1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 6, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 6, 2020

Antipassives in Crosslinguistic Perspective

Abstract

Recent descriptive and typological research on antipassives has allowed many existing claims about antipassives to be reevaluated. Although there is still debate about which characteristics are necessary and sufficient for a construction to be considered an antipassive, it is clear that antipassives indicated by verbal marking are more widespread than previously thought. Parameters such as whether the patient can be expressed as an oblique argument, whether the antipassive is lexically restricted, and whether the antipassive is obligatory are important factors in the distribution and classification of antipassive constructions. Additionally, antipassive functions are more varied than often described, and do not necessarily correlate with morphological or syntactic ergativity.

Keyword(s): antipassive, ergativity, morphosyntax, transitivity, typology, voice
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030412
2020-01-14
2025-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/6/1/annurev-linguistics-011619-030412.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030412&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adamou E. 2014. L'antipassif en ixcatèque. Bull. Soc. Linguist. Paris 109:373–96
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen PK. 1990a. Typological approaches to the passive. Review article. Shibatani M (ed). 1988 Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.J. Linguist 26:189–202
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen PK. 1990b. Arguments against the passive as a universal morphological category. Contemporary Morphology WU Dressler, HC Luschützky, OE Pfeiffer, JR Rennison 141–58 Trends Linguist. Stud. Monogr. 49 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arkadjev P, Letučij A. 2008. Derivacii antipassivnoj zony v adygejckom jazyke [Antipassive-type derivations in Adyghe]. Issledovanija po otglagol'noj derivacii [Studies in Deverbal Derivation] V Plungyan, S Tatevosov 77–102 Moscow: Jaz. Slav. Kult.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Authier G, Haude K. 2012. Introduction. Ergativity, Valency and Voice G Authier, K Haude 1–14 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ayres G. 1983. The antipassive “voice” in Ixil. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 49:20–45
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bittner M. 1987. On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 53:194–231
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blight R. 2004. Head movement, passive, and antipassive in English PhD Thesis, Univ. Tex Austin:
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bostoen K, Dom S, Segerer G 2015. The antipassive in Bantu. Linguistics 53:731–72
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bricker V. 1981. The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya. J. Mayan Linguist. 2:83–127
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bugaeva A. 2013. Ainu valency patterns. Valency Patterns Leipzig I Hartmann, M Haspelmath, B Taylor. Leipzig, Ger. Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol http://valpal.info/languages/ainu
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bugaeva A. 2016. “Generalized object”: a case of antipassive in Ainu Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea Naples, Italy:
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Comrie B. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language W Lehmann 329–94 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Comrie B. 1989a. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Comrie B. 1989b. Some general properties of reference-tracking systems. Essays on Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar D Arnold, M Atkinson, J Durand, C Grover, L Sadler 37–51 Oxford, UK: Clarendon
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Coon J. 2010. Rethinking split ergativity in Chol. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 76:207–53
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Coon J, Carolan E. 2017. Nominalizations and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan. Glossa 2:122
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Coon J, Mateo Pedro P, Preminger O 2014. The role of case in A-bar extraction: evidence from Mayan. Linguist. Var. 14:179–242
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Coon J, Preminger O. 2017. Split ergativity is not about ergativity. Oxford Handbook of Ergativity J Coon, D Massam, L Travis 226–52 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cooreman A. 1988. The antipassive in Chamorro: variations on the theme of transitivity. See Shibatani 1988 561–93
  22. Cooreman A. 1994. A functional typology of antipassives. Voice: Form and Function B Fox, P Hopper 49–88 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Crook H. 1999. The phonology and morphology of Nez Perce stress PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif. Los Angeles:
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Deal A. 2010. Ergative case and the transitive subject: a view from Nez Perce. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 28:73–120
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dixon RMW. 1977. A Grammar of Yidiɲ. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Dixon RMW. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55:59–138
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dixon RMW. 1994. Ergativity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Dixon RMW, Aikhenvald A. 2000. Introduction.InChanging Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 1–29 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Dryer MS. 1982. In defense of a universal passive. Linguist. Anal. 10:53–60
     [Google Scholar]
  30. England N. 1983. A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan Language Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Etxepare R. 2003. Valency and Argument Structure in the Basque Verb Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Fleck D. 2006. Antipassive in Matses. Stud. Lang. 30:541–73
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Foley W. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Foley W, Van Valin R Jr 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Foley W, Van Valin R Jr 1985. Information packaging in the clause. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1 T Shopen 282–364 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Forker D. 2019. Grammatical relations in Sanzhi Dargwa. Argument Selectors: A New Perspective on Grammatical Relations A Witzlack-Makarevich, B Bickel 69–106 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Frantz D. 1978. Antipassive in Blackfoot. Papers of the 9th Algonquian Conference W Cowan 195–203 Ottawa, Can.: Carleton Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Georg S, Volodin A. 1999. Die itelmenische Sprache: Grammatik und Texte Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Gerdts D. 1982. Object and absolutive in Halkomelem Salish PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif. San Diego:
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Gerdts D, Hukari T. 2000. Multiple antipassives in Halkomelem Salish. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society51–62 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Gerdts D, Hukari T. 2006. The argument structure of Halkomelem verb roots: evidence from intransitive/transitive alternations. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 18:Proceedings from the 9th Workshop on American Indigenous Languages L Harper 89–102 Santa Barbara: Dep. Linguist., Univ. Calif., Santa Barbara
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Gildea S. 2002. Ergativity in the northern Cariban languages. Ergativity in Amazonia F Queixalós 9–14 Brasília, Braz.: Univ. Brasília
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Givón T. 1984.. Syntax: A Functional–Typological Introduction Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Givón T. 2011. Ute Reference Grammar Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Guerrero Medina P. 2011. An antipassive interpretation of the English “conative alternation”: semantic and discourse-pragmatic dimensions. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives P Guerrero Medina 182–206 Sheffield, UK: Equinox
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Guillaume A. 2008. A Grammar of Cavineña Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Haspelmath M. 1990. The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Stud. Lang. 14:25–72
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Heath J. 1976. Antipassivization: a functional typology. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society202–11 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Heaton R. 2017a. A typology of antipassives, with special reference to Mayan PhD Thesis, Univ. Hawaiʻi Mānoa:
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Heaton R. 2017b. A featural description of antipassive-type structures Paper presented at the 12th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (ALT) Canberra, Aust.: Dec. 10–15
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Heaton R. Antipassive and antipassive-like constructions in Mayan languages. See Janic & Witzlack-Makarevich (forthcoming)
  52. Hopper P, Thompson S. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56:251–99
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Janic K. 2013. L'antipassif dans les langues accusatives PhD Thesis, Lumière Univ. Lyon, France:
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Janic K. 2016. L'antipassif dans les langues accusatives. Brussels: Lang
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Janic K, Witzlack-Makarevich A, eds. The Multifaceted Aspects of Antipassive Amsterdam: Benjamins. Forthcoming
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Jensen C. 1990. Cross-referencing changes in some Tupí-Guaraní languages. Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages D Payne 117–60 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kemmer S. 1993. The Middle Voice Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Klaiman M. 1991. Grammatical Voice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Kozinsky I, Nedjalkov V, Polinskaja M 1988. Antipassive in Chukchee. See Shibatani 1988 651–706
  60. Kulikov L. 2010. Voice typology. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology JJ Song 368–98 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Langacker RW, Munro P. 1975. Passives and their meaning. Language 51:789–830
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Larsen T, Norman W. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations F Plank 347–70 New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Lazard G. 1993. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguist 36:141–90
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Letuchiy A. 2012. Ergativity in the Adyghe system of valency-changing derivations. Ergativity, Valency and Voice G Authier, K Haude 323–53 Berlin: Walter de Guyter
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Letuchiy A, Arkadiev P. 2012. “Indirect antipassives” in Circassian Paper presented at the 5th Conference on Syntax of the World's Languages Dubrovnik, Croat:Oct. 1–4
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Levin B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Levin B. 1999. Objecthood: an event structure perspective. Papers from the 35th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1:The Main Session S Billings, JP Boyle, A Griffith 223–47 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Malchukov A, Comrie B 2015. Valency Classes in the World's Languages 2 vols Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Maslova E. 2003. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Massam D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 19:153–97
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Matasović R. 2010. A Short Grammar of East Circassian (Kabardian) transl. T Gnastović. Zagreb: Univ. Zagreb . , 9th ed.. (From Croatian)
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Mateo-Toledo BE. 2003. Ergatividad mixta en Q'anjob'al (Maya): un reanálisis. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on the Indigenous Languages of Latin America (CILLA 1) 27 Austin: Arch. Indig. Lang. Lat. Am., Univ. Tex. https://www.ailla.utexas.org/sites/default/files/documents/MateoToledo_Q7anjob7al.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Mithun M. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60:847–94
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Mithun M. 2006. Voice without subjects, objects or obliques: manipulating argument structure in Agent/Patient systems. Voice and Grammatical Relations, ed. T Tsunoda, Y Nishimitsu, T Kageyama 213–36 Amsterdam: Benjamins
  75. Mithun M. 2016. Antipassive propensities and alignment Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea Naples, Italy:
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Mondloch J. 1981. Voice in Quiche-Maya PhD Thesis State Univ N. Y., Albany:
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Mugane J. 1999. The recalcitrant nature of the Bantu verbal morpheme -an-. Linguist. Anal. 29:160–81
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Nikolaeva I. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Otsuka Y. 2011. Neither accusative nor ergative: an alternative analysis of case in Eastern Polynesian. Topics in Oceanic Morphosyntax C Moyse-Faurie, J Sabel 289–317 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Otsuka Y. 2017. Ergative–absolutive patterns in Tongan. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity J Coon, D Massam, L Travis 989–1006 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Palmer F. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Polinsky M. 2005. Antipassive constructions. The World Atlas of Language Structures M Haspelmath, M Dryer, D Gil, B Comrie 438–39 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Polinsky M. 2013. Antipassive constructions. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online M Dryer, M Haspelmath Leipzig, Ger.: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol http://wals.info/chapter/108
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Polinsky M. 2017a. Antipassive. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity J Coon, D Massam, L Travis 308–31 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Polinsky M. 2017b. Syntactic ergativity. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax M Everaert, HC Van Riemsdijk 4340–76 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Postal P. 1977. Antipassive in French. Lingvist. Investig. 1:333–74
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Pucilowski A. 2013. Topics in Ho morphophonology and morphosyntax PhD Thesis, Univ. Or Eugene:
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Rude N. 1988. Ergative, passive, and antipassive in Nez Perce: a discourse perspective. See Shibatani 1988547–60
  89. Sansò A. 2017. Where do antipassive constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica 34:175–218
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Sansò A. 2018. Explaining the diversity of antipassives: formal grammar versus (diachronic) typology. Lang. Linguist. Compass 12:6e12277
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Schröder H. 2006. Antipassive and ergativity in Western Nilotic and Surmic. Annu. Publ. Afr. Linguist. 4:91–108
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Shibatani M. 1985. Passives and related constructions: a prototype analysis. Language 61:821–48
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Shibatani M 1988. Passive and Voice Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Shibatani M. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics 44:217–69
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Siewierska A. 2013. Passive constructions. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online MS Dryer, M Haspelmath. Leipzig, Ger.: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol http://wals.info/chapter/107
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Silverstein M. 1972. Chinook Jargon: language contact and the problem of multi-level generative systems. I. Language 48:378–406
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Silverstein M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages RMW Dixon 112–71 Canberra: Aust. Natl. Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Smith-Stark T. 1978. The Mayan antipassive: some facts and fictions. Papers in Mayan Linguistics N England 169–87 Columbia: Univ. Mo.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Song JJ. 2001. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax Harlow, UK: Pearson Educ.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Spreng B. 2006. Antipassive morphology and case assignment in Inuktitut. Ergativity: Emerging Issues A Johns, D Massam, J Ndayiragije 247–70 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Spreng B. 2010. On the conditions for antipassives. Lang. Linguist. Compass 4:556–75
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Spreng B. 2012. Viewpoint aspect in Inuktitut: the syntax and semantics of antipassives PhD Thesis, Univ Toronto, Can:.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Stiebels B. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 24:501–70
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Tonhauser J. 2007. Agent focus and voice in Yucatec Maya. Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society540–58 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Tsunoda T. 1981. Split case-marking patterns in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19:389–438
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Tsunoda T. 1988a. Ergativity, accusativity and topicality. Nagoya Daigaku Bungakubu Kenkyuu Ronshuu [J. Fac. Lett. Nagoya Univ.] 34:1–71
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Tsunoda T. 1988b. Antipassives in Warrungu and other Australian languages. See Shibatani 1988 595–649
  108. Tsunoda T. 2011. A Grammar of Warrongo Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Vaa A. 2013. A grammar of Engdewu: an Oceanic language of the Solomon Islands PhD Thesis, Univ Oslo, Nor:.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Vigus M. 2016. A radical construction grammar analysis of antipassive constructions MA Thesis, Univ. Calif. Santa Barbara:
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Werner R. 1993. Tìdn-Áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian) Berlin: Reimer
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Wichmann S. 2007. Valency-reduction in event-oriented languages. Studies in Voice and Transitivity Z Estrada Fernández, S Wichmann, C Chamoreau, A Álvarez González 33–51 Munich, Ger.: Lincom
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030412
Loading
Antipassives in Crosslinguistic Perspective
Annual Review of Linguistics 6, 131 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030412
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030412
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030412
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error