Chapter 28 VOICE and ROLE: Yogad & Toba Batak 1. Introduction1 In this chapter, we return to Yogad to discover how VOICE configures the PROPOSITION into a NUCLEUS and PERIPHERY. Our first purpose is to describe the propositional NUCLEUS and the two PROPOSITIONAL ROLES that participate in it. In doing this, we will also detail the VOICE semantics of each PROPOSITIONAL ROLE. Second, we identify the EVENT-PARTICIPANT ROLES and show how they interact with the PROPOSITIONAL ROLES. In section 2, we establish the existence of a contrast between the semantic NUCLEUS of a PROPOSITION and the PERIPHERY. We discover that the NUCLEUS contains at most two candidate PARTICIPANTS for a PROPOSITIONAL ROLE function. In section 3, we discuss the semantics of the two ROLES. In section 4, we turn to the EVENT-PARTICIPANT ROLES of Yogad and demonstrate how their semantics integrates with that of the PROPOSITIONAL ROLES. Since Yogad is a Philippine language, a final goal here will be to identify what it is that makes a Philippine language “Philippine.” In section 6, we examine a second Austronesian language, Toba Batak, which also has two PROPOSITIONAL ROLES (or perhaps three), but in some ways is the VOICE complement of Yogad. 2. The Yogad NUCLEUS Yogad gives the impression of being a VSO language, for that order is dominant in the context of elicitation; but as we saw in Chapter 17, it is the content of the VSO order which is more appropriate to the circumstance of elicitation, while in more normal discourse, another form, utilizing the mor- pheme ay, is prominent. The syntax of the VSO order, however, provides us with the forms which signal the ROLES of Yogad, which ROLES may then be also recognized in the grammar of the ay construction. We shall therefore begin with a consideration of the content of word order position in the VSO sequence. 1 Details concerning Yogad can be found in Chapter 17. The content of this chapter draws heavily on Chapters 2 and 5 of Davis, Baker, Spitz & Baek 1998. 1532 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS 2.1. FOCUS and the Boundary of the NUCLEUS The distribution of FOCUS provides a first indication of the extent of the semantic NUCLEUS. The boundary is recognized in this way. First, FOCUS is expressed by the sentence-initial position, i.e., both the questioning word and the answering content must appear in that syntactic position. Second, the content of a PROPOSITION that may be questioned and answered in this manner is restricted to that which fills the S or the O function associated with the V in the VSO formula. The first position in the VSO sequence identifies content which responds to the equivalent of wh- questions in Yogad:2 [NANG-write John letter] ‘John wrote a letter’ If one questions the identity of the EVENT as in (1a), then the response is the standard VSO sequence of Yogad.3 But FOCUS is not confined to the grammatical class of ‘verb’. It can identify an EVENT-PARTICIPANT. Consider these utterances, and their mutual appropriateness: (2) (a) Sinní yu mat-tangít [who MAG-cry] ‘Who is crying?’ 2 The affixes of the EVENT are the subject of section 4. Here, we gloss them in the first interlinear line arbitrarily by writing them with capital letters. 3 If the inerlocutor with the speaker of (1a) perceives that the question falls in a context in which John is TOPIC, then that understanding can be expressed by this alternate answer to (1a): (i) Si John ay tu lappaw. The ay places the TOPIC si John in initial position (Cf. Chapter 17) and the FOCUS is positioned following ay, i.e., tu lappaw answers the query about what John did, while explicitly acknowledging si John to be the TOPIC. If (1a) comes out-of-the-blue, then (1b) is the response. If (1a) is contextualized in a conversation in which John is TOPIC, then (i) is the response. VOICE & ROLE in Yogad & Toba Batak 1533 (b) Anák ku yu mat-tangít [child my MAG-cry] ‘My chíld is crying’ (c) Mat-tangít yu anák ku [MAG-cry child my] ‘My child is ’ As can be seen from the English glosses of (2b) and (2c), and the distribution of accent in the glosses, only (2b) is suitable as a response to the question of (2a). Utterance (2c) is correct Yogad, but in answer to (2a), it gives the impression that the person who is answering has failed to hear the question. Compare the English gloss of (2c) as response to the English question Who is crying? The result recapitulates the inappropriateness of the Yogad pairing of (2c) with (2a). Sentence (2c), when preceded by Aw ‘Yes’, is a suitable in answer to (d) Mat-tangít kaddá yu anák nu [MAG-cry Question child your] ‘Is your child crying?’ in which the EVENT tangít ‘cry’ is at issue and not who is doing it. Similarly, in (3) - (5), the answering information is appropriately placed in the initial position as in the (b)-responses: (3) (a) Sinní yu g=in=akáp ni Maria [who hug=IN=hug Maria] ‘Who did Maria hug?’ (b) Anák na yu g=in=akáp na [child her hug=IN=hug she] ‘She hugged her chíld’ (c) G=in=akáp yu anák na [hug=IN=hug child her] ‘She húgged her child’ (4) (a) Sinní yu ni-yáda-n nu tu lápis [who I-give-AN you pencil] 1534 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS ‘Who did you give a pencil to?’ (b) Kolák ku yu ni-yáda-n ku tu lápis [friend my NI-give-AN I pencil] ‘I gave my fríend a pencil’ (c) Ni-yáda-n ku yu kolák ku tu lápis [NI-give-AN I friend my pencil] ‘I gáve my friend a pencil’ (5) (a) Ganí yu p=in=at-túrak nu [what PAG=IN=PAG-write you] ‘What thing did you write with?’ (b) Lápis yu p=in=at-turák ku [pencil PAG=IN=PAG-write I] ‘I used a péncil to write with’ (c) P=in=at-turák ku yu lápis [PAG=IN=PAG-write I pencil] ‘I úsed a pencil to write with’ The (c)-utterances are again all correct, but not as answers to the corresponding (a)-questions. Notice that the questioned material is identified by the appropriate VOICE affixes: mag- if the Agent is queried, =in= for the Patient, i- ... -an for the Recipient, i- for the Instrument, etc.4 A PARTICIPANT that occurs to the right of the VSO, and which is therefore not indexed by one of the VOICE affixes cannot be questioned; thus, lapis in (6a) (6) (a) T=in=urak ku yu lappaw tu lapis [write=IN=write I letter pencil] ‘I wrote a letter with a pencil’ is beyond questioning. In (6b), 4 The terms “Agent,” “Patient,” “Instrument,” “Recipient,” and the like will be used in the exposition, but we will discover below that they are probably not the most accurate to describe the semantics of Yogad EVENT-PARTICIPANT ROLES. VOICE & ROLE in Yogad & Toba Batak 1535 (6) (b) Ganni t=in=urak nu tu lapis [what write=IN=write you pencil] ‘What did you write with a pencil?’ it is the Patient that is questioned, and there is no (6c), which might be the attempt to query lapis in (6a): (6) (c) *Ganni t=in=urak nu yu lappaw [what write=IN=write you letter] The concordance between verbal affixes and either the S or the O is a necessary part of Yogad utterances; without it, sentences are meaningless.5 Compare the sentences of (7): (7) (a) *Si Juan yu t=in=turak Ø yu turak i j i j (b) *Yu turak yu mat-turak si Juan Ø i j j i The selection of some PARTICIPANT by these affixes will be recognized by the use of yu (or si, if the PARTICIPANT is a person).6 There will be one such 5 Almost. In Chapter 31, we return briefly once more to Yogad to consider utterances in which verbal VOICE affixes are indeed absent. We show there that there are semantic contexts which do not support VOICE and from which VOICE is therefore rationally missing. 6 The selected PARTICIPANT is also reflected in the choice of pronominal shape. If it is selected, then a form from Column I is present, and if not, then a form from column II occurs. Column I Column II 1sg. kan ku 2sg. ka nu ~ m 3sg. (ya bagginá) na 1dl.incl kitá ta 1pl.incl. kitám tam 1dl./pl.excl. kamí mi 2pl. kam maw 3pl. sirá da ~ ra The shapes nu and da appear after consonants, and m and ra, respectively, after vowels. The third person singular is usually manifest as zero when selected, but for emphasis the shape ya bagginá may be used (It is based on baggí ‘body’.). When pronominal elements appear as FOCUS, the forms come from Column I, but they are preceded by si, which is the form that also appears with individuals’ names. The third person singular pronoun ya bagginá is an exception to this; it appears as such. In answer to the question Sínni yu kabbát ya m-angáy? ‘Who wants to go?’, the answers are Si kán ‘Me’, Si ka ‘You’, Ya bagginá 1536 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS determiner per PROPOSITION and they (along with the PARTICIPANT they qualify) will either immediately follow the V of the VSO formula, or they will occur in the second position following the V.7 The sentences of (7) can now be recognized as failing for two reasons. The PARTICIPANT si Juan names an animate PARTICIPANT, and the VOICE affix =in= has mistakenly selected the inanimate ‘O’-PARTICIPANT túrak. The correct match would be (7) (c) Si Juan yu mat-túrak Ø tu túrak i i i in which the VOICE affix mag- selects the ‘S’-PARTICIPANT in yu mat-túrak tu túrak ‘the one who wrote a letter’. Sentence (7a) also fails because yu t=in=turak Ø yu turak contains two occurrences of yu, and (7c) avoids j i j this by expressing the ‘O’-PARTICIPANT of yu mati-túrak Øi tu túrakj with tu. Similar comments are applicable to (7b). In a different way — but one that points up the boundary of NUCLEUS — the configurations in (8) and (9) will also be troublesome: (8) ?Ni-yáda-n ku tu lápis yu kolák ku [IN-give-AN I pencil friend my] ‘I gave my friend a pencil’ (9) ?P=in=at-turák ku tu librú yu lápis [PAG=IN=PAG-write I book pencil] ‘I wrote a book with the pencil’ The normal position will have yu kolák ku ‘my friend’ and yu lápis ‘the pencil’ inverted with tu lápis and tu librú, respectively. The configurations in (8) and (9) become more acceptable when a pause is present before the last terms: yu kolák ku in (8) and yu lápis in (9). These patterns suggest a PROPOSITION which consists of a semantic cluster containing an EVENT in the FOCUS position, plus one or two PARTICIPANTS. These compose the NUCLEUS, which is followed by a PERIPHERY. There is a close connection between the affixes of VOICE and the PARTICIPANTS to which they point. The PARTICIPANTS are least marked phonologically when ‘Her/Him’, etc. And the third person plural form, sirá, already contains si. 7 In such sentences as (2a) and its answer (2b), the configuration is that of a copular sentence. Sinní is the predicate to the PARTICIPANT yu mattangít ‘the one who is crying’, and the gloss is more narrowly ‘Who is the one crying’. In the answer, anak ku ‘my child’ is the predicate to the same PARTICIPANT form. Similarly, in (3a&b) through (5a&b). VOICE & ROLE in Yogad & Toba Batak 1537 they appear in one of the two __ __ positions (the pause behavior). The S O affixes do not reach beyond the limit of the __ . Second, some of the verbal O affixes select the PARTICIPANTS in the __S position, e.g., nag-, while others identify PARTICIPANTS in the __O position, e.g., =in=. This formal behavior associates the FOCUS closely with the following one or two PARTICIPANTS and opposes that group, as NUCLEUS, to whatever else may follow. 3. The Semantics of Yogad PROPOSITIONAL ROLES In this section, we consider the semantics of the two PROPOSITIONAL ROLES of the NUCLEUS. If we take ordinal position-in-the-NUCLEUS seriously as the signal of some meaning, i.e., a PROPOSITIONAL ROLE, then there are three striking conclusions about Yogad. First, there are but two PROPOSITIONAL ROLES, since there are only two positions for PARTICIPANTS within the NUCLEUS, the V__SO-signalled ROLE and the VS__O-signalled ROLE. Second, the two PROPOSITIONAL ROLES do not have the familiar character of a motile, ‘agent/executor/actor’ and an inert ‘patient/recipient/goal/undergoer’. It is here that their origin in the semantics of VOICE becomes clearer. Third, the path to the discovery of the VOICE semantics of the two PROPOSITIONAL ROLES is complex. The asymmetric VOICE relation of the two ROLES is detectable in a least three ways. In sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, we attempt to detail the asymmetric semantic relation between the two. 3.1 ERUPTION and POST-ERUPTION It is, of course, easy to find examples where the Yogad S, for example, seems to be Agent-like (e.g., [11b and [6a]), but it is just as easy — and typical — to find S’s in utterances like the following in Yogad: (10) I-tagu kú yu amerikáno tu sandálu ya hapón [I-hide I American soldier Japanese] ‘I’m going to hide the American from the Japanese soldier’ (11) Ni-takít nu pasyénte yu siffún nu fugáb [NI-ill patient cold last.night] ‘The patient got sick with a cold last night’ (12) Talobw-án nu kaddát yu garden ku [grow-AN grass garden my] ‘Grass will grow in my garden’ 1538 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS (13) Nan-nakamm-án ku yu nad-dáfung-án nu kalsáda [NAG-remember-AN I NAG-meet-AN street tu aksidénte accident] ‘I was reminded of the accident by the intersection’ (14) Na-lasang-án na kán nu pínta8 [NA-red-AN it I paint] ‘The paint got me red’ (15) Pam-mapí nu grádu yu pat-tuntúru nu méstro [PAG-good grade PAG-teach teacher] ‘The grade improved through the way the teacher taught’ (16) I-batá ku yu sinnún [I-wet I cloth] ‘I’ll get the cloth wet’ (17) I-batá ku yu urán [I-wet I rain] ‘I’ll get wet from the rain’ (18) I-daral nu pakkatáwlay na yu trabaho na [I-spoil character his work his] ‘His work will destroy his character/standing’ (19) I-taláw ku yu danúm [I-fear I water] ‘I fear water' [“Like a phobic reaction ... from birth”] (20) Pas-suppat nu kaldu yu bagát [PAG-bittersour.taste soup banana] 8 When a personal pronoun appears as the PARTICIPANT in VS__O with a PARTICIPANT in the V__SO position which is named by a noun, then the PARTICIPANT on the V__SO position is named twice: once by pronoun in the ‘S’- position (e.g., na ‘he/she’) and again following the ‘O’, by the noun: (i) Takít-an na kán nu patták nu urán [hurt-AN it I drop rain] ‘The raindrops are hurting me’ VOICE & ROLE in Yogad & Toba Batak 1539 ‘The banana makes the soup bittersour’ (21) Barak-án nu anák yu gatták [search-AN child milk] ‘The child will need milk’ (22) B=in=arak-án ku yu wagi kú [search=IN=search-AN I sibling my] ‘I found my brother’ The PARTICIPANT in the ‘S’-ROLE in (10) appears to be unremarkably ‘Agent’-like, In (11), pasyénte ‘patient’ is filling the ‘S’-ROLE, as is Maria in (9a), but pasyénte is clearly un-‘Agent’-like in its relation to the EVENT ni- takít. This non-Agentive suffering relation of the PARTICIPANT in V__SO is repeated in other sentences in this group, e.g., (13), (17), (18), (19), (20) and (21). The EVENT is not performed, controlled, or initiated by any of these PARTICIPANTS; and their connections to their EVENTS seem to be something other than Agent. Furthermore, in (12) and (14), the ‘S’-PARTICIPANT is inanimate (i.e., kaddát ‘grass’ and nu pínta ‘paint’) and incapable of acting as Agent or Executor. Yogad, unlike some of the Philippine languages, does not require the PARTICIPANT filling the ‘S’-ROLE to be capable of initiating the EVENT, i.e., to have motile capacity. In one variety of Ilokano, (23a) is not possible (cf. Davis 1995b); but its equivalent in Yogad, (23b), is permitted: (23) (a) *Mang-lukát ti tulbék ti rídaw Ilokano [MANG-open key door] ‘The key will open the door’ (b) Nab-bukkát yu alláddu tu pwérta Yogad [NAG-open key door] ‘The key opened the door’ Finally, such pairs as (16) and (17), in which ku ‘I’ behaves one way if sinnún ‘cloth’ follows and another, if urán ‘rain’ follows, make it difficult to interpret the ‘S’-position as signalling a ROLE relation that is Agent/Executor/Actor- like. The same pair (plus examples such as [15]) also makes it equally difficult to accept the ‘O’-position as marking a Patient/Recipient/Undergoer-like relation. And finally, (24): 1540 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS (24) Na-batá na kán nu urán [NA-wet it I rain] ‘The rain got me wet’ simply reverses (17). Sentence (24) has the ‘rain’ as the ‘S’-PARTICIPANT, and seemingly acting ‘Agent’-like, while (17) has ‘rain’, the ‘O’-PARTICIPANT acting ‘Agent’-like.9 Trying to find some consistency to Yogad ROLES in (10) - (24) — and Yogad as a whole — in terms of ‘Agent’, ‘Patient’, or any of their congeners is futile. In place of trying to force ‘Agent’-like and ‘Patient’-like categories on Yogad,10 we may look at the language in its own terms, believing that there is some consistency to the contents of the grammatical marks involved. If we assume that EVENTS happen, and that they are manifest in and by their PARTICIPANTS — i.e., they are imminent in their PARTICIPANTS and otherwise have no existence — then it may be the case that EVENTS (i) make their first appearance or are first detectable at some locus (in some PARTICIPANT(S)), (ii) that they have a life span (in some PARTICIPANT(S)), and (iii) that they are played out and expire at some point (in some PARTICIPANT(S)). All this without parsing the EVENT into ‘Agent’, ‘Patient’, etc. Viewed in this way, Yogad appears immediately to be more consistent. What the ‘S’-position identifies is the locus at which the EVENT first erupts. Now in (16) and (17), batá ‘wet’ can erupt in the speaker without regard to whether the PARTICIPANT is causing or experiencing the EVENT. If ‘I’ and ‘cloth’ are PARTICIPANTS in the EVENT batá ‘wet’ so that the EVENT first appears in ‘I’, then the first emergence of ‘wet’ through ‘I’ is most reasonably interpreted in such a way that ‘I’ is the one wetting the cloth. But if ‘I’ is paired with urán ‘rain’, the interpretation in which ‘I’ wets something is not sensible. ‘I’ continues to be where ‘wet’ first appears, but now the interpretation is that ‘I’ is experiencing ‘wet’. Since the PARTICIPANT in the V__SO position is simply providing the platform for the first manifestation of the EVENT, both ku in (16) and (17) are a consistent implementations of their ROLE, and (10) - (24) are now overall more consistent among themselves and with the remainder of Yogad. The ‘O’-position then identifies a PARTICIPANT involved in the EVENT subsequent to its first appearance. We have elsewhere named the two PROPOSITIONAL ROLES of Yogad, the ERUPTIVE and the POST-ERUPTIVE, signalled by position in word order, 9 Cf. (14) above and footnote 8. 10 Or the macroroles Actor and Undergoer (Van Valin 2005.60).