[Lingtyp] Double-marked passive
David Gil
gil at shh.mpg.de
Mon Mar 22 21:15:59 UTC 2021
Martin,
Your suggestion that Papuan Malay /dapa/ and Riau Indonesian /kena/ are
prefixes surprises me for two independent reasons, principled and
language-specific: (a) on principled grounds because I know you don't
attach much weight to the distinction between affixes and other "larger"
elements, and (b) on language-specific grounds because /dapa/ and /kena/
behave like complete and separate words rather than affixes with respect
to just about any language-specific criterion you can think of: they are
disyllabic, they exhibit an array of phonological properties associated
with a complete phonological foot, they can occur in isolation as
complete non-elliptical sentences, they are content words associated
with particular meanings, roughly 'get' and 'undergo' respectively, and
so forth. Calling them affixes makes no sense either emically, in terms
of language-specific analyses, or etically, in terms of comparative
concepts.
David
On 22/03/2021 15:16, Martin Haspelmath 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
>>>>> 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
>>>> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
>>>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 Leipzig
>>> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> 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
>> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Leipzig
> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> 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
Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210322/d190b395/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/d190b395/attachment.png>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list