Universität RegensburgWS 2013/14

Hauptseminar "Grammaticalization"bei Martine Bruil, M.A.

The Grammaticalization of Antipassives

Lukas DenkM.A. Allgemeine und vergleichende SprachwissenschaftMatrikelnummer: 1509398

Content

Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................... 2Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 31 Form.................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Definition................................................................................................................................... 31.2 Valence-Change and voice.........................................................................................................4

1.2.1 Antipassive and passives.................................................................................................... 51.2.2 Antipassive and deobjectives............................................................................................. 61.2.3 Morphological difference between valence changing and voice categories......................6

2 Distribution........................................................................................................................................62.1 Geographical Correlation...........................................................................................................72.2 Correlation with alignment........................................................................................................ 7

3 Function and functional correlates.................................................................................................... 83.1 Semantic/pragmatic function..................................................................................................... 93.2 Functional correlates................................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Aspectual correlation........................................................................................................103.2.2 Meaning shift....................................................................................................................113.2.3 Counterfactualness........................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Structural function................................................................................................................... 123.3.1. Feeding the pivot.............................................................................................................123.3.2 Relative clauses................................................................................................................13

4 Grammaticalization......................................................................................................................... 144.1 Sources ....................................................................................................................................14

4.1.1 Reflexives ........................................................................................................................144.1.2 Do/ make.......................................................................................................................... 174.1.3 Denominatives (Rgyalrong)............................................................................................. 18

4.2 Inner-antipassive grammaticalization: pragmaticalization and proper grammaticalization .. .194.3 Further development: split-alignment......................................................................................21

5 Summary: Grammaticalization map: diachronic and synchronic correlation of functions.............23References.......................................................................................................................................... 25

1

Abbreviations

1 first person2 second person3 third personA agentive; subject of the transitive clauseABS absolutive caseACC accusativeAP antipassiveBEN beneficiaryCAUS causativeCLI nominal class N°1COMPL completiveDAT dative caseDEOBJ deobjectiveDEF definiteERG ergative caseEVD evidentialFIN final vowelFOC focusFUT futureHUM humanINDEF indefiniteIMPERF imperfectiveINST intrumental caseINTERR interrogativeINTR intransitiveIO recipient; indirect objectLOC locativeNF non-futureNHUM non-humanNOM nominative caseNP nominal phraseO objective, patient; direct object of a transitive clauseOBL oblique casePASS passivePERF perfectivePL pluralPOSS possessivePRES presentPST pastPV preverbREFL reflexiveS single argument; subject of an intransitive clause.SG singularTAM tense/aspect/moodTOP topicTR transitiveV verbVTR transitive verbVINTR intransitive verb

2

IntroductionThe antipassive is a voice-construction which derives transitive sentences to propositional identical

intransitive ones, treating the actor as the single argument and omitting the undergoer of the action,

or expressing the undergoer by a peripheral construction.

The antipassive construction may have several functions: focussing the actor, backgrounding the

undergoer, aspectual function, lexical function and others.

The main aim of this paper is to present some grammaticalization paths of antipassives. In particu-

lar, I want to examine the genesis and development of antipassives, that means, the diachronic link

to other functions and categories.

By introducing the functions and functional correlates, I hope to contribute in the theory of gram-

maticalization paths for antipassives, since what is synchronically related, may be also diachroni-

cally "near".

In this paper, various examples of different languages are presented to hypothesize a general nature

and development of antipassives. Of course, I won't list all the phenomena around antipassive, but

should pick interesting clues to build a preliminary sketch. This sketch is a closed representation

within the boundaries of this paper, but can be seen as a starting point to add more links and path -

ways through future research.

1 Form

1.1 Definition

We shall begin with a wide-accepted, concrete, but strict definition of antipassives (Dixon 1994:

146)

(1) Antipassive(a) applies to an underlying transitive clause and forms a derived intransitive;(b) the underlying A NP becomes S of the antipassive;(c) the underlying O NP goes into a peripheral function, being marked by a noncore case, preposition, etc.; this

NP can be omitted, although there is always the option of including it;(d) there is some explicit formal marking of an antipassive construction (same preference and possibilities as

for passive).

Dixon's (1994) definition is based on the distinction of fundamental grammatical relations (A, S,

O). These relations are a generalization of semantic and syntactic criteria: S stands for the single ar-

gument in an intransitive clause (i.e. the single argument of an antipassive construction) and does

not reveal whether the argument is an actor or an undergoer of the event; A (agentive, agent) and O

3

(objective, patient) are restricted to transitive clauses and are connected to semantics, since A stands

for the actor of the event and O for the undergoer. Syntactically, S is the intransitive subject, A the

transitive subject and O the transitive object of the clause.

The derivation of a transitive clause to an intransitive clause is made through antipassivation

(Dixon cf. 1972:130). However, the proposition of the sentence remains the same:

(2) balan dyugumbil banggul yaranggu balgan.there.ABS woman.ABS there.ERG man.ERG hit.PRES/PSTO (ABS) A(ERG) VTR‘Man hit woman.’1

(3) bagun dyugumbilgu bayi yara balgalnganyu.there.DAT woman.DAT there.ABS man.ABS hit.AP.PRES/PSTO (OBL) A (ABS) VINTR‘Man hit woman.’

If we want to paraphrase the operation in english, we have to search a translation, where the derived

object is followed by a preposition: The man hit at the woman. Nevertheless, this english sentence

can't be seen as an antipassive construction, since it lacks an antipassive morpheme which would in -

transitivize the clause.

1.2 Valence-Change and voice

The antipassive construction is seen as a construction of the category 'voice' (Haspelmath 2004) 'va-

lence-affecting operation' or 'voice system' (last both Nichols 1992). Whereas Nichols (1992) puts

antipassive and passive together with causative and applicative into one category (valence-affecting

operation), Haspelmath (2004:1146) distinguishes voice (passive and antipassive) and va-

lence-changing categories (causative, anticausative, deobjective, applicative). While the voice cate-

gories only "present the event expressed by the verb in a different perspective" (loc. cit.), va-

lence-changing morphemes derive new clauses by adding or removing a particular argument and

thus have a greater impact on the valence of the verb. We can therefore categorize the antipassive as

well as other valence-affecting categories referring to A, O by adding, removing, backgrounding

and merging(correference) properties:

1 I'm very sorry for this example!

4

Table 1: Operations affecting valence of (in)transitive clausesA O

adding CAUSATIVE APPLICATIVE

backgrounding PASSIVE ANTIPASSIVE

removing ANTICAUSATIVE DEOBJECTIVE

merging REFLEXIVE

Describing the antipassive merely by Table 1, the main operation done to transitive clauses through

antipassivation would be "backgrounding of the O".

1.2.1 Antipassive and passives

Passives and antipassives are in their categorical and syntactical sense the same; they both belong to

the category of backgrounding-operations and the formal/syntactic result is the same in both: they

are intransitive derivations from transitive clauses and the remaining argument functions as S,

whereas the backgrounded/ demoted argument is treated as a peripheral phrase.

In the semantic sense, the term 'anti-passive' points to a concept opposed to the passive. The S of a

passive construction denotes an undergoer (O) and the peripheral argument denotes an actor (A),

whereas the S of an antipassive construction denotes an actor (A) and the peripheral argument de-

notes an undergoer (O). This functional symmetry is also maintained in the definition in Dixon

(1994: 146), where all the qualities which define the antipassive also define the passive by merely

interchanging the A and O function (compare examples 1 and 4):

(4) Passive (a) applies to an underlying transitive clause and forms a derived intransitive;(b) the underlying O NP becomes S of the passive;(c) the underlying A NP goes into a peripheral function, being marked by a noncore case, preposition, etc.; this

NP can be omitted, although there is always the option of including it;(d) there is some explicit formal marking of a passive construction (generally, by a verbal affix or else by a pe -

riphrastic element in the verb phrase – such as English be...-en – although it could be marked elsehwere in the clause)

With the further analyzing of the form and function of antipassives I will include some comments

about whether the relation of antipassive and passive construction is balanced, or if there are some

asymmetries regarding the distribution, usage, functional correlates and especially their diachronic

evolution.

5

1.2.2 Antipassive and deobjectives

Another construction close to antipassive are the so-called deobjectives. The deobjective is a (mor-

phological) device which causes the deletion of the O:

(5) Ainu (Haspelmath 2004:1133) a) sake a-ku.

sake 1SG.TR-drink ‘I drink sake.’

b) I-ku-an.DEOBJ-drink-1SG.INTR ‘I drink.’

In contrast to the antipassive, direct objects cannot be paraphrased by a peripheral construction

(prepositional phrase). The deobjective construction can be also called "absolutive antipassive"

(Haspelmath 2005:1133). In this paper, I will handle the deobjective as a sort of antipassive, be-

cause we are dealing with a broad topic about functional correlations and diachronic pathways of

antipassives, and the functional motivation between these two terms seems to be quite near.

1.2.3 Morphological difference between valence changing and voice categories

Deobjectives, like other valence-changing categories, are often expressed by derivational morphol-

ogy (and are nearer to the verbal stem), antipassives and the passives can be closer to the inflec-

tional domain of the verb (and therefore farther from its stem) (cf. Haspelmath 2004:1146). This re-

lation is iconic to the thought, that valence-changing categories influence more the meaning of the

verb than voice categories, which only change the perspective of an event and do not affect its

proposition. This can be shown by an example of Swahili, where causative (valence-change) and

passive (voice) appear conjoined in a single clause:

(6) Swahili (cf. Vitale 1981:165) Mke wake a-li-pik-ish-w-a uji na Sudiwife his she-PST-cook-CAUS-PASS-FIN gruel by Sudi'his wife was made to cook gruel by Sudi’

Here, the causative morpheme (valence change) is nearer to the stem than the passive one.

2 DistributionAmong causatives, applicatives and passives, antipassives are the least distributed valence-affecting

category2. Table 2 shows valence-affecting categories /voice systems found in 174 languages of the

2 Nichols does not distinguish between voice and valence-change, so antipassive and deobjectives may be subsumed

6

world (Nichols 1992).

Table 2: Distribution of valence-affecting categories (cf. Nichols 1994:155)-A(passive) +A(causative) -O(antipassive) +O(applicative)

Languages (max. 174) 79 111 24 45

2.1 Geographical Correlation

A map from WALS (Image 1) shows the geographical distribution of antipassive constructions.

Image 1: Geographical distribution of antipassive constructions (Polinsky: 2013)

Geographical distribution of Antipassives.

Antipassives are frequent in Australia, North-America and the Caucasus, but the generalization is

quite imprecise. If we want to find a correlate for the construction, geographical parameters (like a

linguistic area) turn out to be less prolific.

2.2 Correlation with alignment

We may get a better understanding of the distribution of antipassive constructions when we relate

them to morphosyntactic alignment. The correlation between antipassives and ergative alignment

could be deduced easily: If an accusative language uses a passive construction to treat the O

(marked argument) as S (unmarked argument), then it seems plausible to think that ergative lan-

under the same category '-O'.

7

guages should have a device to treat the A (marked argument) as S (unmarked argument).

Cooreman (1994:50) states: "The antipassive is a construction typical for ergative languages and oc-

curs along with ergative constructions as a morphosyntactic alternative for the same transitive

proposition."

Her "functional typology of antipassives" (Cooremann 1994) is indeed based solely on ergative lan-

guages (19 in all) although she admits that "de-transitivized constructions from accusative lan-

guages (...) have also been characterized as antipassives by other scholars (Givón 1984; Health

1976; and Postal 1997)" (Cooremann 1994:82).

Nichols (1994) calculated statistically this question. She admits that the most strong correlation of

voice is with alignment, but she discovers that the antipassive construction is more related to object-

centring systems (such as agreement morphemes on the verb) than with alignment (Nichols

1994:154):

"Generalizing over these patterns, we can state that antipassives are associated with languages in which the O is central to clause morphosyntax: ergative languages, where the O takes the unmarked case, and those accu -sative languages, in which there is agreement with the direct object (=O). It is thus observationally true, as traditionally maintained, that the antipassive is associated with ergativity; but the causal factor is evidently not the ergative alignment per se but the special structural status of the O which is basic to ergativity".

Although passive-constructions seem to be rare in ergative languages (cf. Nichols 1994:153) such

as antipassives in accusative languages, the main connection between voice and other structural

phenomena has to be found in the particular treatment of A and O.

3 Function and functional correlates

In the last two sections we have dealt with how an antipassive construction is built up, how it is for -

mally derived (example 1) and which structural correlates can be pointed out statistically (section

2). This section deals with the functional justification for the construction; the antipassive's function

will be referred to pragmatic, semantic or syntactic motivations.

Furthermore we will look at how many functions can be expressed in one language by an antipas-

sive construction. It is important to consider these functional correlates in order to make assump-

tions about the diachronic development of antipassives. The relation between synchronic functions

and grammaticalization paths will be clarified in section 4.

I will categorize the functions based on Cooreman (1994) into semantic/pragmatic and structural

function.

8

3.1 Semantic/pragmatic function

The antipassive function can be seen as a sum of other functions. In its pure pragmatical use, the

proposition (semantic content) of an active clause should not be changed by its antipassive deriva-

tion. Then, the antipassive construction is used to foreground the actor of the event and to back-

ground the undergoer. However, Cooreman (1994) notes that every antipassive operation also goes

along with a semantic change on the content. She subsumes her observations in a semantic/prag-

matic definition of antipassives (Cooreman 1994:51):

"The antipassive which is used for semantic/pragmatic reasons is best described as indicating a certain degree of difficulty with which an effect stemming from an activity by A on an identifiable O can be recognized."

Based on this "certain degree of difficulty" between the A and the O, antipassive constructions

cover both pragmatic and semantic functions. As an example for pragmatic motivations, the antipas -

sive serves to focus the A of the proposition. This 'focus-antipassive' is found in Mayan languages

and even functions when A is questioned3:

(7) K'iche' (cf. Dürr 1987:183)Balam mi x-Ø-ti-ou-icJaguar just COMPL-3SG(S)-eat-AP.FOC-INTR'The Jaguar has just eaten (it).'

(8) K'iche' (cf. Larsen 1987:43)Jachin x-Ø-paq'-ow ri sii?INTERR(who) COMPL-3SG.S-chop-AP.FOC the firewood'Who has chopped the firewood?'

Close to the focussing function of the A is also the non-specificity of the O. As Cooreman (1994:

52) states, the antipassive is used when the O is more or less unidentifiable. In Mam, another Mayan

language, "the O must be unknown, implied, or non-specific and may not be explicitly referred to in

the clause". A similar case holds for Bezti. In the antipassive construction, the O is often absent, but

overtly, it can only be expressed in the plural instrumental, and has to be non-specific (cf. Coore-

man 1994: 53):

(9) Bezti (North-East Caucasian)a) ist'i Xori usocʰa

brother.ERG sheep.SG cut'Brother cuts the sheep.'

b) is Xorilarad uxolacʰabrother.ABS sheep.PL.INST cut.AP'Brother occupies himself cutting up sheep.'

3 In (7), the O is omitted, and in (8) it appears as an unmodified nominal phrase. This antipassive construction would then not be prototypical according to Dixon (1), as the O is not expressed by peripheral constructions (preposition, oblique case marking).

9

c) *is Xorid usolacʰabrother.ABS sheep.SG.INTR cut.AP'Brother occupies himself cutting up a sheep.'

Cooreman (1994:56) explains why the antipassive and deobjective are very closed within the prag-

matic/semantic function:

"When an O is indefinite, non-specific, generic, or even non-referential, its identity is of relatively low im -portance to the discourse, and hence the O is easily deleted."

3.2 Functional correlates

The main pragmatic/semantic function can have also functional correlates, because the antipassive

construction influences other grammatical domains or lexical meaning.

3.2.1 Aspectual correlation

In several languages, the antipassive not only helps to express foregrounding/backgrounding rela-

tions, but also distinguishes aspects. Cross-linguistically, the antipassive is often used to indicate

some imperfective action, and language specifically, this imperfective function is understood in sev-

eral ways: iterative, distributive, habitual, progressive, continuative, durative. Cooreman (cf.

1994:69) notices, that 11 of 19 languages of her sample have an antipassive with imperfective read-

ing. A good example is Chamorro, where the antipassive describes the event as iterative or distribu-

tive:

(10) Chamorro (Austronesian) (Cooreman 1994:57)Mang-galuti que' ni ga'lago.AP-hit ABS.3SG OBL dog'He pounded on/repeatedly hit the dog.'

Cooreman (1994:69) explains that the strong correlation between antipassive and imperfective has

to do with the low identifiability of the O, since

"in events which have no discernable point of beginning or end, the focus of attention tends to be more on the process, or the activity itself as described by the verb, rather than on its effect on the O, or even on the iden-tity of the O. Since it is the activity itself which is more important, the identification of the O is marginal for the purpose of the discourse and is relegated to the background."

In my opinion, focussing the A has a lot to do with focussing the action, since in the imperfective, in

the 'unaccomplished' action, the A, as the bearer or the initiator of the event, is the only or first ac-

tant to refer to.

10

We can compare the closeness between antipassives and imperfective aspect to the closeness be-

tween passives and perfective aspect. An example could give us Latin. The voice category of par-

ticiples is bound to that of aspect/tense. There is either the 'perfect passive participle' or the 'imper-

fective active participle', but no 'perfect active participle' and no 'imperfective passive participle'.

Table 3: Latin participlesimperfective perfective

active laudans 'praising' --- 'having praised'

passive --- 'being praised' laudatus 'been praised'

We could explain this by applying analogy to the other explanation: the view of an event as "perfec-

tive" could be connected to the result of the action, and the affected argument (O) is nearer to the re -

sult (in time and space) than the A. Diachronic evidence for shifts between voice and aspect (section

4) will reinforce this hypothesis.

3.2.2 Meaning shift

In K'iche', the antipassive morpheme can be used in order to derive a new lexical meaning for the

verb: 'to drop' shifts to 'to abort', 'to wash' can shift to 'to wash clothes' or 'to menstruate' and 'to hit'

becomes 'to fight' (cf. Cooreman 1994:58). Those shifts go along with an imperfective connotation

of the event (cf. loc. cit.).

3.2.3 Counterfactualness

The functional domain of the antipassive in Yukulta is quite differentiated:

(11) Functions of the Antipassive in Yukulta (Pama-Nyungan) (Cooreman 1994:62)a. negating a non-past event (i.e. present or future),b. expressing irrealis desideratives, andc. negating desideratives.

Cooreman (cf. loc. cit) speaks about 'counterfactualness' as the motivation for the several functions

covered by the antipassive in Yukulta. The link between counterfactualness and the main

pragmatic/semantic function of antipassives lies in the "reduction in realization potential" (cf.

Cooreman 1994:63). So by negating a non-past event, there is possibility for it to happen in later

time. The same holds for the 'personal desire' of the speaker expressed by the 'irrealis desideratives',

11

where the accomplishment of the event is less foregrounded than the wish of the event to take place.

When we connect the 'reduction in realization potential" with the aspectual connotations posed in

3.2.1, we might build a chain reaching to one core function of the antipassive, namely to mark the

unidentifiability of the O. The 'reduction in realization potential' implies that the event is not seen as

accomplished but understood as more "imperfective", and imperfective events are less O-centered

than perfective events.

3.3 Structural function

Antipassive constructions may not be directly motivated by pragmatic or semantic intentions of the

speaker. The 'structural antipassive' is a construction required in the presence of other grammatical

phenomena, making its implementation easy to describe. I want to refer to two phenomena which

demand the use of antipassives, namely the one to feed a syntactic pivot (in terms of refer-

ence-tracking) and another one to build relative clauses.

3.3.1. Feeding the pivot

There are many constructions which serve to maintain one referent as the main referent (topic) of

the discourse. Languages can build up this function by coreference marking, like gender or person

agreement. When two clauses are conjoined in English, and both contain one participant with the

same reference, we can express the coreference by substituting one referent by a pronoun or zero

anaphora. However, this rule applies not only if the participants in both clauses are correferential,

but only if their grammatical function is either A or S.

(12) Oscar hit Bill and Ø(/he) went away. A V O S V= Oscar hit Bill and OSCAR went away*Oscar hit Bill and BILL went away.

In (12), we have a transitive clause conjoined with an intransitive clause. That the omitted S in the

intransitive clause is correferent with Oscar and not with Bill is due to the 'syntactic pivot' A/S (Fo-

ley and Van Valin 1984), which allows A to be correferent only with A or S in complex sentences.

The syntactic pivot is build up from those grammatical relations which are treated the same. In Eng-

lish, the syntactic pivot is S and A, since those functions are treated the same (syntactically preced-

ing the verb) and O is treated otherwise (syntactically: following the verb).

If, however, we want to clarify that the omitted/pronominal S-Element is not correferential with the

A of the former clause, but with O, then English has to apply a passive construction:

12

(13) Bill was hit by Oscar and Ø(/he) went away. O(S) V A(Periphery) S V*Oscar hit Bill and OSCAR went away= Oscar hit Bill and BILL went away.

In (13), the O is treated as an S to "feed" the pivot – correference is therefore only allowed through

syntactic pivots.

The same holds even for some languages whose syntax patterns ergatively, i.e., where the syntactic

pivot is S/O. Here, an antipassive construction is needed to feed the pivot in favor of refer-

ence-tracking.

(14) Yidiny (Pama Nyungan; cf. Dixon 1977:279)a) yinjdju:ŋ bama-:l mayi djula:l

these-ERG person-ERG vegetables.ABS dig up'These people dug up vegetables'

b) ŋayu yiŋu bama bandji:li-nju1sg.NOM these.O people.ABS find.PST'I (went and) found these people'

c) ŋayu yiŋu bama bandji:li-nju mayi-: djula-:dji-nju:n1sgNOM these.O people.ABS find-PAST veg-LOC dig.up-AP-PAST'I (went and) found these people digging up vegetables.'

Since in (14c), the omitted correferent 'people' is in A function and hence not part of the syntactic

pivot S/O, the antipassive construction changes the participant from function A to S in order to

make it correferential with O. In this sense, the structural antipassive in syntactic ergative languages

(i.e. with pivot S/O) is merely the mirror-technique to the passive we use in a syntactic accusative

language like English.

3.3.2 Relative clauses

A structural phenomenon which only holds for ergative languages is the use of the antipassive to

modify the A by an antipassive construction. In contrast, the analogical restriction, where the O has

to be relativized by a passive construction, hasn't been observed in accusative languages. We can

see an example from K'iche', where the antipassive is compulsory for the relativization of A:

(15) K'iche' (Pye 1989:3)k-Ø-in-ch'ob' ri: ixoq [(ri) x-Ø-k'am-ow b'i ri: si:']IMPERF-3.O-1.A-know the woman that PERF-3.S-carry-FOC.AP here the firewood 'I know the woman who brought the firewood.'

13

The reason why relativized As have to be antipassivized in ergative languages but relativized Os are

not passivized in accusative languages can be explained by the 'Absolutive Hypothesis (Fox 1987,

cf. Cooreman 1994:80 f.): Relative clauses are normally restricted to the S/O pivot, but as the accu-

sative languages have in addition the S/A pivot, the unmarked A is easy to relativize. In ergative

languages, the syntactic pivot S/O coincides with the natural S/O pivot to build up relative clauses,

and the marked A stands alone as an over-marked referent, which is less accessible for relativizing.

The antipassive construction allows the A to behave like S in order to maintain the syntactic pivot

S/O which is the accessible pivot for relative clauses.

4 Grammaticalization

We finally come to our main question: How can antipassive constructions come into being, which

lexical items are often used especially to form antipassive meaning, what is the further develop-

ment?

With describing the domain in which antipassives can be used, we have already shown which func-

tions correlate with the prototypical antipassive function. The idea is that the already described syn-

chronic functional scope can represent possible pathways of change. Especially the relation between

the pragmatic/semantic and the structural antipassive is even a diachronic one. In this section, I will

not present all the possible sources which have established antipassives, but concentrate at few ones

in order to focus on the further development of antipassives and the diachronic differentiation of

their functions.

4.1 Sources

4.1.1 Reflexives

The reflexive voice has been claimed to be one of the most frequent sources for the antipassive. In

many languages of Australia we find homophonous morphological marking for antipassives and re-

flexives (cf. Terill 1997:71). Consider following sentences:

(16) Yidiny (Pama-Nyungan; Terill 1997:83)ŋayu bambi-:dji-nju1sg.S/A cover-REFL-PST'I covered myself' OR 'I covered [someone/thing]'

(17) Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan; Terill 1997:84)

14

bayi djaŋgayma-rri-njuCLI.NOM eat-REFL-NFUT'he eats [someone/thing]' OR 'he eats himself'(Dixon 1972:90)

Although there are no historical documents which could prove the pathway from reflexive to an-

tipassive, Terill (1997:84) argues that the hypothesis, that the reflexive could have "developed from

out of a chronologically and functionally prior antipassive" is "less plausible", because

"the reflexive construction is extremely widespread in Australia, while the antipassive is not. Furthermore, there are no languages with an antipassive marked by verbal morphology which do not also have a reflexive marked by verbal morphology."

The theory behind the development is that first, in the prototypical reflexive, A and O are correfer-

ential. That causes the clause to be reanalyzed not more as a transitive clause, but as an intransitive,

exhibiting only one argument because there is only one referent. Once intransitivized, the speaker

can chose whether the S takes the semantics of the A or the O. We deduce, that if the S is A-cen-

tered, we could obtain a construction similar to the deobjective, with the former reflexive mor-

pheme (which has been correferential with O and A) representing hence the deobjective morpheme.

Up to then, the clause is understood as an event which has got an initiator or bearer, but no result or

affected participant. Therefore, a new O can be introduced, but the intransitive structure of the verb

does not allow this O to be treated like a core argument, the direct object, but instead to be ex-

pressed by a peripheral construction (preposition, oblique case). The former intransitive deobjective

morpheme is then reanalyzed as an antipassive morpheme.

The disambiguation of reflexive, deobjective and antipassive understanding is still productive in

Yidiny (16) and Dyirbal (17). The speaker may add "-di (Yidiny) or -djilu (Dyirbal) to the subject

for a reflexive reading, or (...) an oblique object in either language for an antipassive reading" (Terill

1997: 84).

Terrill visualizes the function change of the morphology X, whose formal shape remains untouched:

15

(18) proposed pathway of change from reflexive to antipassive (Terill 1997:83)

construction A===> morphology - X

construction A construction A/B function-reflexivemorphology -X ===> morphology -Xfunction- reflexive functions- reflexive

- antipassiveconstruction B

===> morphology- Xfunction- antipassive

Terrill (1997:84) explains the coexistence of new and older functions by reasoning that "the new

construction has a separate function from the source function, and therefore the new construction

does not threaten the existence of the old construction."

A reflexive source for an antipassive/ deobjective construction is also found in Slavic languages,

and also in Lithuanian:

(19) Lithuanian (Haspelmath 1994:1133; cf. Klimas)

(a) Berniuk-as musa vaik-us. boy-NOM.SG beat(3SG) child-ACC.PL ‘The boy beats children.’

(b) Berniuk-as musa-si.boy-NOM.SG beat(3SG)-DEOBJ ‘The boy fights (is pugnacious).’

(b) jie prausia; jie prausi-a-sithey wash(3PL) they wash(3PL)-REFL'They wash.' 'They wash themselves.'

Reflexive sources are not only develop into antipassive constructions, but can, in contrast, just as

well become passives. Spanish is a language, where the reflexive se4 expanded its function to form

passives:

(20) Spanish

(a) Se lava. REFL.3SG wash.3SG ‘S/he washes him/herself.' 'it is being washed.'

(a) Se buscan cocineros. REFL.3SG search.3SG cooks ‘Cooks (are) wanted.'

The motivation for reanalyzing the reflexive as a passive is situated by the same base as I have de-

4 Genetically related to si in Lithuanian, Latin se, Indo-European *-s(w)e. However, the Lithuanian suffix -si does not agree in Person like the Spanish reflexive pronouns/clitics (me, te, se).

16

ducted for antipassives: Once the clause is understood as intransitive, the single argument has to

take a semantic role: in the case of the passive it is the S with the semantics of O (In the antipassive

it is the S with the semantics of A).

4.1.2 Do/ make

Although Soninke and Mandinka (Mande) are accusative languages, we find there antipassive con-

structions. In Creissels (2012:1) we find evidence for an antipassive derivation from the lexical

words do and make. For the first, we see that the suffix ndì (low tone) is used as an antipassive suf-

fix5 in Soninke:

(21) Soninke (Mande; Creissels 2012:7)a) Sòró-n dà yìllê-n pátá.

people.PL-DEF TR millet-DEF cut‘The people harvested the millet.’

b) Sòrô-n pátá-ndì. people.PL-DEF cut-AP‘The people harvested (the crops).’

In (22), we find a quite similar suffix ndí (high tone) which marks the causative:

(22) Soninke (Mande, Creissels 2012:8)a) Yíttè-n qénú.

tree-DEF fall‘The tree fell down.’

b) Hànké-n dà yíttè-n qénú-ndí. wind-DEF TR tree-DEF fall-CAUS‘The wind felled the tree.’

The source of this suffix which covers two very different functions can be traced back to the lexical

verb do/make, as Creissels (2012:17) proposes:

[A] Proto-West-Mande root *tin ‘do’ can be reconstructed, and the hypothesis I would like to propose here is that the antipassive suffixes -ndì (Soninke) and -rí (Mandinka) and the causative suffixes -ndí (Mandinka, Soninke) and -ní (Bozo) result from the grammaticalization of *tin ‘do’ in causative and antipassive pe-riphrases.

Following the reconstruction, one can imagine an antipassive periphrases with 'do' in example

(21b): 'The people did the cutting'. At once, the connection between the antipassive (deobjective)

and the causative turns out to be very close, formally distinguished by the omitting/ adding the O.

5 The antipassive construction presented in 21b is understood as a deobjective construction in Haspelmaths (2004) terms. Jacques (2014:10) says that "the patient cannot be reintroduced with oblique case in Japhug antipassive constructions, except for some ditransitive verbs ".

17

4.1.3 Denominatives (Rgyalrong)

A recent study (Jacques, 2014) discovers the pathway from denominatives (derivations from nouns

to verbs) to antipassives. Japhug Ryalrong (Sino-Tibetan) has two kind of antipassives: the one re-

ferring to a (deleted) human entity (sɤ) and the other to a (deleted) non-human (rɤ):

Jacques 2014: 1-22

(23) Rgyalrong (Sino-Tibetan) Jacques (2014:10)a) Active voice

tɤ-tɕɯ nɯ kɯ xsɤr qaɕpa nɯ cʰɤ-mqlaʁINDEF.POSS-boy TOP ERG gold frog TOP EVD-swallow'The boy swallowed the golden frog'

b) Antipassive voice (human O)kɤ-sɤ-sat pjɤɲoINF-AP.HUM-kill EVD-experience'He has killed [a man] before.'

c) Antipassive voice (non-human O) tɤ-rʑaβ nɯ pjɤ-rɤ-ɕpʰɤt INDEF.POSS-wife TOP EVD.IMPF-AP.NHUM-mend The wife was mending (clothes).'

In contrast, we have the same morphemes to derive verbs from nouns (denominatives):

(24) Rgyalrong (Sino-Tibetan) Jacques (cf. 2014:15-16)a) -ŋgɯm ==> rɤ-ŋgɯm

egg lay an egg

b) (tɤ)-pjɤz ==> rɤ-pjɤz(POSS)-plait to plait

c) -rmi ==> sɤ-rminame give a name

d) (tɤ)-mbrɯ ==> sɤ-mbrɯ(POSS)-anger to be angry

We notice, that the denominal derivation is quite inconsistent: first, the correlation between sɤ- and

rɤ- with the properties [±human] is not visible. In addition, we cannot say whether the denominal

derivation creates transitive (24a-c) or intransitive (24d) verbs. Regarding the historical link be-

tween the denominals and antipassive prefixes, Jacques (cf. 2014:20) proposes the following stages.

The bare lexical root can be attached to possessive like tɤ- in (24b, d) to form nouns. The denominal

suffix, indeed, converts the lexical meaning into a "property stative verb". For instance, the lexical

item -sat 'kill(ing)' can be derived to sɤ-sat 'to have a propensity to kill, to have killing power.' From

this stage on, we have a verb, which can be further "reanalyzed as an action verb due to some am-

biguous contexts" as 'to kill people'. Rather of speaking about an implicit object which refers to

18

'people', we have to see the sɤ- prefix not as an agreement prefix, but a verbalizer which denotes

that the action carried out by the single argument (S) in the clause is restricted to human entities.

The denominal prefix rɤ-, indeed, is mostly attached to transitive actions, like ɕpʰɤt 'mending', mak-

ing them intransitive rɤ-ɕpʰɤt ‘to patch (clothes)’. The connotation of the deleted O's property [±hu-

man] arose from the original function of the denominal prefixes: the derivation rɤ-/rɯ- denoted

something like 'production/action' and sɤ- 'property of the verb base noun to which humans can be

susceptible' (cf. Jacques 2014:20).

This development caused the two functions (denominative/antipassive) to adapt a slightly different

form/behavior; for instance, the antipassive and denominative suffixes have their own position in

the verbal template. "Antipassive prefixes occur after the causative prefix, but before the tropative

and denominal prefixes", which are closer to the stem (cf. Jacques 2014:13).

That means, whereas the antipassive prefix solidified two functions (human/non-human), the de-

nominational prefix remained bearing a less consistent derivational meaning (See examples in 24).

4.2 Inner-antipassive grammaticalization: pragmaticalization and proper grammaticalization

In section 3 we have already seen the functional relation between the so called 'pragmatic/semantic'

antipassive and the 'structural' antipassive. In this section, the diachronic relation should be enlight-

ened and labeled 'inner-antipassive grammaticalization'.

If we try to look at the sources for the 'pragmatic/semantic' antipassive, we are looking at how lin-

guistic material changes its former meaning and structure in order to create new constructions with

pragmatic/semantical function. In this sense, the term "grammaticalization" would sound mislead-

ing, as the new function is rather a pragmatical device than a grammatical, especially if this new

pragmatic device has arose by lessening the former grammatical function (compare the grammatical

morpheme 'reflexive' becoming a pragmatically used antipassive morpheme).

For Diewald (2008:384), there is no problem with subsuming the phenomenon of 'pragmaticaliza-

tion'6 under the general domain 'grammaticalization':

"The need to introduce the term pragmaticalization has been shown to be the outcome of an attempt to preserve the domains of "grammar" and "pragmatics" as clearly distinct domains. It has been argued that a more comprehensive notion of "grammar", which encompasses "pragmatic" functions, makes the latter term dispensable, or – if one

6 In Diewald 2008, the notion 'pragmaticalization' is applied to explain the diachronic development of several modal particles in German like aber, eben, ruhig into discourse markers.

19

prefers to keep it – restricts it to naming a specification of the superordinate process of grammaticalization"

To distinct the several instances of pragmaticalization and to keep the term apart from grammatical-

ization should not be the aim of this paper. Rather, I will use these terms to describe the rising of the

pragmatic/semantic antipassive (more pragmatically motivated) and its diachronic transition into the

structural antipassive (properly grammatically motivated).

The status of the antipassive in several Australian languages (described in 3.3.1 and 4.1.1) could

give us evidence for this pragmatical-into-grammatical pathway.

As exemplified in 4.1.1, the reflexive morpheme is also used in an antipassive construction making

it an antipassive morpheme. Terrill has given us an understandable explanation for why the change

happened from reflexive to passive. Analogically to the explanation for the direction of grammati-

calization from reflexives to antipassives, Terrill (cf. 1997:81 f.) argues, that the structural antipas-

sive function (the pivot-feeding function, compare 4.1.1) has evolved from the pragmatic function

and not the other way round, because there are many Australian languages with semantic/pragmatic

antipassives unaccompanied by structural antipassives.

But in addition, she has a more elaborated hypothesis for this development. In order to do so, the re-

flexive construction, the pragmatic antipassive and the syntactic antipassive are listed successively

with their respective functions, the prototypical one(s) in bold. The functions "defocussed object,

less agentive subject, semantic intransitivity" are found in the reflexive and the pragmatic antipas-

sive, but to the reflexive they are peripheral, whereas it is the main function for the pragmatic an-

tipassive. The pragmatic antipassive has lost the function 'A is coreferential to O', but gained an-

other peripheral functions/constructions 'A now an S, the single argument in the clause, and the O

has to be expressed as an oblique case'. This latter function, in turn, has become the main function

to the next stage, the syntactic antipassive, which has also gained the 'clause coordination on S/O

pivot' as an additional discourse function.

(25) Development of pragmatic and syntactic antipassive. (Terrill 1997:86)

Reflexive Pragmatic Antipassive Syntactic AntipassiveA= Odefocussed object ==> defocussed objectless agentive subject less agentive subjectsemantic intransitivity semantic intransitivity

A=>S ==> A=>SO=>obl O=>obl

clause coordination on S/O pivot

20

Thus, the figure in (25) not only represents in which constructions the reflexive/antipassive mor-

pheme is used and what its functions are, but also clarifies how those functions and applications

have evolved diachronically.

It is necessary to emphasize that the morpheme has remained the same, but the construction not, be-

cause in the structural antipassive the O has to be mentioned (in the oblique case), whereas in the

pragmatic/semantic antipassive it can be either expressed or omitted.

We can now understand the historical connection between reflexives and antipassives, and gained a

look at the inner-antipassive grammaticalization, but what we have also gained is the idea that

grammaticalization is not only restricted to the process from "lexical forms to grammatical forms"

or "from grammatical forms to even more grammatical form" (Heine&Kuteva 2002:2), but that a

grammatical construction (A=O) may gain pragmatic function (defocussed object, less agentive

subject, semantic intransitivity), pragmatical function then changes again to structural function

(A=>S, O=>obl) and that this structural function can be applied again to pragmatic functions like

reference-tracking (clause coordination on S/O pivot).

4.3 Further development: split-alignment

In order to accomplish the development, this section shows to what grammatical form an antipas-

sive may evolve. I choose the example of (Old) Georgian (Kartvelian), to illustrate how the antipas-

sive clause expanded its function to act as an active clause. This functional shift brought new

changes to the grammatical structure, causing the split-alignment system.

Georgian shows an accusative pattern in the imperfective aspect and an ergative one in the imper-

fective:

Table 4: case pattern in (Old) Georgian (cf. Schulze 2010:48)

IMPERFECTIVE PERFECTIVE

A ABS/NOM ERG

S ABS/NOM ABS

O DAT ABS

IO DAT DAT

21

Consider following examples:

(26) Old Georgian (Kartvelian) (Schulze 2010:47 f.)a) k'ac-i mšier-sa mi-s-c-em-s p'ur-s

Mann-NOM/ABS hungry-DAT PV-3SG:IO-give-IMPERF-3SG:A bread-DAT 'The man gives bread to the hungry one.'

b) k'ac-man mšier-sa mi-s-c-Ø-a p'ur-iMann-ERG hungry-DAT PV-3SG:IO-give-PERF-3SG:A bread-ABS'The man gave bread to the hungry one.'

We notice: while the second sentence (26b) assigns a case to each grammatical function (ergative,

dative, absolutive), the first sentence (26a) shows a formal syncretism regarding O and IO (indirect

object). In addition, we find more morphological material on the former verb (miscems vs. misca).

Hewitt (1995) glosses it as a 'thematic suffix'; we will call it imperfective, in order to connect

quickly the synchronic and diachronic view of this morpheme. When this suffix isn't followed by

other tense/mood/aspect suffixes, then the reading of the action is 'present'. If it is absent – that

means, the zero-marked perfective is present, and no other TAM suffixes follow, then the reading is

'(narrative) perfective past.' Otherwise, the suffix -eb can be understood as an imperfective mor-

pheme:

(27) Georgian (Kartvelian) (cf. Hewitt 1995: 126)Kal-s švil-i tan e-q'ol-eb-awoman-DAT child-NOM along 3s.BEN-have-IMPERF-3s.S.FUT'The woman will have her child with her.' (for a while)

Schulze (2010) hypothesizes that the imperfective marker -eb was once an antipassive marker

which served to detransitivize the clause. Therefore, the active construction in (26a) is equal to a

former antipassive construction, where the verb had the antipassive marker, the A was not more in

the ergative case but had changed to S function, and the O was marked by an oblique case, the da-

tive, like the indirect object (recipient). The comparison of other Kartvelian languages allowed

scholars to reconstruct this 'stem formation element as *(w)ew (cf. loc. cit). The pragmatic (cogni-

tive) motivation behind the function shift antipassive > imperfective and ergative (active) > perfec-

tive could be explained in terms of the close correlation between the imperfective and antipassive

function related to in section 3.2.1.

During the process, the morpheme *(w)ew lost its antipassive function as it filled a gap to mark the

imperfective aspect, leaving the unmarked active verbal form (which governed an ergative pattern)

to function as the opponent aspect, the perfective.

But the process went further: by introducing new tense markers like future (27) or preverbial mark-

22

ers covering aspectual functions (26), "the aspectual opposition became more and more obscured"

(cf. Schulze 2010:54). The analysis of recent-day Georgian is right as Hewitt (1995) describes it:

-eb is not more a productive derivation, but is better viewed as a thematic element. What has re-

mained out of this process is the curious fact that the case marking of NPs depends on tense/aspect

(split-alignment).

A similar evolution of an antipassive construction being reanalyzed as an imperfective construction

is claimed for Basque (Aldai 2000). Other examples for further evolution of antipassive may show

different deviations, but I haven't found until yet a paper dealing with it. I suppose that the further

development of antipassives is not only restricted to aspect or tense marking or to alignment-re-

newal.

5 Summary: Grammaticalization map: diachronic and synchronic correlation of functions

In this section, we will summarize the results of the synchronic and diachronic overview regarding

the form and function of antipassives. I want to note that the long discussion of functions and func-

tional correlates were not unnecessary for the diachronic enlightening. There is less work which ad-

dresses the evolution of antipassives than of passives and there is hardly any historical material that

could prove the proposed pathways, since languages with antipassives are rare in the world lan-

guages, particularly in those which have a writing tradition with time depth. The best thing we can

do is to stick together the few grammaticalization pathways that we have, and fill in the gaps with

the knowledge of synchronic functional correlations. By doing so, we could propose to solve some

parts of the puzzle. This solutions could help in both ways: the understanding of functional corre-

lates may be an explanation for the historical development of certain functions, and the asserted de-

velopments could in return assure us, that those functions are indeed close to each other. Therefore,

I decided to build up a semantic map which can stand for a conclusion of this paper (Figure 1).

23

Figure 1: Summarized functional and diachronic relations between antipassives and other cate-

gories presented in this paper

Explanation: terms in squares represent constructions, the terms without squares lexical items or

functions. The link between each term represents a functional closeness, if the link is an arrow then

it represents, beside the functional closeness, a diachronic change presented in this paper.

24

References

Aldai, G., 2000. "Split ergativity in Basque: the pre-Basque antipassive-imperfective hypothesis." Folia Linguistica Historica 21:31-98.

Cooreman, A., 1994. "A functional typology of antipassives." In: Fox, B., Hopper, P. (Eds.), Voice: Form and Function. Benjamins: Amsterdam. 49-87.

Creissels, D., 2012. "The origin of antipassive markers in West Mande languages." 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Stockholm. 29 August - 1 September 2012. Available online: http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-West_Mande_antipassives.pdf [retrieved 17.02.2014.]

Diewald, G., 2008. "Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions". Linguistics 49-2. 365-390.

Dürr, M., 1987. Morphologie, Syntax und Textstrukturen des (Maya)Quiché des Popol Vuh. Bonn: Holos.

Dixon, R.M.W., 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R.M.W., 1977. A grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R.M.W., 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Foley, W.A. and Van Valin, R.D., 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fox, B., 1987. "The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the Absolutive Hypothesis." Language 63. 856-870.

Givón, T., 1984. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Haspelmath, M., Müller-Bardey, T., 2004. Valency change. In Booij, Geert; Lehmann, Christian;

Mugdan, Joachim (eds.) Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Vol. 2.

(Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft). Berlin: de Gruyter. 1130-1145.

Heath, J., 1976: "Antipassivization: a functional typology." Proceedings of the second annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 202-211.

Heine, B., Kuteva, T., 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hewitt, B. G., 1995. Georgian: A Structural Reference Grammar. [London Oriental and African Language Library]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins J.

25

Jacques, G., 2014. "Denominal affixes as sources of antipassive markers in Japhug Rgyalrong". Lingua 138. 1-22.

Klimas, A., 1985. Some remarks on the Lithuanian reflexive verbs. Lituanus 31. Available online: http://www.lituanus.org/1985/85_2_05.htm [retrieved: 15.02.2014].

Larsen, T.W., 1987. "The syntactic status of ergativity in Quiché". Lingua 71. 33-59.

Nichols, J., 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Time and Space. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Polinsky, M., 2013. Antipassive constructions. In: Dryer, M.S., Haspelmath, M. (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Max Planck Digital Library: Munich.

Postal, P., 1977. "Antipassive in French." Linguistica Investigationes. 1.333-374.

Pye, C., 1989. "The Focus Antipassive in Quiché Mayan" Kansas University Working Papers in Linguistics.

Schulze, W., 2010. The Grammmaticalization of Antipassives. LMU Munich / UMB: Banská Bystrica. Available Online: http://schulzewolfgang.de/material/antipas2.pdf [retrieved: 17.02.2014].

Terrill, A., 1997. "The development of antipassive constructions in Australian languages". Australian Journal of Linguistics 17 (1). 71-88.

Van Valin, JR, R. (1980) On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50. 303-32.

Vitale, A. J., 1981. Swahili Syntax. Foris Publications: Dordrecht.

Plagiatserklärung

Ich habe die Arbeit selbständig verfasst, keine anderen als die angegeben Quellen und Hilfsmittel

benutzt und bisher keiner anderen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt.

Regensburg, 18. Februar 2014

___________________

26