Cover not available

In:Topicality and the Shaping of Grammar: New perspectives from lesser-studied languages
Edited by Enrique L. Palancar, Claudine Chamoreau and Anaïd Donabédian
[Typological Studies in Language 137] 2026
► pp. 220–261

Chapter 7
Discourse and reference tracking effects on voice alternations in Northern Amis (Austronesian)

 | CNRS, LACITO
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Amis (an Austronesian language of Taiwan) has a symmetrical, multi-voice system. Selection of voice and argument structure are multifactorial, with lexical, syntactic and semantic constraints. This corpus analysis of Northern Amis also shows voice and alignment to be selected by the arguments’ referential properties both within and beyond the clause. In the latter case, they react to information management and topic tracking. Discourse factors thus interact with syntax and conspire to choose the definite nominative Patient as the Preferred Syntactic Argument (PSA) argument to be tracked across clauses and sentences. The discourse function of voice selection is infrequently researched in Formosan languages; new perspectives are presented in Northern Amis.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on Amis morpho-syntax
    • 2.1Voices and bi-partite alignment
    • 2.2A symmetrical voice system
    • 2.3Voice affixes and their substitutes
  • 3.Lexical, syntactic and semantic constraints on voice selection
    • 3.1Lexical properties and verb classes in declarative mood
    • 3.2Co-varying syntactic and semantic constraints
      on PSA and voice selection
    • 3.3Illocutionary acts and pragmatic effects of voice selection
  • 4.The referential status of PSA arguments
    and voice selection in discourse
    • 4.1Voice alternation as strategies avoiding indefinite PSAs
    • 4.2Existential and staging constructions: Creating some wholly new reference
    • 4.3Choosing between existential, staging constructions
      and voice marked verbs
  • 5.Discourse, topic continuity and topic tracking
    • 5.1Definitions
    • 5.2Topic continuous PSAs in chains of same voice-affixed verbs
    • 5.3Tracking topical arguments with voice alternation
      • 5.3.1Tracking an Snom as Pnom with voice alternation
      • 5.3.2Tracking a Tobl as Pnom of UV, LV
      • 5.3.3Tracking Tobl Themes as Pnom of applicative voice constructions
    • 5.4Tracking a location noun
    • 5.5Bridging effects on topic tracking
    • 5.6Discussion
  • 6.Topic tracking, topic continuity and zero anaphora
    in two selected Amis texts
    • 6.1Mami (the Pear/orange story)
      • 6.1.1Percentage of two-argument AV or UV verbs
      • 6.1.2Ratio of lexically or pronominally expressed arguments
    • 6.2A procedural story: Katacumuli
      • 6.2.1Percentage of two-argument AV or UV verbs
      • 6.2.2Ratio of lexically or pronominally expressed arguments
    • 6.3The two narratives compared: Discussion and results
    • 6.4Amis in the perspective of Du Bois’ theory
      of Preferred Argument Structure
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (41)
References
Arka, I Wayan and I Nyoman Sedeng. 2018. Information structure in Sembiran Balinese. In Sonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara and Atsuko Utsumi (Eds.). Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages, 139–176. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 21). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asikin-Garmager, Eli Scott. 2017. Sasak voice. University of Iowa Ph.D. Dissertation.
Brickell, Timothy and Stefan Schnell. 2017. Do grammatical relations reflect information status? Reassessing Preferred Argument Structure theory against discourse data from Tondano. Linguistic Typology, 21(1): 177–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2016. Information Structure in Northern Amis (Formosan): a morphosyntactic analysis. Oceanic linguistics, 55(2), 451–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022a. Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice constructions (Northern Amis). STUF Language Typology and Universals, 75(1), 21–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022b. Directive speech acts: imperatives and hortatives in Northern Amis (Austronesian). In Anne Storch and R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), The Art of Language. Chapter 13: 221–250. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bril, Isabelle and Skopeteas Stavros. 2021. The syntax and prosody of focus in Northern Amis (Formosan). Katharina Haude, Enrique Palancar, Martine Vanhove (Eds.). Special issue on Clefts. Special issue on Clefts. Faits de Langue, 51(2), 61–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Information Flow. In William Bright (Ed.) Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 215–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Teresa. 1987. Verbal constructions and verbal classifications in Nataoran-Amis. Pacific linguistics. Canberra, Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Victoria. 2017. A reexamination of the Philippine-type voice system and its implications for Austronesian primary-level subgrouping. University of Hawai’i Ph.D. dissertation.
Cooreman, Ann, Barbara Fox and Talmy Givón. 1988. The discourse definition of ergativity: a study of Chamorro and Tagalog texts. In R. McGinn (Ed.), Studies in Austronesian linguistics, 387–425. Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63: 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003a. Argument structure: Grammar in use. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby (Eds.) Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 11–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003b. Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 2, 47–88. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 2003. New light on information pressure Information conduits, “escape valves”, and role alignment stretching. In Preferred Argument Structure. Grammar as architecture for function, 159–196. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, William. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at the 3rd LFG conference, Brisbane.
. 2008. “The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems.” In Peter K. Austin and Simon Musgrave (Eds.), Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages, 22–44. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. “Topic continuity in discourse: an introduction.” In Talmy Givón (Ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: Quantitative Cross-Language Studies, 1–42. TSL 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. The Story of Zero. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg and Ron Zacharski. 1993. Referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69: 274–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (Eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1988. How ergative is Malay? In Richard McGinn (Ed.), Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, 441–454. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Shuanfan. 2002. The pragmatics of focus in Tsou and Seediq. Language and Linguistics, 3: 665–694.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Shuanfan and Michael Tanangkingsing. 2011. A Discourse Explanation of the Transitivity Phenomena in Kavalan, Squliq, and Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics, 50(1): 93–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knut. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations. Constraining co-variation. In Kulikov, Leonid, A. Malchukov and Peter de Swart (Eds.). Case, Valency and Transitivity, 329–357. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York NY: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2019. Grammatical relations in Hiligaynon. Argument Selectors. A new perspective on grammatical relations. In Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel (Eds.), 131–184. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pastika, I Wayan. 2006. Voice selection in Balinese narrative discourse. Bali-Indonesia: Pustaka Lasaran.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas. 1994. The pragmatics of voice in a Philippine language: actor-focus and goal-focus in Cebuano narrative. In Talmy Givón (Ed.), Voice and inversion, 317–64. Typological Studies in Language 28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja. 2015. A first take on information structure in Totoli — Reference management and its interrelation with voice selection. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, 65–81. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja, Maria Bardají i Farré, Kurt Malcher, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2022. Predicting voice choice in symmetrical voice languages: All the things that do not work in Totoli. Studies in Language, 46(2): 453–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Discourse motivations for the core-oblique distinction as a language universal. In Akio Kamio (Ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 59–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wouk, Fay. 1989. The impact of discourse on grammar: verb morphology in spoken Jakarta Indonesian. University of California, Los Angeles Ph.D. Dissertation.
. 1999. Sasak is different: a discourse perspective on voice. Oceanic Linguistics, 38(1): 91–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Voice in the languages of Nusa Tenggara Barat. In Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (Eds.), The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, 285–309. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Joy. 2006. Verb classification, case marking, and grammatical relations in Amis. Buffalo: State University of New York Ph.D. Dissertation.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue