[Lingtyp] Double-marked passive
Martin Haspelmath
martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de
Mon Mar 22 20:36:00 UTC 2021
In his 1994 paper "The pragmatics of de-transitive voice", T. Givón gave
a purely functional definition of "passive" that made no reference to
verbal marking: a construction in which "the patient is more topical
than the agent, and the agent is extremely non-topical" (contrasting
with "inverse voice", where the agent retains more topicality).
That was an interesting concept, but we simply don't use the term
"passive" in this way. Since Siewierska (1984) and Keenan (1985) at the
latest, there has been a widespread understanding of a passive
construction as involving P promotion and A demotion, plus verbal
marking. So this is actually a primarily formal definition. (In my 1990
paper on "passive morphology", I did not take the verb coding as
definitional and claimed that it was an empirical finding that it was
always there. But I now think it must be definitional, because
"A-demoting" constructions without verb coding are simply ergative
constructions.)
I think the verb coding has to be affixal, because otherwise we don't
know for sure that it's associated with the verb. Moreover, we want to
say that a passive construction is a "voice construction" (cf. Zúñiga &
Kittilä 2019), and voice alternations are best defined as valency
alternations with verb coding.
(I'm not sure about the notion of an "isolating" language; Chinese
certainly has a number of verbal affixes, and I don't know of a language
that lacks verbal affixation entirely; on the notion of "affix", see my
2021 paper in /Voprosy Jazykoznanija/: https://zenodo.org/record/4628279).
Best,
Martin
Am 22.03.21 um 20:57 schrieb Daniel Ross:
> Martin, are you suggesting that isolating languages cannot have
> passives? Surely function shouldn't be necessarily tied to form?
>
> Serial verb constructions are well known to develop into passive
> constructions in some languages. Are you suggesting that cannot happen
> until the construction morphologizes?
>
> There are certainly some details to work out in the definition, but as
> a rough approximation, I'm not sure why there cannot be a passive
> auxiliary in these cases. English also has a passive auxiliary (BE),
> which happens to select for a verb in the participle form (-EN). But
> if English allowed for a bare verb complement of BE in that
> construction, would that not be a passive either?
>
> One important point I'm trying to emphasize with my own research is
> that definitions should, as much as possible, avoid conflating form
> and function. Passivization is a function, not a form. It has to do
> with argument structure, not how it is marked morphosyntactically. As
> a draft of a simple comparative concept, a passive is a construction
> (that is, any form) that demotes the subject (i.e. A, etc.) argument
> (typically making it optional), while promoting the object (i.e. P,
> etc.) to that role. That could be via morphology, or an auxiliary
> verb, or perhaps something else (maybe just case marking?).
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:03 PM Guillaume Jacques
> <rgyalrongskad at gmail.com <mailto:rgyalrongskad at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> From my perspective, the problem with a definition including
> "primarily associated with the expression of" is that it would
> exclude non-dedicated passives, i.e. polyfunctional morphemes one
> of whose function is passive, but also used with other functions.
>
> Guillaume
>
> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 19:53, Chao Li <chao.li at aya.yale.edu
> <mailto:chao.li at aya.yale.edu>> a écrit :
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> I agree that any definition of a comparative concept will
> likely result in the exclusion of some “legacy cases”. Given
> that you are using “passive” as a comparative concept in a
> very ambitious sense and given that you have all human
> languages in mind and would like to have a definition as clear
> and inclusive as possible, there is the question of the extent
> of the cases that will be excluded by the definition you
> referred to. To what extent are passives described in specific
> language grammars coded with an affix on the verb and to what
> extent are they not? Does anyone on this list server have a
> more or less clear answer on this? Then as for the possibility
> of a definition of passive that might also cover cases like
> Mandarin, how about the replacement of a passive affix on the
> verb with a grammatical morpheme primarily associated with the
> expression of a passive meaning? Would that work?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chao
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:03 PM Martin Haspelmath
> <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de
> <mailto:martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>> wrote:
>
> Yes, comparative concepts cannot be right or wrong, but
> traditional terms can be defined in a better or less good
> way. Note that the original question by Ian Joo used the
> traditional term "passive", assuming that we know what it
> means (not necessarily assuming that "passive" is a
> concept that is useful for typological generalizations).
>
> Good definitions of traditional terms are (i) clear (i.e.
> based on clear concepts) and (ii) largely coextensive with
> legacy usage.
>
> Traditional terms can rarely be defined clearly in such a
> way that the definition covers ALL legacy cases. So while
> the Chinese /bèi / construction is similar to the Swahili
> Passive, I don’t see that we can have a definition of
> /passive/ that covers both. Maybe even the English Passive
> is not included.
>
> By contrast, I don’t see why Papuan Malay /dapa-pukul/
> shouldn’t be included. Isn’t /dapa-/ a passive prefix?
> (And similarly Riau Indonesian /kena-pukul/.)
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> Am 22.03.21 um 12:25 schrieb David Gil:
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> As you've pointed out on numerous occasions, comparative
>> concepts can't be right or wrong, they can only be more
>> or less useful as tools for typological generalizations.
>> Still, with that in mind, I suspect that a comparative
>> concept of "passive" that subsumes, say, the rather
>> garden-variety constructions in (1) and (2), rather than
>> excluding them on the grounds that the verb lacks an
>> affix, as you would have things, will turn out to be more
>> useful for typologists (not to mention conforming more
>> closely with common every-day usage).
>>
>> (1) Riau Indonesian
>> /Yusuf kena pukul sama Musa/
>> Yusuf PASS hit together Musa
>> 'Yusuf got hit by Musa'
>> [cf. "active" /Musa pukul Yusuf/]
>>
>> (1) Papuan Malay
>> /Yusuf dapa pukul dari Musa/
>> Yusuf PASS hit from Musa
>> 'Yusuf got hit by Musa'
>> [cf. "active" /Musa pukul Yusuf/]
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 22/03/2021 08:24, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
>>> Yes, the definition that I use presupposes an
>>> understanding of "verb-coded" and "adposition", but this
>>> is typical of definitions: They work only if their
>>> component parts are defined or understood clearly.
>>>
>>> So is /bèi/ a verb-coding element in (1) and (4)? It
>>> could be said to be "verb-phrase coding" (as David
>>> notes), but the notion of "verb phrase" is not
>>> cross-linguistically applicable in an obvious way. So I
>>> would restrict "passive" (as a comparative concept) to
>>> forms where the verb has an affix (because this is the
>>> only situation in which the two sister constructions are
>>> clearly asymmetric). Now is /bèi/ a prefix in (1)? This
>>> would be possible only if /bèi/ in (1) and /bèi/ in (4)
>>> are two different elements – and it seems that we do not
>>> want to say this.
>>>
>>> Chao rightly asks: "In what sense is the English passive
>>> construction verb-coded?" The English Passive includes
>>> an Auxiliary, but there is no good cross-linguistic
>>> definition of "auxiliary", so we don't want to say that
>>> auxiliaries can be criterial for passives. Some English
>>> verbs have what looks like a passive affix (e.g. /-en/
>>> in /tak-en/), but the English Passive construction does
>>> not clearly fall under the definition that I gave. (A
>>> good illustration of "passive" is Siewierska's first
>>> example in her WALS chapter, from Swahili: /chakula
>>> kilipik-*wa* (na Hamisi)/ 'The food was cooked by Hamisi').
>>>
>>> There is a tradition of appealing to "tests for subject
>>> properties" (going back to Keenan 1976), but this seems
>>> appropriate only at the language-particular level. Since
>>> these tests are different in different languages, this
>>> approach does not work well in a comparative context.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Am 21.03.21 um 20:28 schrieb David Gil:
>>>>
>>>> Chao, Martin,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Chao's characterization of Mandarin (1) as
>>>> being a passive under most or all reasonable
>>>> definitions thereof; however, I fail to see why (4)
>>>> cannot also be considered to be a passive. In (4),
>>>> /bèi/ is not flagging /jĭngchá/ 'police' but rather is
>>>> marking the entire phrase /jĭngchá tuō-zŏu-le/ — it may
>>>> thus be analyzed as an instance of "verb(-phrase) coding".
>>>>
>>>> Many Southeast Asian languages have paradigms which
>>>> correspond to that in (1) - (4) except that, in the
>>>> counterpart of (4), the agent phrase follows rather
>>>> than precedes the verb. Such constructions are
>>>> commonly referred to as "passives", or, more
>>>> specifically, as "periphrastic" or sometimes
>>>> "adversative passives". Moreover, in such languages,
>>>> the counterpart of Mandarin /bèi/ is presumably also
>>>> applying to the verb-plus-agent phrase as a whole. So
>>>> the only obvious difference between such constructions
>>>> and Mandarin (4) is that of word order. (I say
>>>> "*obvious* difference" because it may be the case that
>>>> syntactic tests will show that /jĭngchá/ in (4) has
>>>> more subject properties than do the usual Southeast
>>>> Asian postverbal agent phrases, in which case the
>>>> prototypicality of (4) as a passive would decrease
>>>> accordingly. But has anybody shown this to be the case?)
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2021 19:31, Chao Li wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>> It perhaps depends on what you mean by “verb-coded”.
>>>>> For example, in what sense is the English passive
>>>>> construction verb-coded? In a Mandarin sentence like
>>>>> (1), the meaning is passive and crucially it is coded
>>>>> with the passive morpheme /bèi/, which historically
>>>>> could be used as a verb that means “to suffer”. The
>>>>> single argument in (1) can also correspond to the
>>>>> Patient argument of an active sentence like (2) or
>>>>> (3). Moreover, it can be said that the Agent argument
>>>>> gets suppressed in (1). Therefore, it appears
>>>>> reasonable to analyze (1) as a passive construction
>>>>> both Chinese-internally and crosslinguistically. As
>>>>> for whether a /bèi/-construction like (4) can be
>>>>> analyzed as a passive construction that fits the
>>>>> definition, such an analysis is possible if one
>>>>> accepts the (controversial and debatable) assumption
>>>>> that /bèi/ in (4) assumes not only its primary role of
>>>>> being a passive marker but also an additional role of
>>>>> being a preposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> image.png
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chao
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 10:07 AM Martin Haspelmath
>>>>> <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de
>>>>> <mailto:martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> According to my favourite definition of "passive
>>>>> construction", these Mandarin examples are
>>>>> (apparently) not passive constructions:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A passive voice construction is a verb-coded
>>>>> valency construction (i) whose sister valency
>>>>> construction is transitive and not verb-coded, and
>>>>> (ii) which has an S-argument corresponding to the
>>>>> transitive P, and (iii) which has a suppressed or
>>>>> oblique-flagged argument corresponding to the
>>>>> transitive A".
>>>>>
>>>>> According to this definition, a passive
>>>>> construction "marks both the agent and the verb"
>>>>> (unless the agent is suppressed or otherwise
>>>>> absent). But Ian Joo's question was probably about
>>>>> languages where the SAME marker can occur on the
>>>>> verb and on the oblique agent. This would be very
>>>>> unusual, because passive voice markers are not
>>>>> expected to be similar to an oblique agent flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now my question is: Are these Mandarin (and
>>>>> Shanghainese) BEI/GEI-constructions passives? They
>>>>> have traditionally been called passives, but since
>>>>> the BEI element is obligatory, while the agent can
>>>>> be omitted (/Zhangsan bei (Lisi) da le/ 'Zhangsan
>>>>> was hit (by Lisi)'), it cannot be a preposition or
>>>>> case prefix. At least that would seem to follow
>>>>> from the definition of "affix/adposition". So I
>>>>> think this construction doesn't fall under a
>>>>> rigorous definition of "passive construction".
>>>>> (Rather, it is a sui generis construction.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Some authors might say that it is a "noncanonical
>>>>> passive" (cf. Legate, Julie Anne. 2021.
>>>>> Noncanonical passives: A typology of voices in an
>>>>> impoverished Universal Grammar. /Annual Review of
>>>>> Linguistics/ 7(1).
>>>>> doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031920-114459
>>>>> <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031920-114459>),
>>>>> but there does not seem to be a clear limit to
>>>>> this vague notion (is every topicalization
>>>>> construction a noncanonical passive?). I do not
>>>>> know of a fully explicit definition of "passive
>>>>> construction" that clearly includes the Mandarin
>>>>> BEI constructions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 28.02.21 um 19:46 schrieb bingfu Lu:
>>>>>> A better example in Mandarin may be:
>>>>>> Zhangsan bei-Lisi gei-da-le.
>>>>>> Zhangsan PASS-Lisi PASS-hit-PRF
>>>>>> `Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'bei' is etymologically related to 'suffer'
>>>>>> while‘给’ to 'give'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact,
>>>>>> Zhangsan bei-(Lisi) da-le.
>>>>>> can also change to
>>>>>> Zhangsan gei-(Lisi） da-le.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, in Shanghainese, the PASS is a
>>>>>> morpheme homophonic to the morpheme for 'give'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> Bingfu Lu
>>>>>> Beijing Language University
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2021, 10:26:36 PM GMT+8,
>>>>>> JOO, Ian [Student] <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>
>>>>>> <mailto:ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear typologists,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if you are aware of any language whose
>>>>>> passive construction marks both the agent and the
>>>>>> verb.
>>>>>> For example, in Mandarin, the agent receives the
>>>>>> passive marker /bei./
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Zhangsan bei-Lisi da-le.
>>>>>> Zhangsan PASS-Lisi hit-PRF
>>>>>> `Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the agent is omitted, the verb receives /bei/.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Zhangsan bei-da-le.
>>>>>> Zhangsan PASS-hit-PRF
>>>>>> `Zhangsan was hit.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, in some occasions, both the agent and the
>>>>>> verb receive /bei/:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) Zhangsan bei-Lisi bei-da-le.
>>>>>> Zhangsan PASS-Lisi PASS-hit-PRF
>>>>>> `Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you aware of any other language where a
>>>>>> construction like (3) is possible?
>>>>>> The only one I am aware of at the moment is
>>>>>> Vietnamese.
>>>>>> I would greatly appreciate any help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Disclaimer:/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /This message (including any attachments)
>>>>>> contains confidential information intended for a
>>>>>> specific individual and purpose. If you are not
>>>>>> the intended recipient, you should delete this
>>>>>> message and notify the sender and The Hong Kong
>>>>>> Polytechnic University (the University)
>>>>>> immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or
>>>>>> distribution of this message, or the taking of
>>>>>> any action based on it, is strictly prohibited
>>>>>> and may be unlawful./
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /The University specifically denies any
>>>>>> responsibility for the accuracy or quality of
>>>>>> information obtained through University E-mail
>>>>>> Facilities. Any views and opinions expressed are
>>>>>> only those of the author(s) and do not
>>>>>> necessarily represent those of the University and
>>>>>> the University accepts no liability whatsoever
>>>>>> for any losses or damages incurred or caused to
>>>>>> any party as a result of the use of such
>>>>>> information./
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Martin Haspelmath
>>>>> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
>>>>> Deutscher Platz 6
>>>>> D-04103 Leipzig
>>>>> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522 <https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>>> --
>>>> David Gil
>>>>
>>>> Senior Scientist (Associate)
>>>> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>>>> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>>>> Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>>>>
>>>> Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>>>> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
>>>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Haspelmath
>>> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
>>> Deutscher Platz 6
>>> D-04103 Leipzig
>>> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522 <https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>> --
>> David Gil
>>
>> Senior Scientist (Associate)
>> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>> Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>>
>> Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6
> D-04103 Leipzig
> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522 <https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Jacques
>
> Directeur de recherches
> CNRS (CRLAO) - INALCO - EHESS
> http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacques
> <http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacques>
> http://panchr.hypotheses.org/ <http://panchr.hypotheses.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210322/76045c44/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 59989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210322/76045c44/attachment.png>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list