[Lingtyp] non-agentive transitives

[Alexander Letuchiy]

Dear Ferenc,

The second phenomenon is a little bit different from what you requested, but it may be relevant for you from the point of intransitive vs. transitive classification.

Russian has a polysemous reflexive marker "-sja" that can denote anticausative, reflexive, reciprocal, etc. The relevant meaning is what can be called 'modal passive'.

The modal passive meaning is applicable both to transitives and intransitives and is only used when the subject of the base construction does not have full control over the situation:

Intransitive (rabotat' "work"):
Mne       ne           rabotaet-sja
I.DAT    NEG         work-MOD.PASS
'I cannot work', 'I am in a non-working state'

Transitive (delat' "do, make"):
U   menja    rabota        ne          delaet-sja
at   I.GEN    work           NEG      do-
'I cannot do my work', 'I am in a state that does not allow me to do my work'

When the base verb is transitive, the base object occupies the subject position, and when the base verb is intransitive, the subject position is empty.
What is more curious, however, is that the base subject is marked differently with intransitives (DAT "mne") and ttransitives (u 'at' + GEN "menja").

Best regards,

Alexander

________________________________
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Havas Ferenc <hfz at iif.hu>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 12:37 PM
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: [Lingtyp] non-agentive transitives


Dear Colleagues,

My question is about the differential marking of agentive and non-agentive subjects in transitive sentences. It is well known that in some languages, called active or agentive, the marking of the subject of intransitive verbs (whether by a case or by agreement) differs depending on whether the subject is agentive or patient-like. As Marianne Mithun puts it: “ln all of these languages one case is used for semantic agents of most transitive verbs and the single argument of some intransitives while a different case is used for the semantic patients of most transitive verbs and the single argument of other intransitives. The sets of verbs occurring with each case are largely the same from one language to the next. Most verbs in the first set denote events performed, effected, instigated and controlled by their participants (’jump', 'go', 'catch'). Most verbs in the second set denote state significantly affecting their participants ('be sick', 'be tired', 'be caught’)”. (Language 1991, 67/3, 523)

So much about subjects of intransitive predicates. Less light seems to have been cast on transitive subjects in the dedicated languages, though the pattern exists. Consider e.g. these Kaddoan sentences (selected from the same paper, 525–528):

  1.  ci-hahyúnčah  'I'm going to go home.’
  2.  ku-táyʡayah 'I'm tired, disgusted, fed up.'

(3)  ci-kíʡčah 'I'm going to kill him.'

  1.  kú-ʡnutah ’I like it.’



(1) and (2) show that agentive and non-agentive subjects of intransitive sentences have distinct verbal prefixes: ci- versus ku-.  (3) and (4) in turn illustrate the differential marking of agentive and non-agentive subjects in transitive sentences with the very same prefixes as in intransitive sentences.

So my questions are

a) WHICH SUBJECTS?
Which subjects are non-agentively marked in transitive sentences? I would expect them to be passive experiencers (of verbs like ’see’, ’hear’ as opposed to ‘look at’, ‘listen to’), recipients (’get’, ’inherit’), possessors (’have’), undergoers of unintentional mental processes (’remember’, ’forget’), emotions (’like’, ’dislike’, ’hate’).

b) UNIFORM MARKING?
If a language has splits in both transitive and intransitive sentences, are the agentive and non-agentive markers of the same form in the two types of sentences?

At the end of the day, the central issue is whether the agentive – non-agentive split does or does not work the same way in intransitive and transitive sentences. If it did, the mere “split intransivity” concept of agentive languages would be worth reconsidering.

Thank you for your assistance.

Ferenc Havas

Professor Emeritus of Linguistics

ELTE University, Budapest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200130/16f0c425/attachment.htm>