern Central Sulawesi. In Margaret Florey (ed.), Endangered languages of Austronesia, 45–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Meytal Sandler, Jan Strunk & Volker Unterladstetter. 2018. On the universality of intonational phrases – a crosslinguistic interrater study. Phonology 35(2). 207–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Sonja Riesberg. 2013. Symmetrical voice and applicative alternations: Evidence from Totoli. Oceanic Linguistics 52(2). 396–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1983. Ergative, passive, and active in Malay narrative. In Flora Klein-Andreu (ed.), Discourse perspectives on syntax, 67–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sarah Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3). 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, Evan. 2012. Individual differences in syntactic priming in language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 33(2). 393–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul & Sonja Riesberg. forthcoming. Voice and transitivity. In Alexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Voice and case in Tagalog: The coding of prominence and orientation. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf PhD dissertation.
Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 361. 141–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leto, Claudia, Winarno S. Alamudi, Jani Kuhnt-Saptodewo, Sonja Riesberg, Hasan Basri & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2005–2010. DoBeS Totoli Documentation. DoBeS Archive MPI Nijmegen. Available at: [URL] (last access 5 September 2021).
Levinson, Steven C., Penelope Brown, Eve Danzinger, Lourdes De León, John B. Haviland, Eric Pederson & Gunther Senft. 1992. Man and tree & space games. In Steven C. Levinson (ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2, 7–14. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
McDonnell, Bradley. 2016. Symmetrical voice constructions in Besemah: A usage-based approach. Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara PhD dissertation.
Navarro, Danielle J. 2015. Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners (Version 0.5). Adelaide: University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
Pastika, I. Wayan. 1999. Voice selection in Balinese discourse. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.
Payne, Thomas E. 1994. The pragmatics of voice in a Philippine language. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 318–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Victor S. Ferreira. 2008. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134(3). 427–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quick, Phil. 2005. Topic continuity, voice and word order in Pendau. In I. Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: Some new empirical studies, 221–242. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: [URL] (last access 5 September 2021).
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 97–143. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja. 2014. Symmetrical voice and linking in western Austronesian languages. Pacific Linguistics 6461. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riester, Arndt & Stefan Baumann. 2017. The RefLex scheme – Annotation guidelines. Vol 14 of SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations, 279–306. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schiborr, Nils N., Stefan Schnell & Hanna Thiele. 2018. RefIND – Referent Indexing in Natural-language Discourse: Annotation guidelines (v1.1). Bamberg / Melbourne: University of Bamberg / University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Sheskin, David J. 2011. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, James Malley & Gerhard Tutz. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods 14(4). 323–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1966. On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 211. 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiner, Judith E. & William Labov. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 191. 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wouk, Fay. 1996. Voice in Indonesian discourse. Studies in Language 20(2). 361–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Sasak is different: A discourse perspective on voice. Oceanic Linguistics 38(1). 91–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä. 2019. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Haude, Katharina
2024. Between Symmetrical Voice and Ergativity: Inverse and Antipassive in Movima. International Journal of American Linguistics 90:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Næss, Åshild
2024. Voice and transitivity in Äiwoo and Engdewu. Studies in Language DOI logo
Walker, Katherine & Pegah Faghiri
2023. Introduction to Lexical constraints in grammar: Minority verb classes and restricted alternations. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Garcia, Rowena & Evan Kidd
2022. Acquiring verb-argument structure in Tagalog: a multivariate corpus analysis of caregiver and child speech. Linguistics 60:6 ► pp. 1855 ff. DOI logo
van Lier, Eva & Maria Messerschmidt
2022. Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice and valency constructions. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 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.