Crossed control revisited; The structure and interpretations of “want” and so on + passive verb in Malay/Indonesian

Abstract

In Malay/Indonesian, when certain predicates such as "want" are followed by a passive verb, an ambiguity arises about who has the desire and other attitudes in question. The attitude-holder can be either the surface subject or the passive agent. This article critically assesses the data and claims presented in three recent studies (Mike Berger 2019; Paul Kroeger and Kristen Frazier 2020; Helen Jeoung 2020) through consideration of additional data. It shows that the ambiguity is empirically robust, contrary to the doubts expressed by Jeoung, and that the restructuring analysis advocated by the latter two studies has problems with its primary evidence: alternate voice marking realization. Instead, the article confirms the previous understanding of the construction, including a bi-clausal structure with a dyadic matrix predicate and the importance of voice marking. Methodologically, it demonstrates that linguistic evidence should come from multiple sources, that is, not from elicitation or texts alone but from both of these (and perhaps more).

Noncanonical Obligatory Control

“…This construction, first named ‘funny’ control in Gil (2002) and Nomoto (2008), has been christened as ‘crossed control’ (CC) in Polinsky and Potsdam (2008), and goes by this name ever since. CC has been described and analysed in Malay/Indonesian (Arka, 2012; Berger, 2019; Gil, 2002; Kroeger & Frazier, 2020; Nomoto, 2008, 2021; Polinsky & Potsdam, 2008; Sato, 2010), Sundanese (Kurniawan, 2013), Madurese (Davies, 2014) and Balinese (Natarina, 2018). Polinsky and Potsdam (2008) further cite CC examples in Javanese, Tagalog, Malagasy, Tukang Besi, Tongan and Samoan.…”

“…164, 165) on Balinese). Nomoto (2021) further observes that passive coba ‘try’ is very rare and passive mau ‘want’ and suka ‘like’ are unattested. More importantly, Nomoto claims that double passives like (49c) are not CC at all, as they allow the matrix and embedded agents to be distinct.…”

“…Nonetheless, empirical and theoretical questions remain. First, is ‘Passive‐under‐Passive’ a genuine option of realizing CC or is it a different construction altogether (as Nomoto (2021) maintains)? Second, how can we better distinguish between the lexical and the auxiliary variants of CC verbs, a matter that caused much confusion in the past?…”

What categorial ambiguity doesn't tell us about crossed control: Commentary on Jeoung 2020

“…10 Recall that Jeoung uses the gloss act 'active voice', whereas we use av 'actor voice'. Nomoto (2021) analyzes the bare verb with the order Agent > (Aux) > Verb > Patient as a separate subtype of the actor voice, resulting in four voice types. This is tangential to our paper, as neither the matrix nor embedded predicate can occur in actor voice within the context of crossed control.…”

“…See also Nomoto 2021 for an analysis of these constructions-with di-marked on both predicates-as a biclausal structure, not related to his analysis of crossed control. A third argument against reducing the crossed control reading to the auxiliary status comes from auxiliary fronting in polar questions in Malay (see also Nomoto 2021). As noted by Nomoto and Kartini (2012), when there are two (or more) auxiliaries, they must all front together.…”