[Lingtyp] Double-marked passive

Mon Apr 5 09:41:39 UTC 2021

Dear All,
with reference to Martin's email of 22.03.'21 which opened this thread I
would like to quote the following para (from my article in the *Oxf.
Res.Encycl.of Ling.* , OUP (updated May 2019) on 'Morphol. Units. Word'
 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.543: <<Edith
Morawcsik (LINGTYP 11.11.’17) rightly states that «we can work with any
definition of "word" in crosslinguistic research and then see if that
definition is useful or not ―i.e., whether it does or does not yield
typological correlate». This is a sound pragmatic approach: any definition
is ‘per se’ arbitrary and conventional, neither true nor false but
operational or useless, i.e., either it applies or does not apply to the
phenomena under scrutiny (see in the ‘wordhood’ debate Gil’s similar
statement (15.11.’17): «My understanding of comparative concepts is that
they don't "exist" or "fail to exist", but rather they turn out to be "more
useful" or "less useful" to us ».>>

Best,
Paolo

prof. dr. Paolo Ramat
 Università di Pavia (retired)
Istituto Universitario Studi Superiori (IUSS Pavia) (retired)
Accademia dei Lincei, Socio corrispondente
'Academia Europaea'
'Societas Linguistica Europaea', Honorary Member
piazzetta Arduino 11 - I 27100 Pavia
##39 0382 27027
347 044 98 44

Il giorno dom 4 apr 2021 alle ore 14:41 Martin Haspelmath <
martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de> ha scritto:

> Many thanks for pointing out the relevance of this old paper, Randy!
>
> Heath nicely contrasts his own functional and particularist approach with
> Postal's categorial universalist position.
>
> Postal (1977) says that he "takes it as a major goal of grammatical theory
> to make available a restricted set of universal rules which ... play a role
> in the grammars of individual languages. This is the opposite of the
> position represented by the slogan *describe each language in its own
> terms*."
>
> By contrast, Heath says that he favours an "approach that presupposes
> painstaking formal/functional analysis of particular languages and is thus
> the opposite of the position represented by the slogan *describe each
> language in universal terms*" (1978: 89).
>
> Heath's paper is thus an interesting precursor to Dryer's seminal (1997)
> paper on the non-universality of syntactic roles ("grammatical relations").
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> Am 04.04.21 um 04:24 schrieb Randy J. LaPolla:
>
> Hi All,
> I am just catching up on this list after some time, but in reference to
> the debate about passive and the question generally about how to compare
> constructions across languages, I’d jjust like to mention that Jeffery
> Heath once again was way ahead of the curve in a 1978 article in BLS
> arguing for functional universals:
> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2259z70z
>
> Although couched in an argument about Relation Grammar (remember that?) he
> goes into a discussion of how to compare passives and antipassives across
> languages, and has some interesting things to say.
>
> Randy
> -----
> *Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA* （羅仁地）
> Professor of Linguistics, with courtesy appointment in Chinese, School of
> Humanities
> Nanyang Technological University
> HSS-03-45, 48 Nanyang Avenue | Singapore 639818
> http://randylapolla.info/
> (personal.ntu.edu.sg/randylapolla)
> Most recent books:
> *The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2nd Edition (*2017)
>
> https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324
> *Sino-Tibetan Linguistics *(2018)
>
> https://www.routledge.com/Sino-Tibetan-Linguistics/LaPolla/p/book/9780415577397
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 Mar 2021, at 6:51 PM, Martin Haspelmath <
> martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Bill – I agree with all this. Indeed, the choice of terminology is
> not straightforward and involves many considerations. We don't want our
> technical terms to be polysemous, but we tend to balk at too many new terms
> (I've had reviewers commenting negatively on my submissions because of my
> neologisms).
>
> But I wanted to mention that I recently formulated a universal that
> requires the definition of "passive" that I proposed earlier (in terms of
> verb coding):
>
> "Universal 13
> If a passive alternation is sensitive to givenness, then the passive
> alternant tends to be used when the original A is not given information
> and/or the original P is not new information." (Haspelmath 2021: 155)
>
> https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2020-0252/html
>
> If "passive" is defined functionally (as in Givón 1994), then this
> tendency needs to be formulated quite differently. I'm not saying that this
> is impossible, and I'm not even quite sure that the universal is true. But
> what I like about Universal 13 is that it is simply a special instance of a
> far more general universal (the role-reference association universal,
> Haspelmath 2021: 125), which also subsumes differential object marking and
> many other generalizations.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> Am 23.03.21 um 19:56 schrieb William Croft:
>
> Dear all,
>
>    I'm afraid I will extend this discussion a bit longer...The fundamental
> issue is that in defining comparative concepts, one has to draw sharp
> boundaries on gradual diachronic processes that lead to synchronic continua
> of typological diversity. And then one has to choose terms for comparative
> concepts that in many cases were devised for non-typological theories based
> on a small, genetically and geographically narrow set of languages (Western
> European, East Asian, Middle Eastern, South Asian, to name some prominent
> grammatical traditions). There is no ideal solution, even among those who
> fully agree with the above statements.
>
>    To elaborate a little bit: Martin's intuition about "passive", and the
> intuitions of many about defining a "construction", is that there should be
> dedicated morphosyntax for the function of the "construction". There was
> already an objection to this intuition in this thread, saying that
> multifunctional "passive" morphemes should not be excluded. More generally,
> a dedicated construction is a late stage in the constructionalization
> process. The first step is recruiting another construction, that is,
> recruiting a morphosyntactic form used for some related function. Then the
> recruited construction is gradually adapted to its new function, diverging
> from the form used for the original function.
>
>    Recruitment is the basic strategy that starts the process towards a
> "dedicated" construction for a particular function. It's a gradual process.
> Any choice to delimit a comparative concept beyond the initial recruitment
> is arbitrary. The definition of a "passive" construction (in my terms) in
> terms of any form used to express the function is actually the least
> arbitrary choice -- except that functions (conceptual space) also form a
> continuum, so dividing that continuum is also arbitrary. But it's necessary
> for practical reasons, so we can talk about the phenomena we're studying.
> This is what language is about.
>
>    And language is also about using shared terms in a community. A
> typological theory of, say, grammatical voice could invent entirely new
> terms because the "legacy terms" are not typological. But it's not like
> non-typological theories have a single agreed-upon definition of "passive",
> or "subject", or pretty much any other important theoretical concept. So
> recruiting the terms for a typological theory and defining them differently
> is not abnormal, though if it's too different then a new term may be
> better. (We may disagree in particular cases.) And in some cases there is
> continuity between the functional analysis proposed by non-typologists and
> the functional comparative concept that is useful for typology.
>
>    I think there's another reason that typologists broadened traditional
> terms to the construction, rather than just the strategy for the
> construction typical of Western European languages. The point was to find
> (implicational etc.) universals that hold across all languages. So
> excluding many languages that don't use a particular strategy from the
> category in question is not helpful for that purpose.
>
>    I don't expect we'll all agree on the choice of terms. For "relative
> clause construction", I have restricted the definition to modification by
> action concepts; so modification by property concepts is excluded. There
> are also theoretical considerations. For instance, I believe that
> grammatical voice is about the interplay between the relative
> salience/topicality of participants and their semantic (force-dynamic)
> interactions in an event. From that point of view, constructions in the
> functional domain of voice should be defined in terms of relative
> topicality of participants and by their force-dynamic interactions in the
> event.
>
>    I just added the (draft) Glossary to the (draft) chapters of
> "Morphosyntax" that I have posted on my webpage (
> http://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/WACpubs.html), to give an idea of how I have
> constructed comparative concepts for many constructions.
>
> Bill
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Bohnemeyer,
> Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu> <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:30 AM
> *To:* Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
> <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
> *Cc:* LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Double-marked passive
>
>   [EXTERNAL]
>
> Martin, I don’t want to extend this discussion beyond its best-by date,
> but the example you cite...
>
> > So the reason I would opt for the form-based definition of "passive" (as
> opposed to the function-based definitions favoured by Bohnemeyer and
> Givón-Croft) is that the term "passive" is generally used for a strategy,
> in actual usage. It would be very odd to say that a sentence with a fronted
> object and focused subject like German "Den Mann hat der LÖWE gesehen" (=
> 'The man was seen by the LION') is a passive construction.
>
> … would not meet the definition of ‘demotion’ I was assuming in my
> definition of ‘passive':
>
> > A passive is a construction that combines with a causative description
> and whose semantic impact is the demotion of the causer while retaining the
> causative meaning.
>
> I would define ‘demotion’ such that the definition presupposes a default
> assignment of the highest-ranked semantic role to the subject or pivot (the
> highest-ranked syntactic argument position). Demotion is then an operation
> that blocks this default assignment. In your example, the highest-ranked
> role is the experiencer, and it is assigned to the syntactic subject, so
> there’s no passive construction involved by my definition.
>
> Via this definition of ‘demotion’, which involves a mix of semantic and
> syntactic properties (it is a form-meaning mapping property), the
> definition of ‘passive’ acquires enough syntactic anchoring to clearly
> target ‘strategies’, as opposed to mere meanings, while still avoiding the
> apparent pitfalls of including a purely formal property such as verb-coding
> in the definition.
>
> Best — Juergen
>
> --
> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>
> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at any
> time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically for remote
> office hours.
>
> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> (Leonard Cohen)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6
> D-04103 Leipzighttps://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6
> D-04103 Leipzighttps://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210405/a11cef87/attachment.htm>