[Lingtyp] Double-marked passive
David Gil
gil at shh.mpg.de
Mon Mar 22 21:28:41 UTC 2021
Martin,
My message below "crossed" with the message you just sent in which you
address my point (a) below, essentially denying the validity of the
notion of "periphrastic passive". Like Daniel Ross and others, I am
uncomfortable with this position, as it seems to be rather Eurocentric,
in the sense that it takes the inflectional nature of SAE as the norm.
You write: "I think the verb coding has to be affixal, because otherwise
we don't know for sure that it's associated with the verb". Surely,
even the most cursory immediate constituent analysis should be able to
inform us whether or it's associated with the verb (or verbal phrase).
In fact, I'm sure you'd agree that it's often easier to figure out
whether adjacent elements X and Y form a constituent than whether X is a
prefix applying to Y (which is something that you seem to wish to
include in your definition of passive).
David
On 22/03/2021 23:15, David Gil wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a5260d45/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/a5260d45/attachment.png>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list