Voice and Aspectual Focus in Malagasy Malagasy clauses typically consist of a predicate phrase followed by a definite DP denoting the topic of clause-level predication, here called the TRIGGER (italicized in the examples). The syntactic role of the trigger is indicated by the VOICE of the verb. For example, when the external argument acts as the trigger, the verb appears in the ACTOR-TOPIC (AT) voice (1a); and when the trigger is an internal argument, the verb appears in the THEME-TOPIC (TT) voice (1b): (1) a.

Nihinana ny paoma ny zaza Pst.AT.eat Det apple Det child ‘The child ate the apple’

b.

Nohanin’ ny zaza ny paoma Pst.TT.eat Det child Det apple ‘The child ate the apple’

Pearson (2005a) proposes that the trigger merges in a high A’-position containing an EPP feature (specifier of TopP), and binds a null operator within the predicate phrase. The voice marking on the verb spells out the Case feature of this operator: AT morphology indicates that the operator has raised from the nominative Case position, while TT morphology indicates that it has raised from the accusative position (cf. Rackowski and Richards 2005, who analyze voice in Tagalog as Case agreement; see also Chung 1998 on wh-agreement in Chamorro). The operator bound by the trigger is mutually exclusive with the operator found in relative clauses, pseudo-clefts, etc., which captures the well-known restrictions on voice in A’-extraction contexts (see Keenan 1976, Paul 2000, among many others). Although this analysis explains why the trigger is interpreted as a topic and predicts voice restrictions in A’-extraction contexts, it fails to account for another, previously undiscussed factor affecting voice/trigger selection, namely the ASPECTUAL FOCUS of the clause. In certain contexts where both AT and TT voice are available—viz., transitive clauses with definite objects— selection of AT voice correlates with focus on the inception/activity component of the event, excluding the endpoint (an IMPERFECTIVE-like construal); while selection of TT voice correlates with focus on the entire event, including its endpoint (a PERFECTIVE-like construal). The contrast is especially evident when the clause includes a temporal modifier, such as a measure phrase or an embedded clause specifying a reference time (temporal frame) for the event in the higher clause. For instance, in the TT clause in (2a), the measure phrase nandritra ny adiny roa ‘lasted two hours’ specifies the duration of the painting event from beginning to end. However, in the AT counterpart of this clause (2b), the measure phrase is interpreted as quantifying a sub-interval of the painting event not including the endpoint. (2) a.

b.

Nolokoin’ ny vehivavy nandritra ny adiny roa ny rindrina Pst.TT.paint Det woman Pst.AT.last Det hour two Det wall ‘The woman painted the wall in two hours’ [it took her 2 hours to paint the wall] Nandoko ny rindrina nandritra ny adiny roa ny vehivavy Pst.AT.paint Det wall Pst.AT.last Det hour two Det woman ‘The woman painted the wall for two hours’ [but she didn’t necessarily finish it]

A similar aspectual contrast is shown in the examples below, containing a postposed ‘when’ clause. When the TT voice occurs in the matrix clause, it is understood that the harvesting event was completed before the rain began (3a). But when AT voice is used, it is understood that the rain began before the harvesting ended (3b). (3) a.

Nojinjain’ ilay mpamboly ny vary no avy ny orana Pst.TT.harvest that farmer Det rice when come Det rain ‘That farmer (had) harvested the rice when it began to rain’

b.

Nijinja ny vary ilay mpamboly no avy ny orana Pst.AT.harvest Det rice that farmer when come Det rain ‘That farmer was harvesting the rice when it began to rain’

I propose that this contrast can be explained in terms of the morphological composition of Malagasy verbs and its relationship to event structure. Verb stems in Malagasy consist of a non-verbal root plus a prefix (e.g., hira ‘song’ > i-hira ‘sing’; vaky ‘broken’ > an-vaky [amaky] ‘break’). Besides verbalizing the root, the prefix can also introduce an external argument. Following Pearson (2005b) (cf. also Travis 2010), I analyze these prefixes as realizations of the light verb head v. Interestingly, the v prefix is absent from the stem in TT forms. To account for this, I propose that in order for the operator bound by the trigger to move out of the vP phase, via the phase edge, the root must raise and undergo fusion with the v head, blocking post-syntactic insertion of the prefix (by assumption, fusion occurs only when there is extraction from vP, suggesting that fusion is a last-resort operation). When the root fuses with v, the event argument associated with the root, which I identify with the termination point of the event, conflates with the event argument introduced by v, which I identify with the inception/activity component. (Note that punctual events, which arguably have an endpoint only, are generally lexicalized as bare roots in Malagasy, as discussed by Travis 2010.) When event argument conflation takes place in TT clauses, a temporal modifier adjoined to vP will specify a time frame relative to the whole event, including the termination point. In AT clauses, where conflation does not take place, the temporal modifier will specify a time frame relative to the inception/activity component only. Besides presenting data from Malagasy, I briefly discuss other examples of Philippine-type voice systems where voice/trigger selection has been claimed to correlate with aspectual focus (e.g., Payne 1994 on Cebuano). I conclude with some broader typological observations, focusing on potential relationships between the Malagasy phenomenon and aspect-based ergativity splits (see Coon 2013 and references therein). References Chung, Sandra. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of Split Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keenan, Edward. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Subject and Topic, ed. C. Li. New York: Academic Press. Paul, Ileana. 2000. Malagasy Clause Structure. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University. Payne, Thomas. 1994. The pragmatics of voice in a Philippine language: Actor-focus and goalfocus in Cebuano narrative. Voice and Inversion, ed. T. Givón, pp. 317-364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pearson, Matt. 2005a. The Malagasy subject/trigger as an A’-element. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 381-457. Pearson, Matt. 2005b. Voice morphology, case, and argument structure in Malagasy. Proceedings of AFLA 11, ed. P. Law. Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565-599. Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.