<html>
Dear members of the list,<br>
about three weeks ago I sent a letter requesting for information on the
evolution of passive morphology and passive constructions. I was
astonished to get so many detailed replies. The reason why I am sending
this digest of what I have gotten is, inter alia, that I had to digest
the replies myself. Before presenting a summary I want to thank those who
have supplied me with information on Celtic, Old Indic, Indo-Aryan,
Fennic, Germanic and some other languages. Not being a specialist in
ancient Ide. languages, I must immediately comment that the replies
concerning especially them are bewildering insofar as the data meant to
sustain the chronologic primacy of "impersonal" vs.
"personal" passives seem to me to a certain extent
contradictory (see below). This is but a tiny consolation for someone
like me who has been dealing with Slavic and Baltic, where documented
language history is not "deep" enough to give empirical
evidence for answers to the questions I sent 3 weeks ago.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I will
repeat my letter from August, 9th, and give summaries in
between.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:38:52
+0200<br>
To: LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<br>
From: Björn Wiemer <pop05540@popserver.uni-konstanz.de><br>
Subject: "impersonal" passives with agents<br><br>
Dear ALT'ers,<br><br>
I would be interested to know if anybody of you knows anything more
concrete on the following specific topic: by an "impersonal"
passive we traditionally understand a construction in which the verb (or
some form derived from it, e.g. a participle) bears morphology associated
to the passive, but doesn't have an NP which could be characterized as
the subject of the respective clause. More specifically, there is no NP
in the nominative case (for NOM-ACC languages) which would trigger
agreement in the finite verb or the verbal noun (e.g. gender, number for
the
participle).</blockquote><x-tab> </x-tab>A
terminological remark sent to me by Matt Shibatani: "impersonal
passive" should be defined as a verbal construction with passive
morphology that does not have a REFERENTIAL subject. In his opinion,
dummy subjects (as in Germanic languages and French) should be considered
as grammatical subjects insofar as they agree in number (and gender, if
there is any) with the predicate (finite verb). "Impersonal
passive" comprises thus (a) passives with dummy subjects, (b)
passives without any syntactically overt subject-NP (or
pronoun).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> As far as I know, it has
remained hitherto unclear whether so-called "impersonal"
passives arise earlier than "personal" passives (i.e. passives
with an agreeing NP). Although the diachrony of passives, for instance,
in Germanic languages seems to indicate that passives arose first from
transitive verbs (or, more generally, from verbs with more than one
argument, with the highest-ranking argument being demoted), before
passive morphology started being applied to intransitive verbs (more
precisely: verbs with only one argument). For this reason, we might
assume that "impersonal" passives -- the natural consequence of
the demotion of the single argument of an intransitive verb -- are
diachronically secondary.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>There
remain, however, three principal questions not "covered" by
this kind of data:<br>
1. In order for a lower-ranking argument ("patient" or the
like) to become promoted to a syntactic subject (pivot, controller etc.)
there first must occur demotion of the highest-ranking argument
("agent" or the like). Thus, logically promotion presupposes
demotion, and there are plenties of examples in different languages
(known at least since Comrie 1977 on "spontaneous demotion") in
which only demotion of the highest-ranking argument occurs, without
promotion of a lower-ranking one. This looks like a "passive
half-way". The point is, however, how these purely demotional
constructions appeared, i.e. in which diachronic relationship do they
stand in comparison to "promotional passives" (the
"normal" ones)? Can anybody give me more concrete and reliable
information on this
matter?</blockquote><x-tab> </x-tab>According
to Boris Zakharyin, Sanskrit conforms to the picture of Germanic (see
above). He writes: "In Early Sanskrit passive formations were very
much limited (statistically and grammatically also - as they could be
formed on the basis of the so called 'present stems' - that is, they were
used - though rarely - in Presence and Imperfektum only), later their use
has become widened and simultaneously passives from intransitives (mostly
from change of position or state verbs) started being used."<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Matt
Shibatani suggested that Celtic and Germanic would be primary sources to
establish the chronology of impersonal and personal passives. Germanic
data seem to confirm rather the order personal > impersonal (see
above). As for Celtic, I must admit that I have been hitherto unable to
put together all the details which are discussed by specialists in
relevant publications. For the time being I will just give a list of what
colleagues have hinted at:<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica">1. a downloadable paper by Michael Noonan:
'Subjectless clauses in Irish'
(</font><a href="http://www.uwm.edu/~noonan" eudora="autourl"><font face="Arial, Helvetica" color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.uwm.edu/~noonan</a></u></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">).<br>
2. Stenson, N. 1981: Studies in Irish syntax. Tuebingen (only
synchronic)<br>
3. Thurneyssen, R. 1980: A Grammar of Old Irish. Dublin. (a kind of
standard book, but not with the relevant information I have been
searching for)<br><br>
I also give a part of a letter from Elisa Roma: "Old Irish had an
impersonal passive which agreed with the object (not <br>
morphologically promoted) only in number, but not in person. 1st and 2nd
persons were expressed through infixed pronouns, i.e. accusative
pronouns. Agents could (but need not) be expressed through prepositional
phrases, and the impersonal was normally used with intransitives.
In Modern Irish the situation is similar, but slightly different: the
impersonal (historically older) passive doesn't show any number agreement
with the object, which is still not morphologically promoted (though this
can be seen only with (some) pronouns, since the nominative-accusative
case distinction is lost for nouns). But, more interestingly, agents
cannot be <br>
expressed with this old impersonal passive, and a new periphrastic
passive has been coined (so-called "substantive" verb + past
participle), with which an agent can be overtly expressed through a
prepositional phrase."<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Nolan
Brian <Brian.Nolan@itb.ie>, who does not believe that impersonal
passives are derived from personal ones, ramifies his view by Irish data.
He has sent me an interesting, yet unpublished paper. Maybe, he will be
willing to send it to other interested persons, if you write to him
personally.<br><br>
<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>2. Passive morphology
applied to transitive verbs -- or, more precisely, to verbs with an
ACC-object in the active -- may also render constructions without a
nominatival subject, i.e. "purely demotional passives", with
the object keeping its ACC marking. (This, of course, holds only for
languages which have rich enough case morphology.) Such a kind of
"demi-passive" (it might be argued that they are active, since
the ACC-object is retained) is considered to be a rather rare phenomenon
world-wide (cf., for instance, Shibatani 1998). And one might argue that
it is a late development in the evolution of passives.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>For
instance, the Polish construction with the petrified -no/to-participle
(former neuter sg. of the nominal declension) and a possible ACC-object
(e.g., Dano mu.DAT.SG.M ksiazke.ACC.SG.F lit. '(It) was given him a
book') is a rather late development, not known to Common Slavic. The same
holds for Polish "reflexive impersonals" with an ACC-object
(Gosciom.DAT.PL.M pokazuje.3.SG.PRS sie.RM wille.ACC.SG.F lit. '(It) is
shown to the guests the cottage' = The cottage is shown to the guests),
which is an even later development (most probably by analogy to
-no/to).<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Does
anyone know of investigations which can show how such
"passives" with retained (or regained ?) active government have
arisen and in which diachronic relation do they stand to "real"
passives, both from transitive and intransitive
verbs?</blockquote><x-tab> </x-tab>'Demi-passives'
appeared much later than both personal and impersonal passives: in Indic
they are attested only from the 13-14th c. (B. Zakharyin), when they
"undoubtedly copied Middle or even New Indo-Aryan
constructions" (L. Kulikov). Language contact seems to have
triggered at lot here.<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>3. I have recently come across an
author who gives some Sanskrit examples of impersonal passives (from
one-place verbs) with an agent phrase in the instrumental; cf.<br>
(1)<x-tab> </x-tab>gamyate
maya<x-tab> </x-tab>lit. '(it) is going by me' /
'(there) is (some) going by me'<br>
(2)<x-tab> </x-tab>supyate
tvaya<x-tab> </x-tab>lit. '(it) has been slept by
you'<br>
(3)<x-tab> </x-tab>gatam
anena<x-tab> </x-tab>lit. '(it) has been
gone by him'.<br>
Unfortunately, there are no references (neither to sources, nor to
linguists), so that I am not sure how such examples should really be
qualified. Maybe, someone of you is able to give me some information on
such kind of impersonal passive with agent phrases? And, again, do we
know anything about their diachronic relationship with respect to (a)
agreeing (promotional) passives and (b) impersonal passives with an
ACC-object?</blockquote><x-tab> </x-tab>Agents
with passives of intransitive verbs (i.e. pure demotional passives) seem
to be widespread. They are attested in Latin (acriter pugnatum est ab
utrisque "it was fought by both parties"), in Sanskrit
"this construction became increasingly popular; in particular for
motion verbs in the past one almost only finds impersonal forms with
instrumental agents" (S. Luraghi). In Indic it gave rise to an
ergative pattern (this pattern might, however, have been influenced by
Indo-Aryan; cf. L. Kulikov's information on the source of Indic/Hindi
demi-passives). Interestingly enough, however, the Polish construction
cited above has not developped into an ergative pattern, nor has
Lithuanian, where we have impersonal passives from virtually any verb,
for instance:<br>
(4)<x-tab> </x-tab>Musu<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>cia<x-tab> </x-tab>seniai<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>gyven-t-a<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>we.GEN.PL<x-tab> </x-tab>here<x-tab> </x-tab>long.ago<x-tab> </x-tab>live.PPP.NEUT<br>
lit.<x-tab> </x-tab>,by us it was lived here a
long time ago'<br>
Shibatani (1998) rightly noticed that this "passive" in fact
has begun to serve another function, namely: inferential evidentiality.
Thus, It would be interesting to know more about passives becoming
evidentials (of some sort). Does anybody know more on this topic?<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Some
people (e.g., Schmalstieg) have tried to argue that such a pattern as in
(4) testifies an "ergative past" of (East) Baltic, but the
evidence is very tiny, if not speculative at all. One could also object
that the marking pattern in (4) does not fit to an ergative one, because
the single argument MUSU is in an oblique case and, thus, behaves
differently than normal "subjects" of intransitive verbs, which
are in the nominative (and trigger agreement with the finite verb and
participles). To the contrary, it behaves like the Agent of a transitive
verb; cf.:<br>
(5)<x-tab> </x-tab>Musu
<x-tab> </x-tab>buvo
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>atliktas<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>sunkus<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>darbas<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>COP.PRT<x-tab> </x-tab>perform.PPP.M.SG.NOM<x-tab> </x-tab>hard.M.SG.NOM<x-tab> </x-tab>work.M.SG.NOM<br>
lit.<x-tab> </x-tab>,By us (some) hard work was
done'.<br>
--> the patient (= lower-ranking argument) agrees with the
predicate.<br>
After all, a purported development from an ergative system to the passive
would run counter to an implicative hierarchy according to which passive
may develop into ergatives, but no cases of an evolution in the opposite
direction have been attested (Haspelmath 1990 and #1142 in the Universals
Archive at Konstanz University). <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>As for
modern Romance, constructions with the reflexive marker like<br>
(6)<x-tab> </x-tab>Qui si mangia
bene<x-tab> </x-tab>lit. 'Here (it) is
eaten well'<br>
are not at all genetically related to Latin syntax. Kemmer
(1993:<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4>178f.) writes that they
appeared in the 13-16 c. and that only after them personal passives
appeared. Furthermore, the impersonal construction with ACC object (=
'demi-passive')<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">(7a)<x-tab> </x-tab><i>Qui
e’ si.</i>rm<i> legge</i>.sg<i> troppi
libri</i>.pl<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
</font>lit.<x-tab> </x-tab>,Here (it) is RM
read.SG many books.PL'<br>
was diachronically anterior to the personal<br>
(7b)<x-tab> </x-tab><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>Qui
si</i>.rm <i>leggono</i>.pl <i>troppi libri</i>.pl<br>
</font>lit.<x-tab> </x-tab>,Here RM read.PL many
books.PL' = ,Many books are read here'.<br>
If this is correct, the direction of development was exactly opposed to
the "reflexive" passive in Polish (and other Slavic languages)
in comparison to the 'demi-passive' marked by the RM. The same holds for
the analytic passive compared to the -no/to-construction.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Unfortunately,
I have not found anywhere information about the agent: could it be added
in a construction like (7a)? As for modern Italian, Silvia Luraghi
explained to me that an agent phrase can be added (e.g., Si combatte da
entrambe le parti aspramente ;It was fought vigorously by both sides',
compare the Latin ex. above). This agent phrase, however, does usually
not coincide with the normal "da", but with a PP ("da
parte di") which seems still to be on its way into the system of
secondary prepositions.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I couldn't
figure out whether this is (or has ever been) possible also with
transitive verbs leaving the object where it would be in the active. In
Polish this is now impossible, but in Ukrainian (which calqued it from
Polish and shows a more archaic stage) one can (occasionally) add an
agent in the instrumental; e.g.,<br>
(8)<x-tab> </x-tab><font face="Times New Roman CE, Times" size=4><i>Grjadku<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>cybuli<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>bulo<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>zryto<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><u>krotom<br>
</u></i></font><x-tab> </x-tab>(garden)bed.F.ACC.SG<x-tab> </x-tab>onion.F.GEN.SG
COP.PRT<x-tab> </x-tab>dig_up.PPP.NEUT<x-tab> </x-tab>mole.M.INS.SG<br>
lit.<x-tab> </x-tab>,(it) was digged_up the onion
bed by a mole'<br>
i.e.<x-tab> </x-tab>,The onion bed was digged up
by a mole'.<br><br>
<br>
This is all I can present at the moment in a "half-digest" (or
"demi-digested") way. If anybody wants some more references or
details on Slavic and Baltic, I am ready to answer as far as I will be
able. With best wishes and regards,<br>
Bjoern Wiemer.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><br><br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Dr. Bjoern Wiemer<br>
Universitaet Konstanz<br>
FB Sprachwissenschaft / Slavistik<br>
Postfach 55 60, D 179<br>
D- 78457 Konstanz<br><br>
tel.: ++49 / 7531 / 88 -2582<br>
fax: ++49 / 7531 / 88 -4007<br>
e-mail: Bjoern.Wiemer@uni-konstanz.de</html>