Never too much of a good thing why

  • Slides: 62
Download presentation
Never too much of a good thing: why so many languages have more than

Never too much of a good thing: why so many languages have more than one passive Anna Siewierska & Dik Bakker Lancaster University

The canonical construction i) Agent defocusing & Patient promotion ii) Semantic properties: (a) Semantic

The canonical construction i) Agent defocusing & Patient promotion ii) Semantic properties: (a) Semantic valence: predicate (agent, patient) (b) Subject is affected iii) Syntactic properties (c ) Encoding: agent oblique or not expressed patient subject (d) Valence of predicate: Active = P/n Passive = P/n - 1 iv) Morphological properties Active = Predicate Passive = Predicate [+passive] v) Pragmatically marked vis a vis the active Multiple Passives 2

Skewed areal and genetic distribution Multiple Passives 3

Skewed areal and genetic distribution Multiple Passives 3

Language internal distribution Enormous differences in use of passive Productivity of construction Any transitive

Language internal distribution Enormous differences in use of passive Productivity of construction Any transitive verb Only one verb: Skou (Donahue 2004) Genre & register factors Number and variety of passive constructions Multiple Passives 4

What counts as a distinct passive? A construction-based approach Any systematic difference in form,

What counts as a distinct passive? A construction-based approach Any systematic difference in form, semantics or use – too wide Agentive vs. agentless Different forms of agent marking Presence vs. absence of thematic subject Different thematic role of subject This paper: distinctive verbal morphology Different auxiliary or light verb Different affixation; not evident allomorphs Different form of lexical verb in periphrastic Multiple Passives 5

English be vs. get passives Same form of lexical verb different aux She got

English be vs. get passives Same form of lexical verb different aux She got fired by her boss. She was fired by her boss. Multiple Passives 6

Kachiquel: suffixal & prefixal passive a. Xta Maria x-tz’ub’-äx r-oma’ a Juan CL Maria

Kachiquel: suffixal & prefixal passive a. Xta Maria x-tz’ub’-äx r-oma’ a Juan CL Maria COM-kiss-PASS 3 -by CL Juan b. Xta Maria x- ki-tz’ub’-aj r-oma’ a Juan CL Maria COM-PASS-kiss-TR 3 -by CL Juan ‘Maria was kissed by Juan. ’ From 3 pl to passive Multiple Passives 7

Ukrainian ne/te vs. no/to passive Same aux different form lexical verb nemovlja bulo znajdene/znajdeno

Ukrainian ne/te vs. no/to passive Same aux different form lexical verb nemovlja bulo znajdene/znajdeno u košyku baby AUX found: N: SG/found: N: SG in basket `A baby was found in a basket. ’ Multiple Passives 8

Russian periph. vs. synthetic passive a. Takie stat’i ne such articles: NOM NEG byli

Russian periph. vs. synthetic passive a. Takie stat’i ne such articles: NOM NEG byli opublikovany were: PL published: PL za granicej beyond border `Such articles were not published abroad. ’ b. V Rossii prodolzalo ne proizvodit’=sja in Russia continued NEG produce=PASS takix napitkov such drinks: GEN `There continued not to be any such drinks produced in Russia. ’ Multiple Passives 9

Current sample: 311 lgs with passives Multiple Passives 10

Current sample: 311 lgs with passives Multiple Passives 10

more than 1 passive = 92/311 (30%) Multiple Passives 11

more than 1 passive = 92/311 (30%) Multiple Passives 11

Areal distribution of 1 & 1+ passive Multiple Passives 12

Areal distribution of 1 & 1+ passive Multiple Passives 12

Areal distribution of 1 vs. 2+

Areal distribution of 1 vs. 2+

Verbal marking & 1+ passive Multiple Passives 14

Verbal marking & 1+ passive Multiple Passives 14

Why more than one passive? No iconic or economic motivation for structural synonymy within

Why more than one passive? No iconic or economic motivation for structural synonymy within languages (Croft 2003: 105 -106) Some differences in function What type of differences in function? How are these differences distributed globally and in relation to type of passive verbal marking? Multiple Passives 15

Type of differences between passives Main constituents Semantic factors Subject Agent Verb TAM Nature

Type of differences between passives Main constituents Semantic factors Subject Agent Verb TAM Nature of state of affairs Assessment Pragmatic factors Information structure Text type & genre Multiple Passives 16

Subject Presence Semantic role Animacy Person Multiple Passives 17

Subject Presence Semantic role Animacy Person Multiple Passives 17

Subject: Presence: Kannada (Sridhar 1980) padu `experience’ vs. agu `become’ Krishnanu-indu Ramu-Ø ko-pattu-nu Krishna-INST

Subject: Presence: Kannada (Sridhar 1980) padu `experience’ vs. agu `become’ Krishnanu-indu Ramu-Ø ko-pattu-nu Krishna-INST Rama-NOM kill-PASS-PAST `Rama was killed by Krishna. ’ Rama-nannu kollal-ayi-yu Ram-ACC kill: INF-PASS-PAST `Ram was killed. ’ Multiple Passives 18

Subject: Semantic role: Dutch Het boek wordt hem toegestuurd the book become him sent

Subject: Semantic role: Dutch Het boek wordt hem toegestuurd the book become him sent `The book is sent to him. ’ *Hij wordt het boek toegestuurd. Hij krijgt het boek toegestuurd. he gets the book sent `He is sent the book’ Multiple Passives 19

Subject: Animacy: Imbabura Quechua Maria-ka juya-shka ka-rka Maria-TOP love-PAST. PART be-PAST: 3 `Maria was

Subject: Animacy: Imbabura Quechua Maria-ka juya-shka ka-rka Maria-TOP love-PAST. PART be-PAST: 3 `Maria was seen. ’ Maria-ka juya-y tuku-rka Maria-TOP love-INF become-PAST: 3 `Maria was seen. ’ Aycha-ka miku-shka ka-rka meat-TOP eat-PAST. PART be-PAST: 3 `The meat was eaten. ’ *Aycha-ka miku-y tuku-rka Multiple Passives 20

Subject: Person: Coeur d’Alene –m (1 SG or 3) vs. –t Čε√lεq-n-t-Ø-m LOC. burr—d-t-3

Subject: Person: Coeur d’Alene –m (1 SG or 3) vs. –t Čε√lεq-n-t-Ø-m LOC. burr—d-t-3 SG-PASS `He was buried. ’ √cun√mεy-n-t-εli-t point. know-d-t-1 PAT-PASS `We were taught. ’ Multiple Passives 21

Agent Possibility of agent expression Obligatoriness of agent Nature of covert agent; human vs.

Agent Possibility of agent expression Obligatoriness of agent Nature of covert agent; human vs. any Person of agent: non SAP vs. any Multiple Passives 22

Agent: Presence: Buru (Grimes 1991) Sira dapa-k eflali (*ringe) they get-ACP beat (*him) ‘They

Agent: Presence: Buru (Grimes 1991) Sira dapa-k eflali (*ringe) they get-ACP beat (*him) ‘They got beaten up. ’ Subu di ek-fuka-k ringe door DIST PASS-open-ACP 3 SG ‘The door was opened by him. ’ Multiple Passives 23

Agent: Omissability: Mandarin Jin-yu (bei) xiao-mao chi-diao le goldfish PASS cat eat-up PERF `The

Agent: Omissability: Mandarin Jin-yu (bei) xiao-mao chi-diao le goldfish PASS cat eat-up PERF `The gold fish has been eaten by the cat. ’ Jin-yu (*rang) xiao-mao chi-diao le goldfish PASS cat eat-up PERF `The gold fish has been eaten by the cat. ’ Multiple Passives 24

Agent: any vs. human: Lunda Kasumbi Ø-na-sum-ew-j domestic fowl S/A-TAM-bite-PASS-FV `A domestic fowl has

Agent: any vs. human: Lunda Kasumbi Ø-na-sum-ew-j domestic fowl S/A-TAM-bite-PASS-FV `A domestic fowl has been bitten(e. g. by a snake. )’ a-na-sum-j kasumbi PASS-TAM-bite-FV domestic fowl ` A domestic fowl has been bitten (by a person not by a snake) Multiple Passives 25

Agent: Person: Quiche (Campbell 2000: 249) š-in-čay-tax aw-umal ASP-1 SG-hit-PASS 2 SG. POSS-by `I

Agent: Person: Quiche (Campbell 2000: 249) š-in-čay-tax aw-umal ASP-1 SG-hit-PASS 2 SG. POSS-by `I got hit by you. ’ *š-in-ča: y aw-umal ASP-1 SG-hit: PASS 2 SG. POSS-by `I got hit by you. ’ *š-in-ča: y r-umal ri ačih ASP-1 SG-hit: PASS 3 SG. POSS-by the man `I got hit by the man. ’ Multiple Passives 26

Main constituents: Verb Lexical morphological: derived vs. underived valency Multiple Passives 27

Main constituents: Verb Lexical morphological: derived vs. underived valency Multiple Passives 27

Verb: Lexical: Tzutujil A few verbs take the archaic passive marker vr, k’amo `carry’,

Verb: Lexical: Tzutujil A few verbs take the archaic passive marker vr, k’amo `carry’, tojooj `to pay’, chapooj `to grab, scold’ All other verbs can take the simple passive with the infix –j- or suffix –x or the completive passive in -taj Multiple Passives 28

Verb: Morphological: Older Egyptian (Reintges 2008) 1. Internal passive ij 2. Suffixal passive –w

Verb: Morphological: Older Egyptian (Reintges 2008) 1. Internal passive ij 2. Suffixal passive –w 3. Reduplication applied to verbal root Passive 1 & 2 can apply to any verb. Passive 3 can only apply to transitive verbs that are not derived Multiple Passives 29

Valency: Krongo (Reh 1985: 228 -9) -atini (TR) vs. –aca (DTR) N-apa-atiŋ a? aŋ

Valency: Krongo (Reh 1985: 228 -9) -atini (TR) vs. –aca (DTR) N-apa-atiŋ a? aŋ ½-PRF: hit-PASS I `I have been hit. ’ K-ada-aca nan-kurusi a-kaaw PL-PRF: give-PASS PL-money DAT-person `The money has been given to the man. ’ Multiple Passives 30

Semantics TAM: Nature of state of affairs generic vs. episodic stative vs. dynamic accidental

Semantics TAM: Nature of state of affairs generic vs. episodic stative vs. dynamic accidental vs. volitional Assessment adversative vs. neutral beneficial vs. adversative Multiple Passives 31

Aspect: Polish być vs. zostać Ciasto było pieczone / upieczone cake was baked: IMPERF

Aspect: Polish być vs. zostać Ciasto było pieczone / upieczone cake was baked: IMPERF / baked: PERF przez ciocię Helę by aunt Helen `The cake was baked by aunty Helen. ’ Ciasto zostało *pieczone / upieczone cake remain baked: IMPERF / baked: PERF przez ciocię Helę by aunt Helen Multiple Passives 32

Modality: Deontic Gujarati synthetic =a (possibility, necessity, prohibition) vs. periphrastic =aa `come’ (non-modal) Sardinian

Modality: Deontic Gujarati synthetic =a (possibility, necessity, prohibition) vs. periphrastic =aa `come’ (non-modal) Sardinian Periphrastic-essere `be’ (non-modal) vs. periphrastic kerrere `need’ & bollit ‘want’ (modal) Multiple Passives 33

Gujarati -a vs. aa Possibility (participant internal) Chokr=aa=thii pur. U bol=a=y=U nahi boy=OBL=ABL fully

Gujarati -a vs. aa Possibility (participant internal) Chokr=aa=thii pur. U bol=a=y=U nahi boy=OBL=ABL fully say=PASS=P. PRT=N NEG `The boy could not express himself. ’ Non-modal Prasav thay=aa=nii bhaaii=o=ne jaa. N delivery being of brothers information kar=v=aa=m. AA aav=ii do=INF=OBL=in come=P. PL=FSG `The brother’s were informed about the delivery. ’ Multiple Passives 34

Sardinian éssere vs. kérrere vs. ? bole Custa domo est istata fraicata dae un'Italianu

Sardinian éssere vs. kérrere vs. ? bole Custa domo est istata fraicata dae un'Italianu 'This house was built by an Italian. ' Cussas fainas keren fattas de nos corcare `Those chores need to be done before we go to bed. ’ Custa cicara de cafei bollit buffada `This cup of coffee must be drunk. ’ Multiple Passives 35

Modality: epistemic: Cayuvava (Key 1967: 28) Synthetic: ada-: certainty ada-kæčæ `it is cut off.

Modality: epistemic: Cayuvava (Key 1967: 28) Synthetic: ada-: certainty ada-kæčæ `it is cut off. ’ mera-ada-boro `it will be given with certainty’ Synthetic: bae-: probability a-bæ-boroæ `it is given, probably’ a-bæ-kočiro ‘if I am believed, I am probably believed’ Multiple Passives 36

Generic vs. Episodic: Norwegian –s vs. bli (Faarlund 1997: 514) Oppgavene levere-s hver uke

Generic vs. Episodic: Norwegian –s vs. bli (Faarlund 1997: 514) Oppgavene levere-s hver uke the. exercises hand. in-pass every week `The exercises are handed in every week. ’ Oppgavene ble levert for seint the. exercises become handed too late `The exercises were handed in too late’ Multiple Passives 37

Stative vs. Dynamic: Estonian olema `be’ + -tud part. vs. saama `get’ + infinitive

Stative vs. Dynamic: Estonian olema `be’ + -tud part. vs. saama `get’ + infinitive in -da (Torn-Leesik 2002: 11 -13) Maja projekt oli valmistatud house: GEN plan: NOM be: PAST: 3 SG make Jürissoni poolt Jürisson by `The design plans of the house were drawn up by Mr Jürisson. ’ Patsiendid said arsti käest noomida patients: NOM get: 3 PL doctor: GEN from reprimand: INF `The patients got reprimanded by the doctor. ’ Multiple Passives 38

Volitional vs. Accidental: Maanyan (Gudai 1985: 226) Kawaweq yeruq na-jalak daya-ni deer the PASS-spear

Volitional vs. Accidental: Maanyan (Gudai 1985: 226) Kawaweq yeruq na-jalak daya-ni deer the PASS-spear by he `The deer was speared by him. ’ Bukuku ta-rakit daya anak-ni book-1 SG PASS-burn by son-3 SG `My book has been accidentally burnt by his son. ’ Multiple Passives 39

Adversative vs. Beneficial: Vietnamese bi vs. duoc Anh ay bi nguoita danh he PASS

Adversative vs. Beneficial: Vietnamese bi vs. duoc Anh ay bi nguoita danh he PASS someone hit `He was hit by someone. ’ Anh ay duoc Kim danh he PASS Kim hit `He was hit by Kim (fortunately, he liked it)’ Multiple Passives 40

Adversative vs. Neutral: Indonesian (Ing Djiang 1988: 49) kena`be hit’ vs. di- Ali kena

Adversative vs. Neutral: Indonesian (Ing Djiang 1988: 49) kena`be hit’ vs. di- Ali kena tipu seorang dukun Ali be hit deceive one-CLAS medicine man `Ali was deceived by a medicine man. Buku ini di-beli oleh nya di Athenaeum book this PASS-bought by him at Athanaeum `The book was bought by him at the Athanaeum bookshop. ’ Multiple Passives 41

Pragmatics Information structure Register and genre Multiple Passives 42

Pragmatics Information structure Register and genre Multiple Passives 42

Information structure: Kakchiquel (Broadwell & Duncan 2002) In the ki-passive in contrast to the

Information structure: Kakchiquel (Broadwell & Duncan 2002) In the ki-passive in contrast to the standard äx–passive both Agent and Patient convey given information Multiple Passives 43

Register: Southern Min (Matthews & Yip 2001: 269) Ngo seng 4 jat 6 bei

Register: Southern Min (Matthews & Yip 2001: 269) Ngo seng 4 jat 6 bei 2 jan 4 aak I always PASS people cheat `I keep being cheated. ’ Jau 5 saam bei 6 hin 2 -faan 2 loi 6 dei 6 exist three PASS send-back mainland `Three were sent back to the mainland. ’ Multiple Passives 44

Distribution of differences Areal Type passive marking Multiple Passives 45

Distribution of differences Areal Type passive marking Multiple Passives 45

Area & semantic differences Multiple Passives 46

Area & semantic differences Multiple Passives 46

Area & semantic differences Multiple Passives 47

Area & semantic differences Multiple Passives 47

Type verbal marking Periphrastic Synthetic Both Multiple Passives 48

Type verbal marking Periphrastic Synthetic Both Multiple Passives 48

V marking by area Multiple Passives 49

V marking by area Multiple Passives 49

V marking and type of differences In principle choices between passives motivated by any

V marking and type of differences In principle choices between passives motivated by any of the factors considered should involve any type of passive: synthetic, periphrastic or both Multiple Passives 50

V marking & semantic differences Multiple Passives 51

V marking & semantic differences Multiple Passives 51

V marking & semantic differences Multiple Passives 52

V marking & semantic differences Multiple Passives 52

The major asymmetries Adversative differences favour distinctions between periphrastic passives TAM differences disfavour distinctions

The major asymmetries Adversative differences favour distinctions between periphrastic passives TAM differences disfavour distinctions between periphrastic Verb distinctions favour synthetic Agent differences disfavour distinctions between periphrastic Multiple Passives 53

Adversative semantics Lgs with more than one passive SEA&Oc = periph Eurasia = periph

Adversative semantics Lgs with more than one passive SEA&Oc = periph Eurasia = periph Africa: Coptic= periph NAmerica: Central Yupik = synth Adverse in a general sense (inanimate subject) (? passive or resultative) -cir vs. -ma Lgs with one passive Japanese, Tungusic (Evenki, Even), Manchu = synth Multiple Passives 54

TAM Synthetic vs. Synthetic NAmerica: Meso. Amer: Mayan, Uto. Aztecan Periphrastic vs. Synthetic Eurasia:

TAM Synthetic vs. Synthetic NAmerica: Meso. Amer: Mayan, Uto. Aztecan Periphrastic vs. Synthetic Eurasia: Europe Multiple Passives 55

Periph vs. synth in Europe Periphrastic perfective specific event subject not restricted overt agent

Periph vs. synth in Europe Periphrastic perfective specific event subject not restricted overt agent higher register Synthetic imperfective generic event inanimate subject no agent lower register or neutral Multiple Passives 56

Periph & synth outside Europe Only 6 in the sample TAM: not involved Event:

Periph & synth outside Europe Only 6 in the sample TAM: not involved Event: not involved Subject: necessarily inanimate in the more periphrastic in Cubeo Agent: no agent in the periphrastic in Coptic, Cubeo, Buru Purepcha has calqued a periphrastic passive on Spanish and introduced an agent Multiple Passives 57

TAM and periphrastic No lgs where synthetic passive is perfective and periphrastic imperfective Modal

TAM and periphrastic No lgs where synthetic passive is perfective and periphrastic imperfective Modal distinctions involving capability, necessity and possibility favour periphrastic Multiple Passives 58

Person and synthetic Restrictions involving person relating to either the subject or the agent

Person and synthetic Restrictions involving person relating to either the subject or the agent favour synthetic passives Subject: Interior Salish, Quileute, Moseten, Ostyak Agent: Mayan, Bantu, Uto-Aztecan Multiple Passives 59

Conclusions Contrary to what was stated in the abstract, only about 1/3 of the

Conclusions Contrary to what was stated in the abstract, only about 1/3 of the languages with passives have more than 1 (in terms of the measure adopted here) Lgs with more than one passive are mainly in Eurasia, NAmerica (Meso); SEA&Oc Lgs with periphrastic passives appear to be more likely to have more than one passive than languages with synthetic passives Multiple Passives 60

Conclusions The type of language-internal differences displayed by passives areally skewed There also asymmetries

Conclusions The type of language-internal differences displayed by passives areally skewed There also asymmetries relating to type of verb-marking of the passive Adversative differences favour distinctions between periphrastic passives TAM differences disfavour distinctions between periphrastic Person differences favour distinctions between synthetic Multiple Passives 61

The wider context Why some languages favour multiple passives, while others do not, and

The wider context Why some languages favour multiple passives, while others do not, and yet others have no passives at all? Multiple Passives 62