This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
A.A.Xolodovič on Japanese passives Masayoshi Shibatani Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese (translated by Judith M.Knott) A.A.Xolodovič The causative-passive correlation Judith M.Knott Morphological and lexical causatives in Nivkh (translated by Judith M.Knott) V.P.Nedjalkov, G.A.Otaina, and A.A.Xolodovič Voice in Turkish Asli Göksel Passive-related constructions in colloquial Sinhala G.D.Wijayawardhana, Daya Wickramasinghe and Theodora Bynon Aspect, directionality and control in Japanese Lone Takeuchi Subject, topic and Tagalog syntax Paz Buenaventura Naylor Georgian—ergative, active, or what? B.George Hewitt Fading ergativity? A study of ergativity in Balochi Tim Farrell The ergative parameter Andrew Spencer
7 19 53 60 82 103 139 158 197 212 236
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS David C.Bennett, Department of Linguistics, SOAS Theodora Bynon, Department of Linguistics, SOAS Tim Farrell, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Karachi, Pakistan Asli Göksel, Department of Linguistics, SOAS B.George Hewitt, Department of the Near and Middle East, SOAS Judith M.Knott, formerly Department of Linguistics, SOAS Vladimir P.Nedjalkov, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia Paz Buenaventura Naylor, Department of Asian Languages, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA G.A.Otaina, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia Masayoshi Shibatani, Faculty of Letters, University of Kobe, Kobe, Japan Andrew Spencer, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester Lone Takeuchi, Department of East Asia and Department of Linguistics, SOAS G.D.Wijewardhana, Department of Sinhala, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka Daya Wickramasinghe, Department of Sinhala, Sri Jayawardhanapura University, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka A.A.Xolodovič (died 1977), formerly Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg Note: the title of the Leningrad Institute is updated from Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad
INTRODUCTION This volume brings together eleven papers which relate to a seminar on language typology held at SOAS in 1988–89. Their subject-matter reflects two main influences. Firstly, a research grant from the Leverhulme Trust enabled us to study the work of the Leningrad Group for the Typological Study of Languages and to make some of it accessible in English translation.1 English versions of two key papers are included here: A.A. Xolodovič on Japanese passives, preceded by M.Shibatani’s discussion; and the essay by V.P.Nedjalkov, G.A.Otaina and A.A.Xolodovič on causatives in Nivkh, preceded by Judith Knott’s Leningrad-inspired analysis of the causative-passive link. Secondly, we were fortunate in having with us during the early stages of the seminar Professor Masayoshi Shibatani of Kobe University, Japan, who gave our discussions guidance and direction. Both Shibatani and the Leningrad/St.Petersburg typologists have worked extensively on questions relating to the valency structure of lexical predicates and in particular on grammatical devices which affect the mapping relations between syntactic and semantic roles, as in grammatical voice. The highly effective cross-linguistic comparison practised at Leningrad/ St. Petersburg has been a major factor in bringing language typology within the scope of modern theoretical linguistics. Beginning in the mid-sixties the Leningrad Typology Group have produced several collective volumes, each devoted to a particular grammatical domain defined by closely integrated formal and semantic-pragmatic variation (causative constructions: Xolodovič 1969; passive constructions: Xolodovič 1974; and resultative constructions: Nedjalkov 1983/88)—see Comrie 1989; Knott 1988; Nedjalkov and Litvinov in press. Leningrad typologists have taken as their point of departure the analysis of lexical predicates pioneered by Tesnière (1954): the verb (or, more rarely, adjective) is the head of the clause and each lexical verb has a specified number of syntactic ‘actants’ (subject, object, etc.) which represent the ‘participants’ (agent, patient, etc.) of the corresponding pragmatic setting (‘the situation’). With a two-place verb such as beat the active voice sentence The man beat the donkey is characterised by equating subject and agent. On the other hand, in the passive sentence The donkey was beaten the subject-role is dissociated from the agent and linked with patient role. 1 ‘Structural comparison of languages: typology and universals’. We gratefully acknowledge the Trust’s support of this project.
Subject, voice and ergativity
2
The mapping-relations between the hierarchies of syntactic and semantic-pragmatic roles, within a single language and across languages, make explicit a series of syntactic and semantic parameters delimiting areas of cross-linguistic variation. The highest position on the syntactic hierarchy is that of subject, on the semantic hierarchy that of agent. Active voice (in a nominative-accusative language) reflects the direct mapping between the top members of these two hierarchies, while passive voice represents marked subject choice. Cross-linguistically there is considerable variation in the choice of the noun phrase which is promoted to subject. In the prototypical passive this will be the patient, but there are so-called impersonal passives (which lack a lexical subject), and some languages will permit indirect objects and even locatives to become subjects, while in Japanese a noun phrase which is not even an actant of the verb may become the subject of a passive-voice sentence, as in Watashi wa hitobanjuu akanboo ni nakareta I TOPIC all night baby DAT cry-PASS-PAST ‘I was adversely affected by the/my baby crying all night’ (literally: ‘I was cried by the baby all night’) A.A.Xolodovič’s analysis of passive sentences in Japanese is an early and excellent example of the Leningrad approach, although he does not offer a solution of the instances where the subject is not an argument of the verb. Shibatani, in his comment on Xolodovič, compares the ‘extra’ NP to the ‘dativus (in)commodi’ of European languages, which introduces an affected party into an otherwise complete utterance. Compare the German intransitive verb ausgehen ‘to run out’ in Mir ist der Kaffee ausgegangen I-DAT is the coffee run-out-PAST-PART ‘I have run out of coffee’ There is also considerable variation in the way the agent of the passive is encoded; while the prototypical passive may be said to be agentless—the action being perceived from the perspective of the actant on which it impinges—many languages permit, as a variant, overt encoding of the agent. Depending on the language, this will be in an oblique case or in the form of an adpositional phrase, which are typically deletable. Asli Göksel analyses passive-middle and reflexive constructions in Turkish as cases of verb intransitivisation achieved by suppression of the agent and then deals in some detail with the syntactic status of the ‘reintroduced’ agent (invariably animate in Turkish), which takes the form of an adjunct. ‘Middle voice’ (of the type The door opens) is seen as not formally distinguished from the passive voice, the difference to be captured by the pragmatic interpretation. From the perspective of semantics, in a prototypical active sentence the syntactic subject is perceived as acting upon someone/something else and the syntactic object represents the affected party. Affectedness is not, however, restricted to the patient role. In the so-called middle voice, subject status may fall on a greater or lesser section of the spectrum of semantic roles, including the agent, if the noun phrase in question is perceived as being affected by the verbal action or event. That is to say, the referent of a
Introduction
3
noun phrase may be perceived as simultaneously acting and being acted upon (hence the similarities between middle and reflexive). G.D. Wijayawardhana et al. argue that in Sinhala the semantic roles assigned to arguments form a hierarchy governed by two complementary properties, control and affectedness. The top of the hierarchy is occupied by a prototypical agent in full control of, and unaffected by, the verbal action. This is the domain of the active voice, all other constellations being marked-voice constructions characterised by passive morphology. The bottom of the hierarchy is occupied by the (animate) patient characterised by total affectedness and absence of control, while the necessarily animate experiencer role, characterised by limited control and some affectedness, figures in between. The notion of control is again important for the Classical Japanese aspect markers discussed by Lone Takeuchi. Deriving from morphemes meaning ‘come’ and ‘go’ they retain their directional meaning in some contexts but in other contexts where the direction of movement would predict a ‘come’ morpheme, a ‘go’ morpheme occurs instead, its function being to indicate that the referent of the subject has no control over the action. At first glance, the basic sentential structure in ergative languages resembles the passive configuration of nominative-accusative languages both in terms of case-marking and verb-agreement; indeed, the suggestion was actually made as long ago as 1895 by Hugo Schuchardt that ergative languages were in essence passive languages. This view is no longer accepted, though ergativity in some languages has been convincingly shown to have developed from an earlier passive. The term ‘ergative language’ is used, of course, in at least two senses: (1) most commonly reference is to languages where the ergativity holds only at the morphological level, and we find the direct object (O/P) nominal treated exactly like the intransitive subject (S) nominal in terms of case-marking, verbagreement, word-order or particle-marking (according to the norms of the language concerned), leaving the transitive agent (A) nominal to be treated differently—this type of ergativity might apply only to certain tense/mood/aspect forms or to different parts of the nominal/pronominal or verb-agreement systems, in which case we speak of ‘split ergativity’; (2) a few languages, in addition to being morphologically ergative in the way just described, also manifest syntactic ergativity, such that certain syntactic rules apply only to NPs fulfilling certain syntactic functions. An example would be a relativisationrule requiring two co-referential NPs to be in O/P or S function. In such a language one could relativise the equivalents of ‘I saw the man (O/P) who (S) came yesterday’ and ‘The man (S) whom (O/P) I saw yesterday came’ but not ‘The man (S) who (A) saw me yesterday came’. Such languages invariably possess a transformation known as Antipassive, which places the underlying A-nominal in surface S-function (demoting the underlying O/P-nominal to some oblique function), thereby permitting relativisation of this third example to proceed after Anti-passive has applied (‘The man (S) who (S) sawANTI-PASS me-OBLIQUE yesterday came’). Anti-passive is so named because it seems to do to passive-like ergative structures what the passive transformation does to active sentences in nominative-accusative languages. Andrew Spencer addresses problems of case-marking and verb-agreement within the framework of Government and Binding theory, specifically the mirror-image properties existing between the passive transformation in nominative-accusative languages and the anti-passive transformation in ergative languages. With examples drawn from PaleoSiberian Chukchee and from Slavonic, he argues in favour of an as yet unrecognised
Subject, voice and ergativity
4
asymmetry between these two transformations, which he seeks to capture in terms of the formalisms of Structural Case assignment. Tim Farrell presents a case-study of various ‘splits’ in the ergativity of Southern and Western Balochi, a North West Iranian language of Pakistan. He investigates the historical origins of ergativity in Balochi (and in this respect the article nicely complements papers already published by John Payne), charts the apparent diachronic loss of the phenomenon, and offers explanations for the splits manifested in the investigation. A counter-example is proposed to the suggestion that tense/ aspect and Silverstein NP-splits cannot co-exist. The first paper in the section devoted to ergativity is by George Hewitt and restates the case for the relevance of ergativity for the South Caucasian language Georgian, one of the languages in which the phenomenon was first noticed, in the light of a recently expressed view that the relevant problem is better explained in terms of ‘activity’. The difference between ergative and active configurations is as follows: ergativity is concerned with morphosyntactic differences manifested between transitive and intransitive verbs/ clauses, whereas the active configuration involves an additional distinction between different sub-types of intransitive verb. The distinction is basically semantic, distinguishing between intransitive verbs whose S-nominal is acting volitionally or is in control of the verbal activity and those whose S-nominal is acting non-volitionally or is not in control of the verbal activity, active S-nominals being treated like A-nominals, inactive S-nominals being treated like O/P-nominals. It is claimed that active languages draw the dividing line at different places and that while some active languages may permit fluid marking of their S-nominals to take account of the semantic parameter, others do not. By this is meant that, if we accept that logically some people may grow fat as the result of a conscious decision to overindulge, then the fluid-type active marking would differentiate by marking the accidental fat-grower like an O/Pnominal and the deliberate fat-grower like an A-nominal. The non-fluid active language would make both fat-growers like an O/P-nominal regardless. The argument discussed in Hewitt’s paper is to an important degree concerned with whether intransitive verbs are straightforward to identify. Both the nominative-accusative and the ergative types have a voice system that opposes an unmarked voice to one or more marked voices and they differ in this respect from Philippine-type languages such as Tagalog, which appear to give equal weight to a number of distinct voices—if indeed their so-called focus system is to be interpreted in terms of grammatical voice. While Shibatani (1988a) argues for such an interpretation, Paz. B.Naylor (this volume) takes the opposite view since the notion ‘subject’ is not, in her view, legitimately applied to the noun phrase in Tagalog which the morphology of the verb singles out as being ‘in focus’. Causative and passive are opposities in the sense that passivisation prototypically suppresses one actant whereas addition of the causative marker to the base verb creates a slot for an additional actant. This ‘new’ actant is the syntactic subject of the causative sentence while the subject/ agent of the non-causative base-verb is downgraded, in fact not unlike the agent of the passive. V.P.Nedjalkov, G.A.Otaina and A.A.Xolodovič deal with semantic variation in the causative construction in terms of the relative degree of control that is vested in the causative subject by comparison with that of the base-verb: factitives assign it a high level of control, permissives a low level. From permissive to
Introduction
5
passive proper is but a small step when the subject of the causative is coreferential with the patient of the base-verb and the agent of the base-verb has more control than the subject of the causative verb. In German Er hat sich überreden lassen he has REFLpersuade let-PAST PART ‘He let himself be persuaded’ the subject is coreferential with the affected party and the degree of control vested in it is low. This coreferentiality forms an important link between the above ‘reluctant permitter’ reading and a fully passive reading, which would apply when all control has been removed from the subject. In a number of languages, extending from Mongolia to northern China (Hashimoto 1988) the causative and passive markers are in fact homophonous. Judith Knott follows Leningrad tradition in arguing that the passive reading has developed from the reanalysis of a causative-reflexive with permissive reading comparable to the German case above. The possibility of a diachronic transition involves, however, not only (certain types of) causative and passive. It has been argued that in South Caucasian an antipassive might be the source of that part of their morphosyntactic patterning which is characterisable as nominative-accusative. Also the Indo-Iranian languages are known to have developed— and often subsequently lost—morphological ergativity through passive constructions being reanalysed as ergative, with subsequent loss of ergative marking (see Farrell’s paper). While the passive-to ergative reanalysis shifts subject status from the patient to the agent noun phrase (which is invested with maximal control) the causative-to-passive reanalysis involves loss of control on the part of the causative agent, which, nevertheless, retains its subject status. These diachronic considerations may in fact be seen as lending support to a broader conception of grammatical voice (as envisaged by Shibatani) which can accommodate almost the entire spectrum of phenomena reviewed in this volume. We are grateful to Nauka for permission to publish the English translation of the two papers of the Leningrad Group for the Typological Study of Languages. We should also like to thank the Publications Committee of the School of Oriental and African Studies for its assistance in meeting the cost of publication, and Diana Matias and Martin Daly for their editorial help. REFERENCES Comrie, Bernard 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Hashimoto, Mantaro J. 1988. ‘The structure and typology of the Chinese passive construction’. In Shibatani (ed.) 1988, 329–54 Knott, Judith M. 1988. The Leningrad Group for the Typological Study of Languages: introduction and translations. London: SOAS Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed). 1983 Tipologija rezul’tativnyx konstruksij. Leningrad: Nauka; English version Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1988 Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. and Litvinov, Viktor P. (forthcoming) ‘The Leningrad Group for the Typological Study of Languages’. In Shibatani, Masayoshi and Bynon, Theodora (eds.), Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Subject, voice and ergativity
6
Payne, John 1979. ‘Transitivity and intransitivity in the Iranian languages of the USSR’. In Papers from the conference on non-Slavic languages of the USSR. Chicago Linguistic Society Shibatani, Masayoshi 1988a. ‘Voice in Philippine languages’. In Shibatani (ed.) 1988, 85–142 Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) 1988b. Passive and voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Schuchardt, Hugo 1896. ‘Über den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasischen Sprachen’. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien 133, 1–191 Tesnière, Lucien 1954. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Xolodovič, A.A. (ed). 1969. Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Leningrad: Nauka Xolodovič, A.A. (ed) 1974. Tipologia passivnyx konstrukcij. Leningrad: Nauka
A.A.XOLODOVIČ ON JAPANESE PASSIVES Masayoshi Shibatani Despite its early publication date of 1974, Xolodovič’s paper touches upon most of the relevant issues that contemporary analysts of Japanese passives and those working on the typology of passive constructions encounter as central problems. The problems are: 1) the nature of valence-increasing passives, 2) the adversative reading associated with certain passive expressions, and 3) the interpretation of the null agent. Xolodovič follows the practice of the Leningrad school of typology, of which he was the founding father, in his treatment of diatheses of verbs. In this tradition, diatheses are patterns of correspondence between syntactic-level nominal expressions (actants) and semantic-level participant roles (participants). In essence a verbal lexeme is associated with a particular set of particular roles. These participant roles are associated with surface noun phrases according to unique patterns with respect to specific lexical forms of the lexeme. For example, the lexeme KILL has associated with it particular roles and <patient>. In its active lexical form kill (or the Japanese form korus-u ‘kill-PRES’), the role is associated with a subject noun phrase and the <patient> role with an object noun phrase. However, in its passive form killed (or the Japanese form korosa-reru ‘kill-PASS-PRES’) the role is linked with an oblique noun phrase, and the <patient> role with a subject noun phrase. The pattern of correspondence exhibited by the basic form of a given lexeme (e.g. kill or korosu) is considered to be the basic diathesis and designated as D0, whereas the patterns of correspondence displayed by other forms are derived by a derivation rule of the form D0→D1 and designated as D1, D2, etc. In the Leningrad practice, the term voice is used in reference to the morphological categories reflecting diathetic patterns. Thus “active voice” refers to the category of underived verb forms associated with the basic diathesis, while “passive voice” refers to the category of verb forms, typically identified with a specific morphological marking, that encode the derived diatheses in which the role is not linked with a subject noun phrase. The relationships between verb forms, diatheses, and voices are shown below: (1) Verb forms: Kill/korosu Diathesis: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) (Y=DirObACC)… Voice: Active Verb forms: killed/korosareru Diathesis: D1: (X=AgOb) (Y+SubABS/NOM)… Voice: Passive
Subject, voice and ergativity
8
These verb forms and the diatheses associated with them are manifested in the following sentences, where the sentence containing the active form of the verb and the one with the passive form of the verb can be respectively called the “active sentence” and “passive sentence”.1 (2) Honda wa Taroo o korosita. (Active) Honda TOP Taro ACC kill-PAST ‘Honda killed Taro.’ (3) Taroo wa Honda ni korosareta. (Passive) Taro TOP Honda DAT kill-PASS-PAST ‘Taro was killed by Honda.’
In this manner, Xolodovič surveys the diathetic patterns of major verb classes of Japanese, showing specifically how active sentences and passive sentences are related in terms of diathetic derivations. From the typological point of view, a particularly interesting fact about the Japanese passive is the existence of passives that increase the number of actants, as opposed to the prototypical passive, which has the effect of decreasing syntactic valency; cf. The enemy destroyed a lot of buildings vs. A lot of buildings were destroyed. A satisfactory treatment of the relevant type of passive has been a major problem for those concerned with Japanese passives, and Xolodovič also pays special attention to this problem. One type of valence-increasing passive involves transitive verbs such as nusumu ‘steal’ and kamu ‘bite’. For the lexeme nusumu ‘steal’, Xolodovič posits three diatheses, one for the basic active form and the other two for the passive form, as shown below: (4) a. D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) (Y=DirObACC) (Z=ModGEN(DirOb) Suri wa boku no saihu o nusunda. pickpocket TOP I GEN purse ACC stealPAST ‘The pickpocket stole my purse.’ b. D1: (X=AgObDAT) (Y=DirObACC) (Z=SubABS/NOM) Boku wa suri ni saihu o nusumareta. I TOP pickpocket DAT purse ACC stealPASS-PAST ‘I was deprived of (my) purse by a pickpocket.’ or ‘I had (my) purse stolen.’ c. D2: (X=AgObDAT) (Y=SubABS/NOM) (Z=ModGEN(Sub) Boku no saihu wa suri ni nusumareta. I GEN purse TOP pickpocket DAT stealPASS-PAST ‘My purse was stolen by the pickpocket.’
The (c) form is a regular passive with no increase in valency, whereas the (b) form, defined by the diathesis D1, has the effect of increasing valency, with three nominal expressions. Xolodovič extends this analysis for expressions involving relational concepts such that (5b) below is also derived from (5a) by the diathetic derivation (D0→D1) posited above.
A.A.Xolodovic on Japanese passives
9
1. Xolodovič typically uses the wa-marked topic subjects in his example sentences as the realization of the (SubABS/NOM) argument of the diathesis. We follow this practice below. (5) a. Inu wa Taroo no asi o kanda. dog TOP Taro GEN leg ACC bite-PAST ‘The dog bit Taro’s leg.’ b. Taroo wa inu ni asi o kamareta. Taro TOP dog DAT leg ACC bite-PASSPAST ‘Taro had his leg bitten by the dog.’ c. Taroo no asi wa inu ni kamareta. Taro GEN leg TOP dog DAT bite-PASSPAST ‘Taro’s leg was bitten by the dog.’
Deriving a new, additional subject actant from the genitive modifier is a standard analysis adopted by many Japanese specialists, and it has been extended by them and Xolodovič alike to another valence-increasing type of passive involving intransitive bases, illustrated below: (6) a. Watasi no obaasan ga sinda. I GEN grandmother NOM die-PAST ‘My grandmother died.’ b. Watasi wa obaasan ni sinareta. I TOP grandmother DAT die-PASS-PAST ‘I suffered the death of (my) grandmother.’
Xolodovič, however, realizes that there is an additional type of intransitive-based passive that does not involve a possessive or relational concept and that, as such, lacks a genitive source for the passive subject; e.g. (7) a. Kanozyo ga sinda. she NOM die-PAST ‘She died.’ (*boku no kanozyo=*my she)2 b. Boku wa kanozyo ni sinareta. I TOP she DAT die-PASS-PAST ‘I suffered her death.’ (“I” could be her husband or lover)3
The following is a standard example given for this type of passive: (8) a. Ame ga hutta. rain NOM fall-PAST ‘Rain fell’, ‘It rained.’ b. Satoo san wa ame ni hurareta. Sato Mr TOP rain DAT fall-PASS-PAST ‘Mr Sato was caught in the rain.’
For the verbs that give rise to this type of passive, which lacks the genitive source for the passive subject, Xolodovič posits the following diatheses:
Subject, voice and ergativity
10
2. The form kanozyo can be used either as a pronoun for ‘she’ or as a common noun with the meaning of ‘girl friend, lover’. Xolodovič here is using the form as a pronoun. 3. This commentary was provided in the original by Xolodovič. Its significance becomes clearer as we go on. (9) D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) →D1 (X-AgObDAT) (Ø=SubABS/NOM)
He then asks where the new subject actants of these passive forms come from, and answers that they “come from the context” (p. 47). Thus, in Xolodovič’s treatment, there are two instances of valence increase; one in which the new actant derives from the genitive modifier (see (4b), (5b), (6b)) and the other in which the new actant “comes from the context” (see (7b), (8b)). After presenting his analyses for them, Xolodovič initially voices some concern over his treatment, namely “This increase in valency is in some respects [sic.] paradoxical, in view of the fact that we are dealing with voice…” (p. 37). And then in the final section of his paper (section 10) Xolodovič fully addresses this problem by first remarking that: “According to the traditional notion of voice, however, a verb in a derived voice form either has the same number of the actants as the basic form, or fewer actants. The possibility of its having MORE actants is completely foreign to this conception of voice.” (p. 50). Xolodovič recognizes that the “passive” morpheme under consideration not only increases the number of syntactic actants, but also the number of relevant participants. That is, what is being described by these “passive” sentences are different situations or scenes from those described by their non-“passive” counterparts. This is a very important observation on the part of Xolodovič and it points to the fundamental problem of the analysis that derives a form such as (4b) from (4a); the former, passive form talks about three participants, the speaker, his purse, and the pickpocket, while the latter, source form talks about two participants, the pickpocket and the speaker’s purse. (On the other hand, what is being talked about is the same between (4a) and the corresponding regular passive (4c).) Xolodovič reaches the following conclusion with regard to the valence-increasing “passive” forms: “The lexical entry of the derived form must consequently be different from that of the basic form; in other words, the derived form may be said to constitute a separate lexeme” (p. 50). Here Xolodovič is suggesting a type of non-uniform treatment of Japanese passives. That is, there is a set of passives that are derivable from the corresponding active forms via diathetic derivations, and there is another set whose members are not derived from other sources but which constitute independent lexemes with their own inherent diatheses.4 4. In the Japanese linguistic literature, the terms ‘uniform’ and ‘non-uniform’ analyses of Japanese passives refer specifically to the two competing analyses, one of which, the uniform analysis, treats all passives in a uniform manner as deriving from the embedding construction in which the morpheme rare functions as a higher predicate, whilst the other, the non-uniform analysis, treats the valence-increasing forms one way, as deriving from the embedding construction, and the nonvalence increasing passives another way, typically as transformationally derived from the corresponding active forms. Xolodovič’s analysis is similar to the non-uniform approach in a number of respects, having the line of division largely coincide with the question of valence increase, and the valence-increasing type likened to the causative, which in the generative tradition is standardly analyzed as involving embedding.
A.A.Xolodovic on Japanese passives
11
In the final analysis Xolodovič likens the valence-increasing Japanese passives to the causative, which standardly increases valence. However, it is not clear if Xolodovič requires each causative form, e.g. ika-se-ru ‘go-CAUS-PRES’, to be posited as a separate lexeme independent of the verb ik-u ‘go-PRES’. Notice that here too the number of participants differs between the basic form and the derived causative form and further that causativization is also a very productive process in Japanese. At any rate, it is difficult to accept Xolodovič’s causative analysis of the valence-increasing passive 1) because of the semantic considerations—(5b) doesn’t really mean ‘Taro let the dog bite his leg’, which the real permissive causative form Taroo wa inu ni asi o kamaseta means (see below on a related semantic point), and 2) because, unlike Tungusic languages, there is no historical connection between the causative expression and the passive morpheme rare or its historical antecedent forms raru and rayu, whose earlier meaning was likely to have been spontaneous.5 Whether or not one accepts Xolodovič’s rather radical suggestions examined above, the alternative account suggested by him that valence-increasing forms are constructions in their own right rather than being derived from some underlying constructions of different structural patterns is a correct one in that even those expressions involving possessive or relational concepts sometimes do not yield to the standard analysis of deriving the new passive subject from a genitive modifier; e.g. (10) (cf. (4)) a. Suri wa kanozyo no saihu o nusunda. pickpocket TOP she GEN purse ACC steal-PAST ‘The pickpocket stole her purse.’ b. Boku wa suri ni kanozyo no saihu o I TOP pickpocket DAT she GEN purse ACC nusumareta steal-PASS-PAST ‘I was deprived of her purse by a pickpocket.’ (11) (cf. (5)) a. Inu wa Hanoko no asi o kanda dog TOP Hanako GEN leg ACC bitePAST ‘The dog bit Hanako’s leg.’ b. Taroo wa inu ni Hanako no asi o kamareta Taro TOP dog DAT Hanako GEN leg ACC bite-PASS-PAST ‘Taro suffered the dog’s biting Hanako’s leg.’
The possibility of adding a new subject actant in the passive, in other words, is a regular feature of the Japanese passive morpheme, regardless of the involvement of a relational concept or the transitivity of the verb base. If so, (4b) and (5b) need not be derived respectively from (4a) and (5a)—from the genitive sources. But this fact also points out that Xolodovič’s move to set up separate lexemes for these forms requires
Subject, voice and ergativity
12
5. See Malchukov 1993 on Even passives, which appear to be historically related to the causative.
positing separate lexical entries for all Japanese verbs and their passive analogues, which certainly is problematic. Though not discussed by Xolodovič, a similar problem is observed in the standard analysis of certain topic constructions; e.g. (12) a. Zoo no hana ga nagai elephant GEN nose NOM long ‘An elephant’s nose (=trunk) is long.’ b. Zoo wa hana ga nagai elephant TOP nose NOM long ‘As for the elephant, (its) nose (=trunk) is long.’
Among Japanese specialists, the topic phrase in (12b) is customarily derived from the genitive modifier in (12a). However, again these two sentences make different assertions: (12a) makes an assertion about an elephant’s nose (trunk), whereas (12b) is an assertion about the elephant and secondarily about its nose (trunk). Notice that topic sentence (12b) in a sense increases valency, as it contains two noun phrases vis-à-vis the one-place predicate nagai ‘long’.6 The motivation for the above analysis of a topic sentence again comes from the fact that a relational concept is involved. Just as the leg referred to in (5b) is understood as belonging to Taro, the nose (trunk) is necessarily understood as that of an elephant in (12b). However, the naïveté of the genitive-source analysis is revealed by the fact that the semantic relationship under consideration is far more complex than the possessive or relational notion. The following topic sentence, for example, resists the genitive-source analysis. (13) Sakana wa tai ga ii fish TOP red snapper NOM good ‘As for fish, red snapper is good.’
As for the situation with passives, notice Xolodovič’s supplementary note to the gloss for (7b). A better solution to the semantic problem here is to turn things around and to assume that as far as the syntax is concerned, the sentence types in question (e.g. (5b) and (12b)) do not derive from genitive sources, but they require particular semantic interpretations whereby the extra noun phrases—the subject of the valence-increasing passive and the topic phrase—are related in some sense to certain elements in the rest of the sentence. Once we abandon, along with Xolodovič, the genitive-source analysis for these constructions, we are in a position of having to account for this semantic requirement imposed on them. We must also allow room for expressions such as (8b) and the following where there is no semantic relationship between the passive subject and 6. The standard analysis of the SURFACE structure of a topic sentence is something like [zoo wa [hana ga nagai]], where the topic phrase zoo wa is predicated by the following clause, and only hana ga is predicated by the adjectival predicate nagai.
A.A.Xolodovic on Japanese passives
13
what is expressed in the dative phrase. (14) Taroo wa siranai seerusu-man ni tugi-tugi to korareta Taro TOP unknown sales-man DAT oneafter-another come -PASS-PAST ‘Taro was adversely affected by unknown salesmen’s coming one after another.’
This example brings us to the second major problem of Japanese passives, namely the adversative reading. Xolodovič does not dwell on this issue, which involves a high degree of semantic subtlety, except to note that intransitive verbs with inherently unpleasant meaning, e.g. naku ‘cry’ and sinu ‘die’, as well as some neutral verbs such as kuru ‘come’ and yuku ‘go’, which may occasion unpleasant situations, may yield the adversative reading. While Xolodovič’s observation is largely correct, the adversative reading can also be associated with transitive-based passives. For example, (10b) and (11b) require adversative readings. The account called for here is one that tells us when and why an adversative reading obtains. Notice that even if the verb inherently has an unpleasant meaning, the adversative reading under consideration does not necessarily obtain. For example, (3) contains the verb korosareru ‘be killed’, which inherently expresses an unpleasant event involving the subject referent, but the sentence does not yield the kind of adversity reading being discussed here, which involves the sense of inconvenience or adverseness.7 While the two problems discussed here—the nature of valence-increasing passives and the adversative reading associated with certain passive sentences—may appear to be unrelated, I would contend that they are in fact related. Though not absolute, there is a general correlation between valence-increasing passives and the adversative reading. What is called for here, then is a comprehensive account of the full array of passives including valance-increasing ones, from which the solution to the problem of the adversity reading will follow naturally. The following is a sketch towards such an account. The crux of the problem lies in the matter of semantic integration of nominal expressions into clausal structure; that is, the question of how various nominal expressions are integrated semantically in their clausal formation. They are typically integrated by way of satisfying participant roles associated with particular verbal lexemes. Fillmore’s case-frame account and the recently proposed theta-criterion within the GB framework—that every thematic role associated with a given predicate must be uniquely expressed by an argument and that every argument must be uniquely associated with a stipulated thematic role—are efforts toward the goal of defining the manner in which nominal expressions are semantically integrated in a clausal structure. 7. Perhaps the German Dativus Incommodi construction conveys the meaning close to the adversative reading discussed here; e.g. Mir starb die Mutter ‘Mother died on me,’ Mir rutscht die Hose ‘The trousers slip (down) on me.’
The so-called actants are nominal expressions satisfying participant roles and they define, together with a verbal lexeme, a situation to be described. In other words, they
Subject, voice and ergativity
14
themselves constitute a particular situation portrayed by a relevant expression. With regard to the situation described, they have constitutive relevance, and hence are indispensable elements in the description of the situation. The passive diathesis typically preserves the participant roles defined by a particular verbal lexeme and its actants are integrated by way of satisfying these roles. What is peculiar about some Japanese passives is that their subjects do not necessarily satisfy participant roles stipulated by the verbal lexemes. Thus, we need a theory of semantic integration that goes beyond the theta criterion-type principle. Examine again (5b) and (5c), for example. In the latter, regular passive the two semantic roles of the verb are satisfied by the two nominal expressions, just as in the corresponding active form. However, in the former, valence-increasing form the additional subject argument must be semantically integrated by other means than satisfying the semantic roles, which are already instantiated by the other nominal expressions. One possible solution for this problem is to posit two separate passive morphemes for Japanese; one that increases valency in association with a new semantic role (e.g. ), and the other that does not affect the basic valency of the verb. The former is then like the causative extension. This non-uniform analysis that sets up an independent category for the valence-increasing passive is like Xolodovič’s. What is uninteresting about this analysis is that, for one thing, it offers no explanation for the semantic requirement discussed earlier. Consider again Xolodovič’s example given in (7b) and the commentary provided by him on the interpretation of the relationship between the subject and the dative phrase. We also pointed out that for examples such as (5b), a possessive relationship is typically imputed between the subject referent and the object referent. However, no such semantic effect arises in the case of a valency addition that accompanies the addition of a welldefined semantic role as the causative extension. For example, causative sentence (15a) below requires no assumption like the one that accompanies (7b)—no special relationship between the speaker and the kanozyo ‘she’ need be entertained—, and (15b), though a normal reading would assume that the leg belonged to Taro, imposes no necessary relationship between the subject referent and the object referent and easily allows the interpretation that the leg belonged to the dog, which would be very far-fetched in the case of (7b). (15) a. Boku wa kanozyo ni arukaseta. I TOP she DAT walk-CAUS-PAST ‘I had her walk.’ b. Taroo wa inu ni asi o kamaseta Taro TOP dog DAT leg ACC bite ‘Taro made the dog bite a leg.’
Secondly, the non-uniform analysis provides no account for the adversative reading— why is the valance-increasing passive, which introduces the new role, not consistently associated with the adversative reading? What is the nature of the role in the first place? In the case of a true valence-increasing construction, such as the causative, valence is increased in association with a well-defined new participant role, such as the external causative agent in the case of the causative extension. In the case of the valence-increasing passive, however, the adversative reading is not consistently associated with valence increase. Specifically, the body-part forms such as (5b) do not
A.A.Xolodovic on Japanese passives
15
bear the adversative meaning. In fact, there appears to be a gradation of the adversative reading such that among (5b), (4b), and (6b), the adversative reading becomes more pronounced in the order given. This non-categorical nature of the adversative reading casts strong doubt on the analysis that sets up a new role such as in association with the valence-increasing passive morpheme.8 A satisfactory solution that answers these questions requires a broader theory of semantic integration of the nominal expressions in their clausal formation. This theory stipulates, like the approaches that invoke the notion of case-frames or the theta-criterion principle, that every nominal expression must make a semantic contribution to the clause in which it occurs. That is, there must be a good semantic reason for a nominal expression to occur, or put differently, every nominal expression must be semantically licensed. Nominal expressions typically satisfy this requirement of semantic integration by means of instantiating thematic (semantic) roles stipulated by a given verb. As pointed out earlier, these nominal expressions, together with the verb, constitute the scene described by that particular verb. We see in the case of the valence-increasing Japanese passive a situation where an additional noun phrase is somehow licensed, and the problem boils down to the question of how this extra-thematic licensing is achieved. I hold that the key concept leading to the answer for this question is that of relevance; that is how relevant a given nominal is to the scene described. As noted earlier, the nominal expressions instantiating the theta roles have constitutive relevance in that they constitute the scene: the scene will not be what is described unless the relevant participants are assumed to be involved. Now, all extra-thematically licensed nominals must be given semantic justification for their occurrence, and the imputing of some kind of relevance for them to a described scene constitutes this justification. The imputation of the whole-part or the possessive relationship is the simplest and most typical way of satisfying the relevance requirement (cf. (5b)). In a situation involving a body-part, its owner is highly relevant to the scene; he is in fact a direct participant in the scene, having relevance to 8. The same criticism applies to the embedding analysis of the passive that posits the higher passive verb rare in association with the passive subject in the main clause subject position.
the scene to almost the same extent as the body-part itself. What is remarkable about the Japanese passive is that it allows extra-thematic semantic integration of an element with no direct relevance to the scene. Such is the case with the expressions like (6b), (7b), (10b), and (11b). And this is where the adversative implication is most prominently felt. The adversative reading, in other words, is imputed as a way of semantically integrating the extra-thematic passive subject into a scene—that it is relevant to the described scene as an entity (indirectly) affected adversely by the happening of the event. The reason that in (6b) obaasan ‘grandmother, old lady’ is likely to be interpreted as a relative of the subject referent is that having one’s grandmother die is more likely to have an effect upon him than the death of a totally unrelated old lady. The same applies to the commentary provided for (7b) by Xolodovič and to the similar interpretations imputed to the relationship between the subject referents and kanozyo ‘she’ and Hanako in (10b) and (11b).
Subject, voice and ergativity
16
To summarize, then, the possessor interpretation or the adversative interpretation in relation to the subject of the valence-increasing passive is the effect arising from the need to semantically integrate the extra-thematically introduced nominal expressions. The adversative reading is typically associated with intransitive-based passives because they are typical valence-increasing passives, which entails the existence of extra-thematically introduced subject nominals. But not all valence-increasing passives are associated with a clear sense of adversity, especially when the extra-thematic passive subject is construable as the possessor of an affected body-part. In such cases, the extra-thematic passive subject is a directly relevant participant, and thus satisfies the relevance requirement without being ascribed the role of an indirectly affected entity. The above is an attempt toward a new uniform analysis of Japanese passives. There is a single passive morpheme. It does not standardly increase valence in the same way as the causative construction, but it simply allows an extra-thematically integrated nominal expression. In a sense, this valence-increasing phenomenon is in between the regular passive and a well-established valence-increasing construction such as the causative construction in that it increases valence, yet the extra argument is not thematically integrated, and therefore calls for additional semantic support. A theory of semantic integration like the one outlined above is needed because, as we have seen already, there are a number of constructions in which nominal expressions are extra-thematically licensed. A topic construction seen in (12b) or (13) is one case in point. While the topic construction is a well-grammaticalized construction in Japanese, not any kind of predication of the topic will do; the topic must be semantically integrated in such a way that it either satisfies a thematic role of the main predicate or is related to some entity in the clause in terms of, for example, a relational concept, such that the socalled “aboutness condition”—that the non-topic portion of the sentence tells something about the topic—will be satisfied. (See the discussion on (12b).) Recall that a fair number of languages, e.g. Malagasy and Bantu languages, allow double-subject or double-object expressions involving the possessor and the possessed as independent arguments of a clause. This phenomenon, known as “possessor ascension” in the Relational Grammar literature, can be treated in the manner advocated here as a case of extra-thematic licensing. Also, passives in such languages as Chinese and Korean permit extra-thematic passive subjects, which are normally construed as the possessors of the referent of a body-part nominal instantiating a thematic role. And then, Tungusic languages allow valence-increasing passives to as wide an extent as Japanese (see Malchukov 1993). Finally, the dative expressions of various kinds, especially what is known as the Dativus Incommodi in German (see note 7), also call for a theory of extrathematic licensing. We shall now turn to the final point that Xolodovič’s treatment of Japanese passives touches upon, namely the interpretation of the null agent. When we say that passives decrease syntactic valence, we mean that the agent need not be expressed overtly. In English the null agent allows either a definite or indefinite interpretation; thus John was shoved around aboard the crowded train may mean either that John was shoved around by a particular person we are talking about or that John was shoved by someone or other. In either interpretation, the passive null agent is syntactically null, because English does not normally allow free omission of understood elements. However, in Japanese, which allows free omission of understood elements, the absence of an element does not
A.A.Xolodovic on Japanese passives
17
necessarily mean reduction in syntactic valence, for the missing element could be due to free omission. Thus, in order to ascertain whether the passive reduces syntactic valence with respect to the agentive role, we must restrict our attention to the possibility of the indefinite interpretation. The regular, purely thematically sanctioned passives in Japanese also allow indefinite interpretation of the null agent indicating its valence-reduction effect; e.g. (16) a. Taroo wa kyoo mo sikarareta. Tao TOP today too scold-PASS-PAST ‘Taro was scolded today too.’ b. Kono tatemono wa 1936-nen ni taterareta. this building TOP 1936-year at buildPASS-PAST ‘This building was built in 1936.’
The situation with the valence increasing passive, however, is not entirely clear. First, as Xolodovič correctly points out, the agent of intransitive-based passives cannot be normally omitted. (17a), for example, allows only a definite null interpretation, and without an appropriate context, the agent must be overtly expressed as, e.g., in (17b). (17) a. Aa, too-too sinarete simatta. Oh finally die-PASS-CONJ finish-PAST ‘Oh, finally (I) ended up being subjected to (my mother’s) death.’ b. Too-too hahaoya ni sinareta. finally mother DAT die-PASS-PAST ‘Finally (I) had my mother die.’
However, when an extra-thematically sanctioned passive subject is interpreted as the possessor of an affected entity, then the indefinite interpretation of the null agent is permitted, e.g. (18) a. Taroo wa kurayami de atama o nagurareta. Tato TOP darkness in head ACC hitPASS-PAST ‘Taro had his head hit in the dark.’ b. Taroo wa densya de saihu o nusumareta. Taro TOP train in purse ACC steal-PASSPAST ‘Taro had his purse stolen in the train.’
The possibility of the indefinite interpretation of the null agent is correlated with the way passive subjects are licensed, but in a rather subtle manner. Again, the general correlations between transitive-based passives and the indefinite null agent interpretation and between intransitive-based passives and the impossibility of the same interpretation arises from the need for semantic integration. In the transitive-based passive, the passive subject is thematically licensed and therefore its relevance to the described scene is obvious. But in the case of the intransitive-based passive, the passive subject needs to be licensed on the basis of some semantic connection it holds with some other element in the sentence. When the passive agent is null and is to be interpreted indefinitely, there is no
Subject, voice and ergativity
18
available element with which a semantic relation for the passive subject can be stipulated (see (17a)). (One cannot easily impute relevant relationships such as the ones discussed earlier between a particular person and an unmentioned indefinite person in general.) In the case of the body-part or possessive passives of the type shown in (18), there is a sufficient ground provided for establishing the relevance of the passive subject to the described scene.9 The above discussion has centred around the three central problems associated with the Japanese passive that also received focused attention in A.A.Xolodovič’s treatment. I have tried to show that they are all related problems and that a unified account for them is possible; i.e. all of them are related to the problem of extra-thematic licensing. Lengthy 9. The issue of the possibility of the indefinite null agent interpretation is more involved than hitherto assumed, and even certain purely thematically sanctioned passives do not permit the indefinite interpretation of the null agent. For example, the following are highly elliptical—i.e. permitted only in the definite interpretation of the null agent: Hanako wa kurayami de oikakerareta ‘Hanako was chased in the dark.’ The contrast between this and the following highly comparable form, which allows an indefinite interpretation, indicates that the indefinite interpretation is possible only when the range of indefinite reference is sufficiently narrowed—i.e. the Grician principle of quantity is involved: Hanako wa kurayami de osowareta ‘Hanako was attacked in the dark.’ (Notice that the same point is observed with respect to the English glosses here.)
though the foregoing is, it does not exhaust all the problems associated with Japanese passives. One outstanding problem is the interpretation of the reflexive expression seen in different passive sentences. This and other problems, however, go beyond the scope of Xolodovič’s paper and hence our purpose.10 REFERENCES Malchukov, Andrej 1993. The syntax and semantics of adversative constructions in Even. Gengo Kenkyu 103:1–36. (The Linguistic Society of Japan). Shibatani, Masayoshi 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10. See Shibatani (1990: Chap. 11), in which I advocated a non-uniform analysis!
DIATHESES AND VOICES IN MODERN JAPANESE1 A translation of A.A.Xolodovič (1974). Diatezy i zalogi v sovremennom japonskom jazyke. In Xrakovskij, V.S. (ed.) Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij. Leningrad: Nauka. 316–342. 0.1. In the Japanese examples cited in this article, the nouns accompanying a verb will usually appear in one of the following four cases: nominative, accusative, dative and instrumental.2 Since each case is expressed in Japanese by a single morph, these four cases may also be called the “ga3 case”, the “o case”, the “ni case” and the “de case” respectively. The ga case is the form taken by the syntactic subject, while the remaining three cases characterise syntactic objects and adverbial phrases. In addition to these four cases, there is one other case which occurs quite frequently with verbs: the zero case (expressed by a Ø morph). This occurs in sentences where the subject, for various reasons which need not concern us here, is not in the ga case. A subject in the zero case is frequently accompanied by the morph wa, which characterises the theme as opposed to the rheme, or given information as opposed to new.4 The dependence of one noun on another is expressed by adding the morph no1 (which should not be confused with its homonym no2, used to form nouns from verbs). no1 is not, strictly speaking, a case marker; it can connect a dependent noun to a head which is already in some case form: 1. [J.M.K.] I would like to thank Prof. M.Shibatani, Prof T.Bynon and Miss A.Yuki for their help in preparing this translation. The translation is slightly abridged, mainly with respect to the number of Japanese examples included. I have also omitted some passages comparing Japanese with Russian, which have little relevance for the non-Russian reader. Other omissions are pointed out individually in the notes. 2. [J.M.K.] Miss Yuki informs me that the instrumental is not a core case in the same sense as the other three cases mentioned here. 3. [J.M.K.] In transcribing the Japanese examples, I have followed the practice of Martin (1975), rather than simply transliterating Xolodovič’s Cyrillic transcription. The following points should be particularly noted: (a) The transcription is phonemic, except in English glosses of Japanese proper names, where I have used the traditional “Hepburn” system; so, for example, Japanese Ziroo is glossed as “Jirō”. (b) Case markers are treated as separate particles (whereas Xolodovič treats them as affixes). In the more extended Japanese examples, I have added detailed morpheme-by-morpheme glosses, with the help of Prof. Shibatani and with reference to Martin (1975). 4. [J.M.K.] I have glossed this as TOP (an abbreviation for “topic”) in the examples.
e.g. A de no B [instrumental case+no1]5, A e no B [illative case+no1], A kara no B [ablative case+no1], etc.
Subject, voice and ergativity
20
0.2. Japanese verb forms consist of a root morph (or possibly two root morphs) plus a sequence of non-root morphs. All morphs, root and non-root, are joined together by connecting vowels, the majority of which are homophonous with morphs indicating the syntactic function of the verb form: for example, yom-i1 vs yom-i2-, where -i1- is a connecting vowel and -i2-is a coordinating morph (analogous to the comma in the written language). Root morphs may be divided into two classes, I and II.6 Root morphs of class I may be joined to following morphs by one of five connecting vowels: -a-, -e-, -oo-, -i-, -u-. The choice between these vowels is determined by the following morph: e.g. yom-i-tai “(I) want to read” vs yom-a-nai “(I) do not read”. The root morphs of class II, on the other hand, may be divided into two sub-classes, each of which always takes the same connecting vowel. One sub-class takes -e-, the other takes -i-: e.g. nag-e-tai “(I) want to throw”, nag-e-nai “(I) do not throw” vs ok-i-tai “(I) want to get up”, ok-i-nai “(I) do not get up”. Morph boundaries frequently trigger the application of various morphophonological rules.7 These may affect both the morphs themselves and the connecting vowels, and as a result the internal structure of words is by no means transparently agglutinative. For example, the sequence of morphs yom-i-ta “(I) read (past)” becomes yonda by a series of morphophonological rules; and, by the same rules, the sequence yom-i-te “having read” becomes yonde. 1.1. Every form of a verbal lexeme, V1, may be said to have a diathesis, D1.8 This represents information about how the noun phrases (actants) which accompany the verb at the surface syntactic level relate to the participants inherently associated with the verb at the semantic level (i.e. those participants which must be referred to in the lexical entry9 of the 5. [J.M.K.] Material enclosed in square brackets has been added by me, usually for the purposes of clarification. 6. [J.M.K.] Prof. Shibatani has pointed out to me that the morphophonemic analysis in this paragraph is rather controversial; it is not, however, crucial to the subsequent discussion. 7. [J.M.K.] The original Russian has fonetičeskie izmenenija “phonetic modifications”; later in the paragraph, however, Xolodovič uses the term morfonologičeskie pravila “morphophonological rules” to describe the same phenomenon. I have used the latter term on both occasions, as it seems more appropriate. 8. [J.M.K.] I have translated the two Russian terms diateza and zalog as “diathesis” and “voice” respectively. They are very close in meaning: according to Mel‘čuk and Xolodovič (1970:117), voice is the systematic encoding of diathesis in the morphology of the verb. 9. [J.M.K.] The Russian expression used here is slovarnoe tolkovanie (on subsequent occasions, leksikografičeskoe tolkovanie). The literal translation would be “lexicographical interpretation”; however, the term “lexical entry” is more meaningful to the English reader, and corresponds quite closely, I hope, to the sense of the original. It should be borne in mind, however, that the “lexical entry” of a verb is assumed to specify its meaning (cf. nn.25 and 28).
verb). A particular lexeme may have several diatheses, each associated with different forms of the lexeme. One of these diatheses is assumed to be basic (D0),10 and the remaining ones are regarded as derived from it (D0→D1). Japanese has the following formal mechanisms for marking derived diatheses:
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
21
(1) Affixation.11 In the case of class I root morphs, the morph -r1- is added, with the connecting vowel -a-: e.g. yom-a-r. In the case of class II root morphs, the morph -rar1is added, with the connecting vowel -e- or -i-, depending on the root: e.g. uk-e-rar-. (2) Conversion. The class of the root morph is changed. This involves the replacement of one set of connecting vowels by another. Only class I roots can undergo conversion: e.g. Class I nom-a-→Class II nom-e-, Class I ut-a- Class II ut-e-. (3) An analytic construction may be formed by the addition of an auxiliary to a particular form of the verb. Since the auxiliary follows the verb, it can be considered the head of the analytic construction, according to the rules of Japanese (the direction of dominance being from right to left). The verbs ar-a- and Ø-i-, both meaning “be”, are used as auxiliaries. The preceding verb consists of a root, the connecting vowel -i- (with a class I root) or -i-/-e- (with a class II root), plus the suffix -te (the past gerund marker). Various morphophonological rules may apply at the morph boundaries; compare, for example, the forms sas-i-te “having stung” and sin-i-te→sinde “having died”. Only the first way of forming derived diatheses—affixation—will be discussed in this article. 1.2. The voice morphs -r1- and -rar1- should not be confused with the homophonous morphs -r2- and -rar2-, meaning “deign to” (honorific).12 The morphs -r2- and -rar2- do not denote a shift in diathesis D0→D1; the relationships between the semantic participants and the syntactic actants remain just the same as with the unsuffixed verb form. There are certain restrictions on the use of -r2- and -rar2-; the important considerations are: (1) the identity of the person expressed as syntactic subject of the sentence; and (2) the identity of the speaker. These morphs usually express 10. [J.M.K.] It will become clear below (section 2.1) that the criterion which Xolodovič is using to ascertain the basic diathesis is a morphological one: the basic diathesis is associated with a verb form which does not contain a special voice marker. Note that he is departing here from the framework set out by Xrakovskij (1974): Xrakovskij defines the basic diathesis in terms of the correspondence between agent and syntactic subject, and considers morphological evidence to be secondary. Xolodovič’s analysis corresponds more closely to that of Jaxontov (1974), who places more emphasis on the morphological structure of the verb form. 11. [J.M.K.] Cf. n.6; the morphophonemic analysis here is again controversial. 12. [J.M.K.] The treatment of the passive and honorific markers as two homophonous morphs is not the only possible analysis. Shibatani (1985:822), for example, considers “honorific” and “passive” to be two uses of the same morph (which also has two other meanings: “spontaneous” and “potential”), and claims that they are connected by their common function of “agentdefocusing”.
official politeness, and hence the speaker is generally an official personage, an official institution, or someone representing such an institution, etc. (1) N kakka13 wa hizyoo ni yorokonde irareta N Excellency TOP exceedingly rejoice-GER be-HON-PAST “His Excellency N was (hon) very pleased” (here the use of the honorific form is conditioned by the identity of the subject, “his Excellency N”) (2) Komban, Honda san wa doko e ikareta ka
Subject, voice and ergativity
22
this evening Honda Mr TOP where ILL goHON-PAST INTERR “Where did Mr Honda go (hon) this evening?” (here the use of the honorific form is conditioned by the identity of the speaker: he is a policeman, who must express himself according to the norms of official politeness)
1.3. Since -r1- and -r2-, -rar1- and -rar2- are homonyms, they can freely co-occur within a single grammatical form (generally an analytic construction): Sakki watasi ga kooen o zyunkaisuru to, recently I NOM park ACC walk around-PRES when Honda san wa sukkari meiteisite Yamakawa toyuu Honda Mr TOP completely be drunk-GER Yamakawa called hito ni benti ni kosikakete kaihoosarete person DAT park bench DAT sit-GER care for-PASS-GER orareta no desu be-HON-PAST NOUN COP “Recently, when I was walking around the park, Mr Honda, sitting completely drunk on a park bench, was being (hon) looked after by a person called Yamakawa” (kaihoosarete orareta is an analytic durative construction formed from the verb kaihoosa- “look after”; the -r- in kaihoosarete is the passive morph, while the -r- in orareta is the honorific morph) 2. The lexemes korosu “kill (s.o.)”, hukiotosu “blow down (fruit, etc.; of the wind)”, ireru “put (s.th., into s.th.)” 2.1. The lexemes korosu, hukiotosu and ireru are typical examples of a large and in many respects heterogeneous sub-class of verbs. Many verbs with a valency of two, three or four belong to this sub-class. In the lexical entry of these verbs the first participant [see n. 14 below] need not necessarily be human; it may be any animate being, or even an inanimate, though in the latter case it will usually be a natural force rather than an inert object. The remaining participants may be either human or non-human. The participants may fulfil a wide variety of functions, or roles; it 13. [J.M.K.] Xolodovič has kekka here, but Prof. Shibatani informs me that this must be a misprint.
is virtually impossible to reduce them to a common denominator.14 This does not, however, prevent us from investigating the diatheses/voices of the verbs. Compare, for example, the different semantic functions of the participant denoted by “A” in the following sentences: A wa B o korosu “A kills B”, A wa B o karakau “A teases B”, A wa B o sitau “A loves B”, A wa B o tureru “A accompanies B”, etc.. Despite these profound semantic differences, all these verbs share one common property: in a sentence containing the basic form of the verb [that is, the form with no overt voice marker], the first participant is expressed by the syntactic subject, in either the zero case (referred to as “ABS” [an abbreviation for “absolutive”] in the diathesis formula) or the nominative
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
23
case; and the second participant is expressed by the direct object, in the accusative case. The diathesis associated with the basic form of these verbs begins, therefore, with the following two correspondences: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) (Y=DirObACC)… e.g. Honda wa Taroo o korosita Honda TOP Tarō ACC kill-PAST “Honda killed Tarō”
2.2. The lexical entry of verbs of this sub-class may, of course, have to refer to other participants beside X and Y. The extra participant may, for example, be an instrument: A wa B o yari de tukikorosita A TOP B ACC lance INST pierce-PAST “A pierced B with a lance” a place: A wa B o denwaguti e yonda A TOP B ACC telephone ILL call-PAST “A called B to the telephone” a container: A wa hibati ni sumi o tuida A TOP brazier DAT coal(s) ACC add-PAST “A added some coals to the brazier” 14. [J.M.K.] Note that Xolodovič (unlike Xrakovskij 1974) does not identify the various participants in terms of generalised semantic roles such as agent. In a sense, the “first participant” is simply “that participant which is expressed as subject in association with the basic form of the verb” (the basic form having been identified by morphological criteria—cf. n.10). Although the notion of participant is a semantic one, then, the various participants are identified by formal rather than semantic means. From the discussion elsewhere in the paper, however, it appears that Xolodovič believes that the set of participants associated with a verb, and the ordering among them, is something which in principle could be established on semantic grounds alone. His use of formal criteria may be seen as a practical measure: it allows him to pursue his investigation of voice without being drawn into semantic arguments.
or another name for B: A wa B o domori to azaketta A TOP B ACC stutterer as tease-PAST lit. “A teased B as a stutterer” “A teased B (by calling him) a stutterer”
Subject, voice and ergativity
24
These participants are expressed by syntactic actants in various cases. However, for verbs in this sub-class all these extra participants, and their corresponding actants, are irrelevant, as they play no part in distinguishing different diatheses/voices: the correspondences which can be established between these participants and their actants in D0 are maintained in D1. For this sub-class of verbs, only the two correspondences given in 2.1 need to be included in the representation of D0. 2.3. Verbs of this sub-class have a derived form characterised by the morph -r1-/-rar1(cf. 1.1). This form may be called the “direct object/ patient passive”, and is associated with the following diathesis:15 D1: (X=AgOb) (Y=SubABS/NOM)… Both the number of participants and the number of actants remain the same as in D0. However, the status of the syntactic objects is different: in D1 there is an oblique agentive object, in contrast to the direct object of D0; moreover, this oblique object may be omitted. 2.4. The oblique object corresponding to participant X canonically appears in the dative case: Taroo wa Honda ni korosareta Tarō TOP Honda DAT kill-PASS-PAST “Tarō was killed by Honda” This sub-class contains a number of verbs with a valency of three whose third actant is an oblique object in the dative case. The verb hukiyoseru “blow (s.th., somewhere; of the wind)” is of this type: active: Ookaze wa hune o siranai kuni ni hukiyoseta storm TOP ship ACC unknown land DAT blow-PAST “The storm blew the ship towards an unknown land”
When this sentence is passivized, we expect the third actant to be retained, according to section 2.2. At the same time, according to section 2.1, the 15. [J.M.K.] The abbreviation AgOb stands for “agentive object”. Elsewhere Xolodovič refers to this as an oblique object; the term agentive object serves to distinguish it from other kinds of oblique object (see, for example, section 2.4). Despite its name, the agentive object is a syntactic rather than a semantic category. I should point out that the Russian term kosvennoe dopolnenie, which I have translated as “oblique object”, could equally well be rendered as “indirect object”. I have chosen the former translation because the range of the Russian term, as used by Xolodovič, is much wider than that of the English term indirect object.
correspondence (X=AgObDAT) will appear. The resultant passive sentence will therefore contain two datives (albeit performing different functions):
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
25
Hune wa ookaze ni siranai kuni ni hukiyoserareta ship TOP storm DAT unknown land DAT blow-PASS-PAST “The ship was blown towards an unknown land by the storm” Although this sentence is grammatically correct, it is hardly acceptable from a stylistic point of view. “Dissimilation” must take place in such instances, to avoid the accumulation of datives. This may be effected by the replacement of the non-agentive dative, if this is possible; for example, an illative dative may be replaced by the illative case: Hune wa ookaze ni siranai kuni e hukiyoserareta ship TOP storm DAT unknown land ILL blow-PASS-PAST “The ship was blown towards an unknown land by the storm” Alternatively, the agentive dative may be replaced—(a) by the ablative case (the morph kara); (b) by the postposition yotte, which governs the dative case (N ni yotte); or (c) by the postposition tame ni, which governs the genitive case (N no tame ni), as in the following example: Hune wa ookaze no tame ni siranai kuni ni ship TOP storm GEN POSTPOS unknown land DAT hukiyoserareta blow-PASS-PAST “The ship was blown towards an unknown land by the storm” It must, however, be pointed out that these alternatives are not conditioned exclusively by the need to dissimilate two datives. They are in fact possible even with bivalent verbs, where there is no question of dissimilation: (a) Nuiko wa otto kara aisarenakatta Nuiko TOP husband ABL love-PASS-NEGPAST “Nuiko was not loved by (her) husband” (b) Nuiko wa boku ni yotte nagusameraretasoo Nuiko TOP I DAT POSTPOS console-PASSDESID-EVID ni mieta ADV seem-PAST “It seemed as if Nuiko wished to be16 consoled by me” (c) Honda si wa ano Yamakawa si no tame ni Honda Mr TOP this same Yamakawa Mr GEN POSTPOS korosareta kill-PASS-PAST “Mr Honda was killed by this same Mr Yamakawa”
Subject, voice and ergativity
26
16. [J.M.K.] Xolodovič translates this as (the Russian equivalent of) “It seemed as if Nuiko was consoled by me”. However, Prof. Shibatani has drawn my attention to the fact that the form nagusameraretasoo contains a desiderative morpheme, -ta-.
It is unclear whether an agentive dative can always be replaced by one of these noncanonical agentive expressions; but it is certainly the case that any non-canonical agentive expression can be replaced by the canonical dative case. 2.5. The agentive expression may be omitted from the passive construction, though an agent is nevertheless implied. The implied agent may be any human being: Wasurerareru17 no wa tamaranaku turai forget-PASS-PRES NOUN TOP unbearably painful “To be forgotten is unbearably painful” (the implied agent is “anyone, people in general”) or it may be a member of a particular group of people. This latter kind of example arises when it would be tautologous to specify the group to which the agent belongs, and it is either impossible or irrelevant to specify the particular individual concerned: Tuide Yamakawa si wa kooinsareta then Yamakawa Mr TOP arrest-PASS-PAST “Then Mr Yamakawa was arrested” (the verb makes it clear that the agent is a policeman, and the actual identity of the policeman is irrelevant) 2.6. If the source of an action is a natural force, then this force may also appear as the means by which the action is performed. We may construct the following underlying syntactic structure for active sentences of this type: Ookaze wa ookaze de kaoku o takusan taosita storm TOP storm INST house ACC many demolish-PAST lit. “The storm demolished many houses by means of the storm” If this sentence is passivized, the underlying structure will be as follows: Kaoku wa takusan ookaze ni ookaze de taosareta house TOP many storm DAT storm INST demolish-PASSPAST lit. “Many houses were demolished by the storm by means of the storm” A grammatical surface structure may be obtained by deleting either the NP in the instrumental case or the agentive dative: Kaoku wa takusan ookaze ni taosareta house TOP many storm DAT demolish-PASS-PAST “Many houses were demolished by the storm”
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
27
or: 17. [J.M.K.] Xolodovič has wasurareru, but Prof. Shibatani informs me that this must be a misprint.
Kaoku wa takusan ookaze de taosareta house TOP many storm INST demolish-PASS-PAST lit. “Many houses were demolished by means of the storm” or (with a different word order and topic/comment structure): Ookaze de kaoku ga takusan taosareta storm INST house NOM many demolish-PASS-PAST lit. “By means of the storm many houses were demolished” 2.7. A number of verbs such as kazaru “decorate”, hiku “drag”, sodateru “bring up” etc. may have an instrument as one of the participants of their lexical entry; in fact, the instrument is te “hand(s)” in each case. We would expect this participant to be expressed as an actant in the instrumental case: Oharu wa Oharu no/zibun no te de ningyoo o Oharu TOP Oharu GEN self GEN hand(s) INST doll ACC kazatta decorate-PAST “Oharu decorated the doll” lit. “Oharu decorated the doll with Oharu’s/her hands” This sentence can be passivized quite straightforwardly: Ningyoo wa Oharu ni Oharu no te de doll TOP Oharu DAT Oharu GEN hand(s) INST kazarareta decorate-PASS-PAST “The doll was decorated by Oharu” lit. “The doll was decorated by Oharu with Oharu’s hands” [In both the active and passive sentences, however, the repetition of the name Oharu tends to be avoided, though this is achieved in different ways in the two cases.] In the active construction, the name of the subject is usually not repeated in the instrumental phrase, but is replaced by the reflexive pronoun zibun: Oharu wa zibun no te de ningyoo o kazatta Oharu TOP herself GEN hand(s) INST doll ACC decorate -PAST “Oharu decorated the doll” lit. “Oharu decorated the doll with her hands”
Subject, voice and ergativity
28
In the passive construction, the agentive expression is usually omitted, as the name of the agent is retained as a genitive modifier of the instrument: Ningyoo wa Oharu no te de kazarareta doll TOP Oharu GEN hand(s) INST decorate-PASS-PAST lit. “The doll was decorated with Oharu’s hands” However, because the instrument phrase contains a reference to the agent, it often appears in the dative case [as though it were a true agent]: Oharu no te de → Oharu no te ni18 Oharu GEN hand(s) Oharu GEN hand(s) INST DAT “with Oharu’s “by Oharu’s hands” hands” e.g. Ningyoo wa Oharu no te ni kazarareta doll TOP Oharu GEN hand(s) DAT decoratePASS-PAST lit. “The doll was decorated by Oharu’s hands”
The form te ni in phrases such as Oharu no te ni may be called a “quasiagentive object”. 2.8. The following verbs are further examples of the korosu/hukiotosu/ ireru sub-class: (1) anzira- (pass. anzirare-) “worry about (s.th.)” active: A wa B no byooki o anziru A TOP B GEN illness ACC worry about-PRES “A worries about B’s illness” → passive: B no byooki wa A ni anzirareru B GEN illness TOP A DAT worry about-PASS-PRES lit. “B’s illness is worried about by A” i.e. “B’s illness worries A” (2) dasa- (pass. dasare-) “send (s.o., somewhere)” active: A wa B o zyotyuu ni dasita A TOP B ACC service DAT sendPAST “A sent B into service” → passive: B wa A ni zyotyuu ni dasareta B TOP A DAT service DAT sendPASS-PAST “B was sent into service by A” (3) nerawa- (pass. neraware-) “follow (s.o.)” active: A wa B o neratte iru A TOP B ACC follow-GER bePRES “A is following B” → passive: B wa A ni nerawarete iru
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
29
B TOP A DAT follow-PASS-GER be-PRES “B is being followed by A” (4) osore- (pass. osorerare-) “fear (s.o./s.th.)” active: Oharu wa zidoosya o osore te iru Oharu TOP machine(s) ACC fearGER be-PRES “Oharu fears machines”, “Oharu is afraid of machines” → passive: Zidoosya wa Oharu ni osorerarete iru machine(s) TOP Oharu DAT fearPASS-GER be-PRES lit. “Machines are feared by Oharu” 18. [J.M.K.] Miss Yuki informs me that this phrase would usually include the postposition yotte (cf. section 2.4): Oharu no te ni yotte “by Oharu’s hands”. (5) suku- (pass. sukare-) “like (s.o.)” active: A wa B o suku A TOP B ACC like-PRES “A likes B” → passive: B wa A ni sukareru B TOP A DAT like-PASS-PAST “B is liked by A” or “B pleases A” (6) warawa- (pass. waraware-) “laugh at, ridicule” active: A wa B o warau A TOP B ACC laugh at-PRES “A ridicules B” → passive: B wa A ni warawareru B TOP A DAT laugh at-PASS-PRES “B is laughed at by A”
3. The lexeme oituku “overtake, catch up with” 3.1. This lexeme is a representative of a small and totally unresearched sub-class of verbs with a valency of two and, possibly, three. These verbs differ from the korosu subclass, discussed in section 2, in that their second participant is expressed, not as a direct object, but as an oblique object in the dative case. Thus, the diathesis associated with the basic form of these verbs begins with the following two correspondences: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) (Y=OblObDAT)… e.g. Taroo wa Ziroo ni oituita Tarō TOP Jirō DAT overtake-PAST “Tarō overtook Jirō”
3.2. The derived form characterised by the morph -r1-/-rar1- is associated with the following diathesis: D1: (X=AgObDAT) (Y=SubABS/NOM)…
Subject, voice and ergativity
30
e.g. Ziroo wa Taroo ni oitukareta Jirō TOP Tarō DAT overtake-PASS-PAST “Jirō was overtaken by Tarō”
With these verbs (unlike verbs of the korosu sub-class), the syntactic object of the passive has exactly the same morphological status as that of the active: both are in the dative case. In some instances the difference between corresponding active and passive sentences is rather slight: e.g. active: Taroo wa Ziroo ni oitukanai Tarō TOP Jirō DAT overtake-NEG “Tarō does19 not overtake Jirō” passive: Ziroo wa Taroo ni oitukarenai Jirō TOP Tarō DAT overtake-PASSNEG “Jirō is not overtaken by Tarō” 19. [J.M.K.] Xolodovič translates both the active and the passive examples by the past tense, but Prof. Shibatani informs me that the verbs are present tense forms.
3.3. In the examples cited above the participants are human; but they could alternatively be other animates, or even inanimate objects: e.g. active: Inu wa Taroo ni oituita dog TOP Tarō DAT overtake-PAST “The dog overtook Tarō” → passive: Taroo wa inu ni oitukareta Tarō TOP dog DAT overtake-PASSPAST “Tarō was overtaken by the dog” active: Taroo wa kuruma ni oituita Tarō TOP cart DAT overtake-PAST “Tarō overtook the cart” → passive: Kuruma wa Taroo ni oitukareta cart TOP Tarō DAT overtake-PASSPAST “The cart was overtaken by Tarō” active: Sensuikan wa teikisen ni oituita submarine TOP liner DAT overtakePAST “The submarine overtook the liner” → passive: Teikisen wa sensuikan ni oitukareta liner TOP submarine DAT overtakePASS-PAST “The liner was overtaken by the submarine”
However, if participant X is an inanimate object, it must be something which can be controlled by a human.20 3.4. The following verbs also belong to this sub-class:
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
31
(1) hoe- (pass. hoerare-) “bark (at s.o.)” active: Inu wa Taroo ni hoete iru dog TOP Tarō DAT bark-GER bePRES “The dog is barking at Tarō” → passive: Taroo wa inu ni hoerarete iru Tarō TOP dog DAT bark-PASS-GER be-PRES “Tarō is being barked at by a dog” (2) iikikasa- (pass. iikikasare-) “demand (of s.o., that he do s.th.)” (3) iitukera- (pass. iitukerare-) “order (s.o., to do s.th.)” (4) nanora- (pass. nanorare-) “give one’s name (to s.o.)” (5) tukisowa- (pass. tukisoware-) “look after (s.o.)” active: Kangohu wa Taroo ni tukisotte iru nurse TOP Tarō DAT look after-GER be-PRES “The nurse is looking after Tarō” → passive: Taro wa kangohu ni tukisowarete iru Tarō TOP nurse DAT look afterPASS-GER be-PRES “Tarō is being looked after by a nurse”
It is possible that the verb nakituka- (pass. nakitukare-) “entreat (s.o.) with tears” also belongs to this group. 20. [J.M.K.] In fact, given the meaning of the verb, this condition would seem to apply to BOTH participants, X and Y.
4. The lexeme kaesu “give back” 4.1. This lexeme is a typical representative of a sub-class of verbs with a valency of three. They are distinguished from other verbs with the same valency by the fact that their third participant is human (in contrast to verbs such as ireru “put (s.th., into s.th)” discussed in section 2). 4.2. The diathesis associated with the basic form of these verbs begins with the same two correspondences as that associated with the basic form of verbs of the korosu subclass (cf. section 2); the third participant, Z, is expressed by an oblique object in the dative case. The basic diathesis, then, may be represented as follows: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) (Y=DirObACC) (Z=OblObDAT)… e.g. Taroo wa boku ni sanen o kaesita Tarō TOP I DAT 3 yen ACC give backPAST “Tarō gave back the 3 yen to me…21
Subject, voice and ergativity
32
The first participant, X, is always human; the second, Y, may be either human or nonhuman/inanimate; and the third, Z, is always human. Note that all three of these participants are relevant, as they all play a part in the derivation of different diatheses. This sub-class may be contrasted with the ireru sub-class (cf. section 2), where only the first two participants are relevant. 4.3. The verbs of this sub-class, like all the verbs discussed so far, have a derived form containing the morph -r1-/-rar1-. This form is associated with TWO different diatheses, D1 and D2. 4.4. Diathesis D1 is as follows: D1: (X=AgObDAT) (Y=SubABS/NOM) (Z=OblObDAT)… e.g. Sanen wa Taroo ni boku ni kaesareta 3 yen TOP Tarō DAT I DAT give backPASS-PAST “The 3 yen were given back to me by Tarō”
This diathesis resembles that discussed in section 2.3; it may be called the “directobject/patient passive”. The shift from D0 to D1 may be described in terms of the following interchange between participants and actants: (X=Sub) (Y=Ob)→(X=Ob) (Y=Sub) This is accompanied by a change in the morphological status of the object. [The object associated with participant Y in D0 is a direct object in the accusative case, whereas that associated with X in D1 is an agentive object in the dative case.] 21. [J.M.K.] Prof. Shibatani informs me that inflation has rendered this and similar examples rather amusing!
4.5. There are potentially two nouns in the dative case in D1:22 the agentive object corresponding to participant X, and the oblique object corresponding to participant Z. In general, this accumulation of datives is avoided, usually by the omission of the agentive object: e.g. Sanen wa boku ni kaesareta 3 yen TOP I DAT give-back-PASS-PAST “The 3 yen were given back to me”
4.6. Diathesis D2 is as follows: D2: (X=AgObDAT) (Y=DirObACC) (Z=SubABS/NOM)… e.g. Boku wa Taroo ni sanen o kaesareta I TOP Tarō DAT 3 yen ACC give backPASS-PAST “I was given back the 3 yen by Tarō”
This may be called the “oblique-object/addressee passive”. The shift from D0 to D2 may be described in terms of the following interchange between participants and actants: (X=Sub) (Z=Ob)→(X=Ob) (Z=Sub)
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
33
In this case there is no change in the morphological status of the object. [Both the object associated with participant Z in D0 and that associated with participant X in D2 are in the dative case.] 4.7. All verbs taking an addressee and all lexical causatives belong to this sub-class. Some of the most important verbs of each type are listed below. Verbs taking an addressee: (1) atae- (pass. ataerare-) “award (s.th., to s.o.)” ad.Kare wa Nooberusyoo o ataerareta pass.: he TOP Nobel prize ACC awardPASS-PAST “He was awarded a Nobel prize” (2) ategawa- (pass. ategaware-) “supply (s.o.(dat.), with s.th. (acc.))” ad.Oharu wa boku ni muko o pass.: ategawareta Oharu TOP I DAT fiancé ACC supply-PASS-PAST lit. “Oharu was supplied with a fiancé by me” (3) nage- (pass. nagerare-) “throw (s.th., at s.o.)” ob.Isi wa boku ni nagerareta pass.: stone TOP I DAT throw-PASSPAST “The stone was thrown at me” vs ad.Boku wa Taroo ni isi o nagerareta pass.: I TOP Tarō DAT stone ACC throwPASS-PAST “I had a stone thrown at me by Tarō” 22. [J.M.K.] Xolodovič has D2 here, but the sense suggests that he is actually talking about D1. Since it seems appropriate for the discussion of D1 to be continuous, I have switched sections 4.5 and 4.6. (4) ogora (pass. ogorare-) “treat (s.o. (dat.), to s. th. (acc.))” ad.Taroo wa boku ni aisukuriimu o pass.: ogorareta Tarō TOP I DAT ice-cream ACC treat-PASS-PAST “Tarō was treated to an ice-cream by me”
Lexical causatives: (1) kuwasa- (pass. kuwasare-) “feed (s.th., to s.o.)” (2) nomasa- (pass. nomasare-) “give (s.th., to s.o.) to drink” ad.Boku wa sake o nomasareta pass.: I TOP wine ACC give to drinkPASS-PART
Subject, voice and ergativity
34
“I was given wine to drink”
5. The lexeme nusumu “steal” 5.1. This lexeme represents a small sub-class of verbs which have a syntactic valency23 of two, but which may be said to be three-place verbs at the semantic level. The lexical entry of these verbs involves three participants, X, Y and Z: X is the person or thing (e.g. a thief, a wave, or death) who/which takes something or someone (e.g. money, or an abducted daughter); Y is the thing or person which/who is taken; and Z is the person to whom Y belongs. There is therefore a possessive relationship between participants Y and Z. At the surface-syntactic level, on the other hand, the basic form of the verb has just two actants; a subject, corresponding to participant X, and a direct object, corresponding to participant Y: e.g. Suri wa saihu o nusunda pickpocket TOP purse ACC steal-PAST “The pickpocket stole the purse”
Participant Z is expressed not as an actant of the verb, but as a genitive modifier of the direct object (i.e. as an actant of an actant): e.g. Suri wa boku no saihu o nusunda pickpocket TOP I GEN purse ACC stealPAST “The pickpocket stole my purse”
The basic diathesis, then, is as follows: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) (Y=DirObACC) (Z=ModGEN (DirOb))24 5.2. The verbs of this sub-class [like those of the kaesu sub-class] have a derived form in -r1-/-rar1- which is associated with two different diatheses, D1 and D2. 23. [J.M.K.] Xolodovič uses the Russian term -valentnyj “having a particular valency” (e.g. dvyxvalentnyj “having a valency of two) in a purely syntactic sense, referring to the number of syntactic actants which must accompany the verb. I have therefore translated this term as “syntactic valency” on some occasions, for the sake of clarity. Xolodovič uses a separate term, -mestnyj “having a particular number of places/ slots”, to refer to the number of semantic participants which are presupposed by the meaning of the verb. 24. [J.M.K.] I have used the abbreviation “Mod” (standing for “modifier”) instead of Xolodovič’s “Atr”.
5.3. Diathesis D1 is as follows: D1: (X=AgObDAT) (Y=DirObACC) (Z=SubABS/NOM) e.g. Boku wa suri ni saihu o nusumareta I TOP pickpocket DAT purse ACC stealPASS-PAST “I was deprived of (my) purse by a pickpocket” or “I had (my) purse stolen”
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
35
The shift from D0 to D1 may be described in the following terms: (X=Sub) (Z=Mod)→(X=Ob) (Z=Sub) Note the change in syntactic status of the word corresponding to Z; from being an “actant of an actant” it becomes a first-order actant (i.e. an actant of the verb in its own right). Passivization, then, changes a verb form with a syntactic valency of two into a verb form with a syntactic valency of three: active:
→ passive:
5.4. Diathesis D2 is as follows: D2: (X=AgObDAT) (Y=SubABS/NOM) (Z=ModGEN(Sub)) e.g. Boku no saihu o suri ni nusumareta I GEN purse ACC pickpocket DAT stealPASS-PAST “My purse was stolen by a pickpocket”
The shift from D0 to D2 may be described in the following terms: (X=Sub) (Y=Ob)→(X=Ob) (Y=Sub) [The morphological status of the objects, however, is not the same in the two diatheses: the object associated with participant Y in D0 is a direct object in the accusative case, whereas that associated with X in D2 is an agentive object in the dative case.] Participant Z is expressed in the same way in D0 as in D2, as a genitive modifier; however, in D2 it modifies the subject rather than the direct object: boku no saihu o→boku no saihu wa I GEN purse ACC I GEN purse TOP
Subject, voice and ergativity
36
5.5. The following verbs belong to this sub-class: kasumera- (pass. kasumerare-), motteyuka- (pass. motteyukare-), nusuma- (pass. nusumare-), sarawa- (pass. saraware-), sura- (pass. surare-), tora- (pass. torare-), ubawa-(pass. ubaware-). They all have the general meaning “take s.th. which belongs to s.o. else”, but with different stylistic nuances: “steal”, “pilfer”, “abduct”, etc.. Another member of this sub-class is the verb yara- (pass. yarare-), which, in one of its many different uses, can mean “steal”: e.g. Boku wa suri ni zyuuen o yarareta I TOP pickpocket DAT 10 yen ACC stealPASS-PAST “I had 10 yen stolen by a pickpocket”
6. The lexeme kamu “bite” 6.1. The lexeme kamu is a typical representative of a small sub-class of verbs with a syntactic valency of two. The basic form of these verbs is associated with two alternative diatheses, and , each having a different direct object: Inu wa Taroo no asi o kanda dog TOP Tarō GEN leg ACC bite-PAST “The dog bit Tarō’s leg” Inu wa Taroo o kanda : dog TOP Tarō ACC bite-PAST “The dog bit Tarō”
:
It seems that this difference must be ascribed to the functional domain—that is, to a difference in the participants denoted by the alternative direct objects. It is helpful to assume that the lexical entry of kamu refers to three participants, X, Y and Z.25 There are two possible interpretations of participants Y and Z; either Y is the patient and Z is the affected part of Y, or Y is the addressee and Z the patient. These differences in interpretation are, however, irrelevant for our purposes. Under the assumption that the lexical entry of these verbs does indeed refer to three participants, the two variant diatheses exemplified above may be represented as follows:
Both and are marked in the same way on the verb, by a zero morph: kan-Ø-da “bit”. In both of these diatheses, participant X is expressed as subject, and in Japanese the verb receives an overt voice marker only when the correspondence (X=Sub) is broken. 6.2. It should be pointed out that the form kama- has a syntactic valency of two in both of these diatheses: in
participant Y is expressed as a second-order actant (as an “actant
of an actant”, rather than as an actant of the verb itself); while in expressed at all. 6.3. The derived form kamare- signals the shift : → D1 (X=AgObDAT) (Y=SubABS/NOM) (Z=DirObACC) e.g. active: Inu wa Taroo no asi o kanda
participant Z is not
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
→ passive:
37
dog TOP Tarō GEN leg ACC bite-PAST “The dog bit Tarō’s leg” Taroo wa inu ni asi o kamareta Tarō TOP dog DAT leg ACC bite-PASS-PAST Tarō had his leg bitten by a dog” or “Tarō was bitten on the leg by a dog”
This shift involves only participants X and Y; the correspondence (Z= DirOb) remains unchanged. The derived form kamare- has one more actant (albeit optional) than the basic form. This increase in valency is in some respects paradoxical, in view of the fact that we are dealing with voice; it will be discussed in more detail in section 10. 25. [A.A.X.] The issue of whether a fourth participant—the instrument—may, and perhaps must, be referred to in the lexical entry (to distinguish kamu “bite” from sasu “string”, for example) bears no relation to our topic: this participant, if expressed overtly at all, corresponds to the same type of actant [a noun phrase in the instrumental case] in all diatheses. There are some instances in which this actant must be mentioned: for example, if a particular feature of the instrument is being characterised (“He bit with very sharp teeth”); or if it is necessary to specify precisely which instrument is involved (if the verb permits a choice of instruments): e.g. asi de keru vs kutu de keru leg INST kickboot INST kickPRES PRES “kick with one’s ‘kick with one’s leg” boot”
6.4. It is not possible to derive a new diathesis *D2 from the alternative basic diathesis, : active: Inu wa Taroo o kanda dog TOP Tarō ACC bite-PAST “The dog bit Tarō” passive: Taroo wa inu ni kamareta Tarō TOP dog DAT bite-PASS-PAST “Tarō was bitten by a dog”
The above passive construction is, in fact, grammatical, but it is incomplete,26 and does not represent a distinct diathesis, *D2: (X= AgObDAT) (Y=SubABS/NOM) (Z=Ø). It results, instead, from the shift , with ellipsis of the direct object asi o “leg ACC”, expressing participant Z. The verb form kamare- is always associated with diathesis D1: (X=AgObDAT) (Y=SubABS/NOM) (Z=DirObACC). 6.5. If participant Y is analysed as the addressee [and Z as the patient—cf. section 6.1], then the passive of these verbs must be regarded as an addressee-passive rather than as a patient-passive: the subject never corresponds to the patient Z (that is, the affected part of Y’s body). 6.6. If it is irrelevant to specify precisely which part of Y’s body is affected, then [in the passive] the place of participant Z is occupied by a noun such as mi or karada, both meaning “body”: e.g. Kodomo wa ressya ni karada o hikareta
Subject, voice and ergativity
38
child TOP train DAT body ACC run-overPASS-PAST “The child was run over by a train” lit. “The child had (his) body run over by a train” (it is not important to specify precisely which part of the child’s body suffered the injury which led to his death)
6.7. Some of the verbs belonging to this sub-class are listed below: (1) hara- (pass. haraware-) “slap (s.o.’s face)” active: Boku wa Taroo no yokogao o hatta I TOP Tarō GEN face ACC slapped ( ) “I slapped Tarō’s face” → passive: Taroo wa boku ni yokogao o (D1) harareta Tarō TOP I DAT face ACC slapPASS-PAST “Taro had (his) face slapped by me” (2) kira- (pass. kirare-) “chop off” passive: Kare wa kubi o kirareta he TOP head ACC chop off-PASSPAST “He had (his) head chopped off” 26. [J.M.K.] According to Prof. Shibatani (p. c.), this construction is, not, in fact, elliptical, and may, therefore, be analysed as the passive counterpart of . (3) nagura- (pass. nagurare-) “hit” active: A wa B no kao o nagutta A TOP B GEN face ACC hit-PAST “A hit B’s face” or “A hit B in the face” → passive: B wa A ni kao o nagurareta B TOP A DAT face ACC hit-PASSPAST “B had (his) face hit by A” or “B was hit in the face by A”
6.8. The verbs listed above all take a direct object in the accusative case; but there are also a number of verbs in this sub-class which instead take an oblique object in the dative case: e.g. kamituka- (pass. kamitukare-), kuituka- (pass. kuitukare-), both with the meaning “sting, bite”. The basic form of these verbs again has two diatheses; in one case participant Z, and in the other participant Y, appears in the dative case: Inu wa Taroo no asi ni kamituita dog TOP Tarō GEN leg DAT bite-PAST “The dog bit Tarō’s leg” Inu wa hito ni kuituku dog(s) TOP people DAT bite-PRES
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
39
“Dogs bite people”
We would expect the derived passive form to appear in a construction with two datives (one expressing participant X and the other participant Z): D1 Taroo wa inu ni asi ni kamitukareta Tarō TOP dog DAT leg DAT bite-PASSPAST “Tarō had (his) leg bitten by a dog” or “Tarō was bitten in the leg by a dog”
Although such a sentence is grammatically correct, it is hardly acceptable from a stylistic point of view. Consequently, the passive of these verbs is used more frequently when there is no necessity to specify participant Z: e.g. Kare wa hebi ni kamitukareta he TOP snake DAT bite-PASS-PAST “He was bitten by a snake”
or when participant X is obvious from the context and may therefore be omitted: e.g. Kare wa doko ni kamitukareta ka he TOP where DAT bite-PASS-PAST INTERR Kare wa te ni kamitukareta he TOP hand DAT bite-PASS-PAST “Where was he bitten? He was bitten on the hand”
There is also another way of avoiding this stylistic difficulty: one of the two datives, namely the one expressing participant Z, may be replaced by the accusative case. In fact, this may sometimes occur even in circumstances where participant X is omitted, and where the replacement is therefore not “forced”: e.g. Kare wa karada no doko o kamitukareta ka he TOP body GEN where ACC bite-PASSPAST INTERR “Where on his body was he bitten?”
Alternatively, the dative expressing participant Z may be replaced by the illative case (doko e); this sometimes occurs in the active as well as in the passive. 6.9. In section 6.1 it was suggested that the lexical entry of the basic form of the verb kamu refers to three participants.27 We could, however, propose a rather different analysis for kamu, treating it instead as a verb denoting a two-place situation.28 The two participants will be X, the biter, and Y, whatever is bitten—that is, the patient. Participant Y may be either human: e.g. Inu wa Taroo o kanda dog TOP Tarō ACC bite-PAST “The dog bit Tarō”
or non-human: e.g. Inu wa asi o kanda [incomplete as it stands—
Subject, voice and ergativity
40
see below] dog TOP leg ACC bite-PAST “The dog bit the leg”
In each case, the basic form of the verb has a syntactic valency of two, and is associated with a single diathesis: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) (Y=DirObACC) A direct object corresponding to a human Y may express either a relational concept (e.g. obaasan “grandmother”) or a non-relational concept (e.g. Taroo “Tarō”). If the concept is relational, the actant must have a genitive modifier: e.g. Inu wa boku no obaasan o kanda dog TOP I GEN grandmother ACC bitePAST “The dog bit my grandmother”
If it is non-relational, no such modifier is necessary. In neither case, 27. [J.M.K.] This wording is interesting in that it suggests that different forms of a verb may have different lexical entries; cf. section 10. 28. [J.M.K.] The term “situation” (Russian situacija) is being used here in a technical sense; its nearest equivalent is “predicate” (in the semantic sense of “predicate/argument structure”). The situation is the semantic counterpart of the verb: the situation denoted by a particular verb is equivalent to the meaning of that verb, as specified in its lexical entry (cf. n.9, and Mel‘čuk and Xolodovič 1970:112). The situation has a number of variables, or slots; it is these slots which are known as participants.
however, can the construction be passivized. A direct object corresponding to a non-human Y, on the other hand, can only express a relational concept, more specifically a part of the body (e.g. asi “leg”); and the actant must be accompanied by a genitive modifier, expressing the whole of which the actant is a part: e.g. Inu wa boku no asi o kanda dog TOP I GEN leg ACC bite-PAST “The dog bit my leg”
This construction may be passivized: the passive verb form kamare- has a syntactic valency of three, in constrast to the active form kama- with a syntactic valency of two. The additional, third actant denotes a person affected by the action of biting, and corresponds to the genitive modifier of the active construction. It assumes the status of subject in the passive, while the noun which was subject of the active is demoted to an agentive object: e.g. Boku wa inu ni asi o kamareta I TOP dog DAT leg ACC bite-PASS-PAST “I was bitten in the leg by a dog” or “I had (my) leg bitten by a dog”
7. The lexeme kiku “ask”
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
41
7.1. The analysis of kamu suggested in the previous section allows us to draw the following conclusion. The set of diatheses associated with a verb is determined, in some cases, solely by the lexical entry of the verb itself; this is true of lexemes such as korosu (cf. section 2). However, in other cases it is determined partly by the meaning of one of the actants of the verb (usually the actant denoting the patient): if the patient is a relational concept (for example, part of a whole), then the verb will have one set of diatheses; if it is non-relational concept, then it will have a different set of diatheses. If this approach is adopted, it becomes clear why the set of diatheses associated with kamu (under the analysis suggested in section 6.9), and indeed with all verbs meaning “cause injury to s.o./part of s.o.’s body”, is also shared by verbs of other semantic classes. Some characteristic examples are discussed below. 7.2. The lexeme kiku “ask” (a) e.g. A wa miti o kiita29 A TOP way ACC ask-PAST “A asked the way”
In this case, the direct object denotes a patient with a non-relational meaning, and the set of diatheses is the same as for the verb korosu (cf. section 2.) 29. [J.M.K.] Note that kiku and the other verbs discussed in this section differ from kamu in that, if participant Y is non-relational, passivization can still occur, whereas kamu cannot be passivized at all under these circumstances. (b) e.g. A wa na o kiita A TOP name ACC ask-PAST “A asked the name”
Here the direct object denotes a patient with a relational meaning (an inalienable possession or part of a whole). The example given above is incomplete, as the possessor is not mentioned; the complete sentence would be: A wa boku no na o kiita30 A TOP I GEN name ACC ask-PAST “A asked my name” The set of diatheses in this case is the same as for the verb kamu “bite” (under the analysis proposed in section 6.9). The basic form (as exemplified above) has a syntactic valency of two, while the derived passive form has a syntactic valency of three: Boku wa A ni na o kikareta31 I TOP A DAT name ACC ask-PASS-PAST “I was asked (my) name by A” The following verbs operate in a similar way: (1) hisigu “crush” (a) Non-relational patient active: A wa teki o hisiida A TOP enemy ACC crush-PAST
Subject, voice and ergativity
42
“A crushed the enemy” → passive: Teki wa A ni hisigareta enemy TOP A DAT crush-PASSPAST “The enemy was crushed by A” (b) Relational patient active: A wa kare no aragimo o hisiida A TOP him GEN liver ACC crushPAST “A overwhelmed him” (idiomatic) 30. [J.M.K.] According to Prof. Shibatani (p. c.), there should be a dative NP, boku ni, in this construction, and the genitive NP, boku no, is optional. The construction would then read as follows:
A wa boku ni (boku no) na o kiita A TOP I DAT I GEN name ACC pass-PAST “A asked me my name” and the active verb would have a syntactic valency of three, like the passive. This comment does not, however, apply to all the verbs which Xolodovič includes in this section; for example, the verb hukitobasu “blow away (of the wind)” cannot take a dative NP in the active. It would therefore seem that there are two distinct sub-classes of verbs here, where Xolodovič distinguishes only one. 31. [J.M.K.] Prof. Shibatani informs me that an optional genitive, duplicating the reference of the subject, can occur in this sentence (cf. n.30 above):
Boku wa A ni (boku no) na o kikareta I TOP A DAT I GEN name ACC ask-PASS-PAST “I was asked my name by A” → passive:
Kare wa A ni aragimo o hisigareta he TOP A DAT liver ACC crushPAST-PASS “He was overwhelmed by A” This example shows that the phenomenon also affects idiomatic expressions such as aragimo o hisigu “overwhelm”. (2) hukitobasu “blow away (of the wind)” (a) Non-relational patient active: Kaze wa kami o hukitobasita wind TOP paper ACC blow awaypast “The wind blew the paper away” → passive: Kami wa kaze ni hukitobasareta paper TOP wind DAT blow-awayPASS-PAST “The paper was blown away by the wind” (b) Relational patient
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
43
active: Kaze wa boku no boosi o hukitobasita wind TOP I GEN hat ACC blow away-PAST “The wind blew my hat away” → passive: Boku wa kaze ni boosi o hukitobasareta I TOP wind DAT hat ACC blowaway-PASS-PAST “I had (my) hat blown away by the wind” (3) oru “break” (a) Non-relational patient active: A wa hana o otta A TOP flower ACC break-PAST “A picked (lit.: broke) the flower” → passive: Hana wa A ni orareta flower TOP A DAT break-PASSPAST “The flower was picked (lit.: broken) by A” (b) Relational patient active: Yuki wa matu no eda o otta snow TOP pine GEN branch ACC break-PAST “The snow broke the branch of the pine-tree” → passive: Matu wa yuki ni eda o orareta pine TOP snow DAT branch ACC break-PASS-PAST “The pine-tree had (its) branch broken by the snow”
8. The lexemes sinu “die”, huru “fall (of snow, rain)”, etc. 8.1. The lexemes sinu and huru are typical representatives of a small sub-class consisting of verbs with a valency of one, and in some cases possibly zero. In general, these verbs denote situations which affect an individual adversely, either because they are inherently unpleasant (e.g. yamu “be ill”) or because they may have unpleasant consequences in certain circumstances (e.g. kuru “come, arrive”, yuku “leave”). The verbs of this sub-class clearly fall into at least two groups, each of which will be discussed separately. 8.2. The verb sinu “die” in its basic form, sina-, has a syntactic valency of one, and denotes a situation with one participant, X, the person who dies. The basic form is associated with the following diathesis: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) e.g.
Kanozyo wa sinda she TOP die-PAST “She died”
Subject, voice and ergativity
44
If the subject is a noun with a relational meaning, it is accompanied by a noun or pronoun in the genitive case. e.g. Watasi no obaasan ga sinda I GEN grandmother NOM die-PAST “My grandmother died”
8.3. The derived form, sinare-, containing the morph -r1-, signals the following shift in diathesis: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) → D1: (X=AgObDAT) (Ø=SubABS/NOM)
As is evident from the representation of diathesis D1, this form has a syntactic valency of two; moreover, both actants are obligatory: e.g. Watasi wa kanozyo ni sinareta I TOP she DAT die-PASS-PAST “I suffered her death” or Watasi wa obaasan ni sinareta I TOP grandmother DAT die-PASS-PAST “I suffered the death of (my) grandmother”
The noun or pronoun denoting participant X is demoted from subject position (as in all the passive examples discussed so far), and is expressed as an oblique object in the dative case: kanozyo ni, obaasan ni. The additional actant of the passive denotes an individual affected by the action expressed in the verb, either physically (in the case of verbs such as huku “blow (of the wind)”, huru “fall (of rain, show)”; cf. section 8.7), or psychologically/emotionally (in the case of verbs such as sinu “die”). This extra actant corresponds to an “empty” participant slot—that is, corresponds to a participant which is not stipulated in the lexical entry of the verb; it has the syntactic status of subject. What is the origin of this extra actant? If participant X is a noun expressing an inherently relational concept (e.g. obaasan “grandmother”), then in the active construction it must be accompanied by a genitive modifier, and it is this modifier which becomes the subject of the corresponding passive: e.g. active: Watasi no obaasan ga sinda I GEN grandmother NOM die-PAST “My grandmother died” → passive: Watasi wa obaasan ni sinareta I TOP grandmother DAT die-PASS-PAST “I suffered the death of (my) grandmother”
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
45
active:
→ passive:
If participant X is a noun/pronoun expressing a non-relational concept (e.g. kanozyo “she”), then the extra participant of the passive comes from the real-world context: Boku wa kanozyo ni sinareta I TOP she DAT die-PASS-PAST “I suffered her death” (“I” could be her husband, or lover) This passive sentence does not have an active counterpart [containing a genitive modifier]: *Boku no kanozyo wa sinda32 I GEN she TOP die-PAST *“My she died” 32. [J.M.K.] A Japanese student informs me, and Prof. Shibatani confirms, that the pronoun kanozyo “she” is not a good example of a non-relational concept, since it can also have the (inherently relational) meaning “girlfriend”. This supposedly deviant sentence can therefore occur, with the meaning “My girlfriend died”.
8.4. The following verbs belong to the same group as sinu:
(1) donara- (pass. donarare-) “shout”33 passive: Watasi wa yoku donarareta I TOP often shout-PASS-PAST “I often suffered shouting”
Subject, voice and ergativity
46
or “I was often shouted at” (2) naka- (pass. nakare-) “cry, weep” passive: Haha wa kodomo ni nakareru mother TOP child DAT cry-PASSPRES “The mother suffers (her) child’s crying” (3) taore- (pass. taorerare-) “take to one’s bed (because of illness)”
8.5. The verbs listed above all denote events which are inherently unpleasant. The list does not include verbs such as kuru “come”, or yuku “leave”, which may on occasion denote unpleasant events, and which can then occur in the derived forms korare- and ikare-. The subject of these derived forms denotes the person for whom the arrival/departure of X is unpleasant: e.g. Kyooma watasi wa kanozyo ni korareru to today I TOP she DAT come-PASS-PAST if komaru be unpleasant-PRES “It will be unpleasant if I suffer her coming today”
8.6. The verb huru “fall (of rain, snow)” denotes a situation with one participant, X, the thing which falls (i.e. rain, snow, etc.). It has a syntactic valency of one, and is associated with the following diathesis: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) e.g.
Ame ga hutta rain NOM fall-PAST “Rain fell”, “It rained”
The derived form hurare- signals the shift D0→D1: D0: (X=SubABS/NOM) → D1: (X=AgObDAT) (Ø=SubABS/NOM)
As is evident from the representation of D1, the derived form has a syntactic valency of two; moreover, both actants are obligatory: e.g. Sato san wa ame ni hurareta Sato Mr TOP rain DAT fall-PASS-PAST “Mr Sato was caught in the rain”, “Mr Sato was rained on” lit. “Mr Sato was fallen on by the rain” 33. [J.M.K.] According to Prof. Shibatani (p. c.), this is not a good example, because the verb donaru can also be used transitively, with the meaning “shout at”.
The verb huku “blow (of the wind)” behaves in a similar fashion:34 e.g. active: Kaze ga huita wind NOM blow-PAST
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
47
“The wind blew” → passive: Sato san wa kaze ni hukareta Sato Mr TOP wind DAT blowPASS-PAST “Mr Sato was blown on by the wind”
8.7. The extra actant denotes someone or something affected by the action or event expressed in the verb.35 In the examples cited above, it is a person who is affected; in the following example, it is an inanimate object: e.g. Sensei no boost ga kaze ni hukarete otita he GEN hat NOM wind DAT blow-PASSGER fall off-PAST “His hat, blown by the wind, fell off”
8.8. The new actant corresponds to a participant which is not stipulated in the lexical entry of the verb; it is in fact possible for the wind to blow without affecting anyone or anything, physically or otherwise. Where, then, does this actant come from? Since in active sentences such as Kaze ga huku “The wind is blowing” there are no relational concepts, the answer is obvious: it must come from the context (cf. examples such as Boku wa kanozyo ni sinareta “I suffered her death”, discussed in 8.3). 8.9. An alternative lexical entry might be proposed for the verbs huru and huku, referring to TWO participants: X, the thing which falls or blows (i.e the snow/rain or wind), and Y, the person or thing affected by the action. This is appropriate if one considers that all actions, without exception, have a pragmatic setting, and that they make no sense in isolation from this. A lexeme denoting such a two-place situation may be associated with two diatheses. In one case, both participants are expressed: (Y=Sub) (X =AgOb). This diathesis is marked in the verb by the morph -r1-/-rar1-: e.g. Sato san wa kaze ni hukareta Sato Mr TOP wind DAT blow-PASS-PAST “Mr Sato was blown on by the wind”
In the other case, only participant X36 is expressed; participant Y must be 34. [A.A.X.] A noun in the accusative case may appear in the active construction; however, it fulfils an adverbial function and does not increase the syntactic valency of the verb or its number of participants slots; e.g. yami o huku darkness ACC blow-PRES “blow in the darkness” 35. [A.A.X.] The extra actant, whether a person or an inanimate object, is found already in Classical Japanese texts. 36. [J.M.K.] Xolodovič has “participant Y” here, and “participant X” later on in the sentence; the sense of the passage, however, suggests that these two should be reversed.
omitted: (X=Sub) (Y=Ø). This diathesis is characterised by a zero morph:
Subject, voice and ergativity
e.g.
48
Kaze ga huku wind NOM blow-PRES “The wind is blowing”
Under this analysis it is preferable to treat hukare-, rather than huka-, as the basic form.37 9. The lexeme torawareru “be enveloped (by s.th.)” 9.1. The basic forms of the verbs considered so far have all been associated with a diathesis D0 beginning with the correspondence (X= Sub). The verb torawareru, by contrast, is a representative of an exceptional sub-class of verbs with a single diathesis D, containing the correspondence (Y=Sub); participant X is expressed as an agentive object. In other words, the single diathesis of these verbs is equivalent to the DERIVED diathesis, D1 associated with the derived forms of verbs such as korusu “kill”: D: (Y=SubABS/NOM) (X=AgObDAT) e.g. Kare wa kyoohu ni torawareta he TOP fear DAT be enveloped-PAST “He was enveloped by fear”
The members of this sub-class may be called “[inherently] passive” verbs. All their forms contain the morph -r1-/-rar1-; there are no contrasting forms with a zero morph. 9.2. The following verbs, among others, belong to this sub-class: (1) akke ni torare- “be amazed”, lit. “be seized by amazement” (an idiomatic expression containing the noun akke “amazement” as AgOb) e.g. Boku wa akke ni torareta I TOP amazement DAT be seized-PAST “I was amazed” lit. “I was seized by amazement” (2) torinokosare- “be left behind (by s.th.)” e.g. Boku wa ikada kara/ni torinokosareta I TOP raft ABL/DAT be left behindPAST “I was left behind by the raft” (3) yakedasare- “be left homeless”
Some of these verbs do not have an active counterpart at all (e.g. torinokosare-); others do have a corresponding active form, but it has a different meaning (e.g. torare-; the active tora- cannot occur with the noun akke). 37. [J.M.K.] This suggests that morphological complexity is not the sole criterion for determining basicness, but is simply a useful guide; cf. nn.10 and 14.
10. Reinterpretation In sections 2–8 we investigated the relationships between the various diatheses, D0, D1 and D2, associated with the basic and derived forms of verbs. As a result, three types of relationship emerged.38
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
49
Type A (1a) D0: A wa B o korosita A TOP B ACC kill-PAST “A killed B” (1b) D1: B wa A ni korosareta B TOP A DAT kill-PASS-PAST “B was killed by A” (2a) D0: A wa B ni oituita A TOP B DAT overtake-PAST “A overtook B” (2b) D1: B wa A ni oitukareta B TOP A DAT overtake-PASS-PAST “B was overtaken by A” (3a) D0: A wa B ni C o kaesita A TOP B DAT C ACC give back-PAST “A gave back C to B” (3b) D1: C wa B ni A ni/kara kaesareta C TOP B DATA DAT/ABL give backPASS-PAST “C was given back to B by A” (3c) D2: B wa A ni C o kaesareta B TOP A DAT C ACC give back-PASSPAST “B was given back C by A”
Type B (4a) D0: A wa B no C o nusunda A TOP B GEN C ACC steal-PAST “A stole B’s C” (4b) D1: B wa A ni C o nusumareta B TOP A DAT C ACC steal-PASSPAST “B had (his) C stolen by A” (4c) D2: B no C wa A ni nusumareta B GEN C TOP A DAT steal-PASSPAST “B’s C was stolen by A” (5a) D0: A wa B no C o kanda A TOP B GEN C ACC bite-PAST “A bit B’s C” (5b) D1: B wa A ni C o kamareta B TOP A DAT C ACC bite-PASS-PAST “B had (his) C bitten by A” 38. [A.A.X.] The intermediate type kiku “ask” which belongs both to type (1) and to type (4)—(5), is excluded from this classification. (6a) D0: B no A wa sinda B GEN A TOP die-PAST “B’s A died”
Subject, voice and ergativity
50
(6b) D1: B wa A ni sinareta B TOP A DAT die-PASS-PAST “B suffered A’s death”
Type C (7a) D0: Ame ga hutta rain NOM fall-PAST “Rain fell”, “It rained” (7b) D1: Boku wa ame ni hurareta I TOP rain DAT fall-PASS-PAST “I was caught in the rain”, “I was rained on”
Type A is characterised by the fact that the number of actants in D1 and D2 [where applicable] is the same as in D0. In types B and C, on the other hand, the derived forms have diatheses with more actants than D0: in type B, the extra first-order actant in D1 corresponds to a second-order actant (an actant of an actant) in D039 while in type C, the extra actant is something “external” to both the verb and its actants. According to the traditional notion of voice, however, a verb in a derived voice form either has the same number of actants as the basic form, or fewer actants. The possibility of its having MORE actants is completely foreign to this conception of voice. Types B and C must therefore be analysed separately. We shall assume that in cases (4)–(7) above the morph -r1-/-rar1- signals not only an increase in the number of syntactic actants, but also an increase in the number of relevant participants. In other words, it signals a change in the situation.40 The lexical entry of the derived form must consequently be different from that of the basic form; in other words, the derived form may be said to constitute a separate lexeme. We would suggest that the extra participant is, in fact, a causer; that is, “someone who, through carelessness or inadvertence, allows someone to do something (generally something unpleasant) to him, the causer”. There is an element of [semantic] reflexivity here which is not expressed in the surface syntax of the sentence: (4b) B wa A ni C o nusumareta “B let A steal C (from him, B)” (5b) B wa A ni C o kamareta “B let A bite (his, B’s) C” 39. [J.M.K.] In D2 of example (4), there is no extra actant; this case is just like the type A examples. 40. [J.M.K.] Cf. n.28. A particular situation has a fixed number of participant “slots”; if two verb forms are associated with a different number of participants, then they must denote different situations. (6b) B wa A ni sinareta “B let (his, B’s) A die” (7b) B wa A ni hurareta “B let A (=rain, snow) fall (on him, B)”
Diatheses and voices in Modern Japanese
51
The meaning of these constructions may be described as “reflexive permissive”, or, more precisely, “subjective reflexive permissive” (since the implicit reflexive element is coreferential with the causer/subject). The reflexive-permissive analysis may, in fact, be extended to canonical passive examples (type A): (1b) B wa A ni korosareta “B (inadvertently) let A kill (him, B)”
Under this analysis, Japanese would belong typologically to the group of languages whose passive constructions have developed from earlier causative—more precisely, permissive—constructions.41 41. [J.M.K.] Xolodovič is not suggesting here that the passive is etymologically related to the present-day Japanese causative, but rather that it developed from an earlier causative formation. This proposal is, of course, rather speculative, since it is not based on any concrete historical evidence. However, close connections between causative and passive constructions are known to exist in other languages (cf. Nedjalkov and Sil’nickij 1969:38, Nedjalkov 1976:244ff.); indeed, Shibatani (1985:840) describes the “passive/ causative correlation” as “familiar” (though he does not suggest any such correlation for Japanese). Xolodovič goes on to suggest, in a final paragraph, that the postulated causative origins of the passive may be connected with the fact that the passive morph can be used to denote the noncausative (or spontaneous) member of a causative/non-causative (i.e. that it can function as an anticausative marker): e.g. yuuhatusuru “give rise to, cause to arise” vs yuuhatusareru “arise, appear” At first sight, it seems surprising that he uses this present-day anti-causative meaning of the passive marker to support his hypothesis that this marker previously had a causative meaning; this would appear to involve a semantic reversal. However, it is crucial that the postulated earlier meaning was not simply causative, but causative-reflexive; and a change from causative-reflexive to anticausative is not implausible: cause-refl “A let itself arise”>anti caus “A arose”
REFERENCES Jaxontov, S.E. 1974. ‘Formal’noe opredelenie zaloga.’ In Xolodovič, A.A. (ed.) Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij. Leningrad: Nauka, 46–53. Martin, S.E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven (Conn.): Yale University Press. Mel‘čuk, I.A and Xolodovič, A.A. 1970. ‘K teorii grammatičeskogo zaloga.’ Narody Azii i Afriki 4, 111–124. Nedjalkov, V.P. 1976. Kausativkonstruktionen. (Translated from Russian by V.Kuchler and H.Vater.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Nedjalkov, V.P. and Sil’nickij, G.G. 1969. ‘Tipologija morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo kauzativov.’ In Xolodovič, A.A. (ed.) Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij, Morfologičeskij kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 20–50. Shibatani, M. 1985. ‘Passives and related constructions: a prototype analysis.’ Language 61, 821– 848.
THE CAUSATIVE-PASSIVE CORRELATION Judith Knott It is well-known that in some languages causative and passive constructions share the same verbal morphology. For example, Nedjalkov and Sil’nickij (1969:38) include passive among the range of functions which may be performed by causative morphology cross-linguistically; and Shibatani (1985:840) describes the causative-passive correlation as ‘familiar’.1 An example of this link is found in English, where constructions such as Peter had a book stolen allow both causative and passive readings. In this paper, I shall try to show that certain fairly common uses of causative morphology share crucial properties in common with passives, and that it is possible to reconstruct a plausible diachronic development linking the two types of construction.2 I shall then discuss a particular example of the correlation from the Tungusic language Evenki. Passives and causatives contrasted One of the essential properties of passive constructions is the non-correspondence between the agent and the surface subject.3 This is a negative property, and it involves the tacit assumption that we would generally expect agents to be expressed as surface subjects. There is in fact both inter- and intralinguistic evidence that this assumption is correct; that is, there does seem to be a general tendency to express agents as surface subjects (cf., for example, Marantz 1984:33ff.). There are, of course, languages with a high degree of syntactic ergativity, such as Dyirbal, which do not conform to this generalisation, but they seem to be relatively few in number. Equally, many languages which do adhere to the principle have constructions—namely passives—which violate it; these constructions have a relatively low text frequency, and usually contain some overt marker such as an auxiliary or affix. 1. I am interested here in cases where a construction as a whole can have either a causative or a passive interpretation. There is another phenomenon linking causatives and passives, the so-called passive analysis of causatives (discussed for example by Comrie 1981): in certain languages it has been claimed that causative constructions are actually causatives of passives (on the grounds that causee is expressed in the same way as the agent in passive constructions, and that various restrictions on the formation of the two constructions coincide). This phenomenon will not be discussed here. 2. My thinking on this topic has been heavily influenced by the work of the Leningrad typology group (including such scholars as V.P.Nedjalkov). This paper contains a number of references to specific publications by members of the group, but I must also acknowledge a more general debt.
Subject, voice and ergativity
54
3. For some linguists, e.g. Xrakovskij (1974), this is the defining property of passive constructions; for the purposes of my argument, however, we simply have to agree that it is one of the essential properties of passive constructions.
The tendency for agents to be expressed as subjects can, in fact, be phrased in more general terms, using the notion of control over the action denoted by the verb (cf. Comrie 1981 and Dixon 1979): the NP with the greatest degree of control over the action (which I shall call the “controller NP”) is generally expressed as surface subject.4 The NP in question will, of course, typically be the agent. The advantage of expressing the generalisation in terms of control is that it can be extended quite straightforwardly to causative constructions. The NP with greatest control in a causative construction is the causer, and it is this NP which is generally expressed as surface subject:5 (1) Nivkh (data from Nedjalkov, Otaina and Xolodovič 1969) n’-ax ti:r phuv-gu-d’ father I-CAUSEE6 firewood saw-CAUSFINITE “causer” “causee” “Father made me saw some firewood”
If, on the other hand, we consider causative constructions from the point of view of the expression of the agent, we face a problem because (at least in so-called indirect causatives such as the example above) there are TWO NPs—the causer and the causee— which could be considered agents. For one thing, the causer could be regarded as agent of an underlying higher predicate of causation, while the causee is agent of a subordinate predicate corresponding to the verb root. But even with respect to the action denoted by the verb root, the causer and causee could be said to share the properties of agent: the causer initiates the action and the causee actually performs it.7 If the NPs in causative constructions are viewed in terms of control over the action denoted by the verb root, however, they can be seen to conform to the same principle that applies in ordinary active constructions: the NP with most control over the action (i.e. the causer) is expressed as surface subject. 4. Interestingly, in cases where it is not obvious that any particular NP has greatest control (e.g. with verbs of sensory experience), there seems to be a high degree of inter-language variation in assigning NPs to syntactic slots. 5. I am talking here of control over the action denoted by the verb root. It might be objected that the causer is not an argument of the verb root (rather, it is an argument of an underlying higher predicate of causation), and that its semantic relationship to the verb root is therefore irrelevant. However, because of the inherent semantics of causation, the causer has one of the properties typical of an agent (namely initiation) with respect to the action denoted by the verb root, and may therefore be claimed to bear a semantic role with respect to that action. 6. Nivkh has a special case for animate causees in indirect causatives. 7. Xrakovskij (1974) and Nedjalkov (1976) seem to regard only the causee as agent; causative constructions of this type are then said to show agent demotion, as the causee is not expressed as surface subject. If one takes this view, then the causative-passive correlation is immediately accounted for, as causatives share the defining feature of passives (though one must then complicate the definition of passives, in order to exclude causatives!). This analysis, however, fails to take account of the fact that the causer (i.e. the surface subject) is also an agent.
The causative-passive correlation
55
How does the causative-passive correlation arise? Since causatives seem to behave like actives in this crucial respect, how is the causativepassive correlation to be accounted for? I would suggest that the answer lies in the wellknown fact that, in many languages, the verbal affixes and auxiliaries expressing causation may also express permission (indeed, the connection between causatives and permissives is so close that Nedjalkov and Sil’nickij (1969) regard permission as a subtype of causative meaning).8 We may again use an example from Nivkh to illustrate causative-permissive ambiguity (indeed, the example in (1) could also potentially have permissive meaning, but in practice this reading would be unlikely, given the meaning of the verb phrase as a whole): (2) Nivkh (data from Nedjalkov et al 1969) o:la-ax vi-gu-d’ father child-CAUSEE go-CAUS-FINITE Causative: “Father made the child go” Permissive: “Father let the child go”
Under the permissive reading of (2), the relationships among the NPs with respect to control over the action are at least not as clear-cut as under the causative reading. Comrie (1981:164) claims that the ‘permitter’ in such constructions (i.e. the subject) does at least have the power to prevent the action. It could therefore be argued that the permitter does have ultimate control; this is particularly obvious in negative contexts: (3) Nivkh (data from Nedjalkov et al 1969) ph-o:la-ax phaz-gu-doxqhau-d’ mother REFL-child undress-CAUS-NEGFINITE “The mother did not let her child undress”
However, permissive constructions are sometimes used when the permitter, rather than willingly allowing the action, is simply not in a position to prevent it: (4) Nivkh (data from Nedjalkov et al 1969) O:la, navat či , kinsku khu-ra, son now you strong-COMPAR devils killCONJUNC kinsku či you weak-COMPAR devils REFL-killCAUS-CONJUNC “Now, son, if you are stronger, you will kill the devils; if you are weaker, you will let the devils kill you”
In such cases, which we shall call ‘unwilling permissives’, it may be argued that the subject (the ‘permitter’) is not the NP with greatest control over
Subject, voice and ergativity
56
8. It is possible that the close connection between causatives and permissives may originate in constructions including negation (cf. Nedjalkov 1976:24): not = allow <not x>, and conversely, not =cause <not x>.
the action (though he may bear some residual responsibility), and that the normal principles governing subject selection are therefore violated.9 The Nivkh construction cited in (4) above is, in fact, very close to a typical passive construction. Indeed, Nedjalkov et al (1969) treat it as such in their translation into idiomatic Russian, converting it into the corresponding active: “If you are weaker, the devils will kill you”. This similarity arises not only from the mismatch between controller NP and subject. In addition, because of the presence of the reflexive, the subject NP is affected by the action, as in a typical passive (cf. Shibatani’s definition of prototypical passives (1985:837)).10 Indeed, the subject could be said to indirectly denote a patient, as it is the antecedent of a reflexive marker occupying the patient slot.11 It therefore appears that constructions expressing ‘unwilling permission’ share one of the essential properties of passives (the subject is not the NP with greatest control over the action), and that they may also share a further property typical of passives (the subject is affected by the action). These two properties are not, of course, completely independent: it is precisely in cases where the subject is affected, and where, by virtue of the meaning of the verb, this effect is adverse, that interpretations will arise in which the subject NP is not in control of the action.12 In other words, it is not a coincidence that the Nivkh example in (4) both contains a reflexive marker and has an ‘unwilling permissive’ reading. We might, however, be reluctant to classify such constructions as passive while they still retained an element of permissive meaning, implying some responsibility for the action on the part of the subject. If in the course of diachronic development these constructions were to lose this element of meaning, they would have to be regarded as passive. Moreover, 9. Note that it is possible, even in ordinary active (i.e. non-causative) constructions, to interpret the agent/subject as not being in control of the action; this would, for example, be the most likely interpretation of the English sentence I burnt the steak. However, in such cases the agent/subject always has at least as much control over the action as the other arguments of the verb. In permissive constructions, by contrast, it is possible to get interpretations where the subject has less control than the ‘causee’, and where the principle governing subject choice in active constructions is therefore violated. 10. The importance of causative-reflexive constructions as a bridge between causatives and passives has been noted by Shibatani (1985:840), Nedjalkov (1976:240ff.), and Haspelmath 1990:36ff.). 11. Note that the subject would also be affected by the action in cases where it was the possessor of the patient. Such constructions would be more like indirect passives, such as occur in Japanese. 12. In fact, there seems to be a very strong cross-linguistic tendency, covering marked and unmarked constructions in both ergative and non-ergative languages, for the subject to denote either the controlling NP or the affected NP (or, in some cases, both):
subject equals controller
subject equals affected
non-ergative unmarked (active) marked (passive) languages constructions constructions
The causative-passive correlation
ergative languages
marked (antipassive) constructions
57
unmarked constructions
as grammatical markers generally tend to become less specialised in meaning over time (see Bybee 1985:143), this would be a very plausible development. We therefore have a possible route by which a sub-set of constructions containing causative morphology (i.e. unwilling permissives) might develop into passives. I would hypothesise that it is precisely this development which gives rise to synchronic correlations between causative and passive markers. The Evenki data The question now remains, whether the proposed account of the causative-passive correlation can be applied to the data from Evenki. Evenki verbs may be passivized by adding the suffix -w-/-p-/-b-/-mu- (the choice between the alternants being phonologically determined):13 (5) Evenki (data from Konstantinova 1964) Active: Xurke:ke:n uluki:-we wa:-ča:-n boy squirrel-ACC kill-REC PAST-3 SG “The boy killed the squirrel” Passive: Uluki: wa:-p-ča:-n xurke:ke:n-du squirrel kill-PASS-REC PAST-3 SG boy-DAT “The squirrel was killed by the boy”
There are, however, a number of examples in which the suffix is used to derive forms which may be regarded as fossilised causatives: (6) Evenki (data from Konstantinova 1964) ju: “go out” vs ju:-w- “take out, lead out” aru- “come to life, regain vs aru-w- “revive” consciousness”
The suffix appears to be unproductive in this function in Evenki, though the productive causative suffix -pka:n consists of this suffix plus the element -ka:n, ultimately derived from a verb meaning “say” (Sunik 1962:130). The Evenki data would seem to present a problem for our account. We have claimed that permissive meaning (specifically, unwilling permission) is a crucial link between causatives and passives, yet the -w-/-p-/-b-/-mu- suffix cannot have permissive meaning in Evenki. This missing link can, however, readily be supplied if we take into account comparative evidence from other Tungusic languages. In Classical Manchu, the cognate suffix -bu could be used to derive forms with permissive meaning, as well as passives and (true) causatives (Zaxarov 1879). And in Even, which is closely related to Evenki,
Subject, voice and ergativity
58
13. This same suffix is sometimes used to derive spontaneous forms (that is, semantically intransitive forms, with no implied agent; cf. Shibatani 1985:839): mana- “finish vs mana-w- “finish (intr.), come (tr.)” to an end” sokor- “hide vs sokori-w- “hide (intr.)” (tr.)”
The use of passive morphology is well-attested in other languages, and need not concern us here, except to point out that, inasmuch as these forms may be considered anticausatives, the function of the suffix is exactly opposite to that illustrated in (6). the cognate suffix can have either passive or permissive meaning; moreover, in its permissive function it specifically denotes “unwilling permission”, as a result of negligence, or inability to prevent the action (Novikova 1968). Furthermore, our claim that the direction of diachronic development would have been from permissive to passive is supported by I.V.Nedjalkov (1978:73). He postulates a permissive origin for the passive suffix in the Tungusic languages as a whole, on the basis of comparative evidence and the fact that the suffix derives etymologically from a root meaning “give” (Sunik 1962:130).14 If this is correct, we would have the following sequence of developments:
In Evenki, the meaning which is claimed to be original, and which provided the basis for the other two developments, has itself been lost. Finally, it should be pointed out that, since the Evenki passive construction cited in (5) has a patient subject, we must assume that it originates specially from a permissiveREFLEXIVE construction—“The squirrel let itself be killed by the boy”—just like the Nivkh construction in (4). This might seem problematic, in view of the fact that the Evenki passive, unlike the Nivkh construction, contains no overt reflexive element. It is significant, however, that I.V.Nedjalkov (1978:73) cites an example from Solon (a language closely related to both Evenki and Even) in which the cognate suffix -u:- has the meaning “let something happen to oneself, without being accompanied by any overt reflexive marker: (7) Solon (data from I.V.Nedjalkov 1978) : “He let himself be caught” catch-PERM-RECENT PAST
The lack of a reflexive marker in the Evenki passive does not, therefore, constitute evidence against the proposed account of its origin. 14. He is presumably drawing here on the parallel of Russian, in which the verb dat “give” can be used with a dependent infinitive to form a construction with permissive meaning.
The causative-passive correlation
59
REFERENCES Bybee, J.L. 1985. Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Comrie, B. 1981. Language universal and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell. Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. ‘Ergativity.’ Language 55, 59–138. Haspelmath, W. 1990. ‘The grammaticalization of passive morphology.’ Studies in Language 14, 25–72. Knott, Judith M. 1990 ‘Causative-passive links’. In W.Bahner (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Linguists. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2382–5 Konstaninova, O.A. 1964. Ėvenkijskij jazyk. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka. Marantz, A.P. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 10.) Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Nedjalkov, I.V. 1978. ‘Passivnye konstrukcii v tunguso-man’ čžurskix jazykax.’ In Kacnel’son, S.D. (ed.) Lingvističeskie issledovanija 1978. Problemy grammatičeskogo stroja jazyka. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR Institut Jazykoznanija, 66–75. Nedjalkov, V.P. 1976. Kausativkonstruktionen. (Translated from Russian by V. Kuchler and H.Vater.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Nedjalkov, V.P., Otaina, G.A. and Xolodovič, A.A. 1969. ‘Morfologičeskij i leksičeskij kauzativy v nivxskom jazyke.’ In Xolodovič, A.A. (ed.) Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Morfologičeskij kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 179–199. Nedjalkov, V.P. and Sil-nickij, G.G. 1969. ‘Tipologija morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo kauzativov.’ In Xolodovič, A.A. (ed.) Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Morfologičeskij kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 20–50. Novikova, K.A. 1968. Ėvenskij jazyk. In Skorik, P.Ja. (ed.) Jazyki narodov SSSR 5. Leningrad: Nauka, 88–108. Shibatani, M. 1985. ‘Passives and related constructions: a prototype analysis.’ Language 61, 821– 848. Sunik, O.P. 1962. Glagol v tunguso-man’ čžurskix jazykax. Moscow-Lengingrad: Nauka. Xrakovsikj, V.S. 1974. ‘Passivnye konstruckcii.’ In Xolodovič, A.A. (ed.) Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij. Leningrad: Nauka, 5–45. Zaraov, I. 1979. Grammatika man’ čžurskago jazyka. St. Petersburg.
MORPHOLOGICAL AND LEXICAL CAUSATIVES IN NIVKH V.P.Nedjalkov, G.A.Otaina, and A.A.Xolodovič In A.A.Xolodovič (ed.) (1969) Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Morfologičeskij kauzativ. Pp. 179–99. 1 Introduction 1.1. This article is based on a fixed corpus of verbs, taken from the Russian-Nivkh dictionary (Savel’eva and Taksami 1965), published Nivkh texts, and linguistic studies of Nivkh (Krejnovič 1934 and 1937, Panfilov 1960, 1962 and 1965). Some verbs were also added to the corpus during work with an informant. 1.2. A simplex1 Nivkh verb, Vi, may be said to denote an action, state or event, x. The majority of such verbs have a [formally related] semantically causative correlate, Vj, whose meaning may be described as x plus a component of ‘causation’ (i.e. cx). Approximately 20% of Vi’s (70 intransitives and 15 transitives) have meanings which cannot be expanded in this way; they may be called ‘uncausable’ verbs. This set includes, for example, the following intransitive verbs: ti-d’2 ‘thunder’, lukluk-t’2 ‘be hairy’, molod’ ‘be sheer (of a slope)’; and the following transitive verbs: vin-d’ ‘spare, grudge’, (j)ali-d’3 ‘not manage, not cope with’, (j-)iv-d’ ‘have’. In those cases where it is possible to add a component of causation to derive a new verb, we obtain a pair of non-causative : causative correlates, Vi:Vj. Let us first examine those Vi:Vj pairs where the non-causative member, Vi, is an intransitive verb. There are 260 such cases. [Pairs in which the Vi is transitive will be examined in section 4.1.] 2 The causative correlates of intransitive verbs 2.1 In many languages there is (at most) a single causative verb, Vj, corresponding to each Vi. In other languages, however, a Vi may have two formally distinct causative correlates, and . Nivkh belongs to this 1. [V.P.N. et al] In this context, a simplex verb is one that is not formally derived from another verb; ‘simplex’ verbs may, however, be derived from other parts of speech. 2. [V.P.N. et al] The element -d’/t’ (distributed according to whether the preceding consonant is voiced or not) is a marker of finiteness. 3. [V.P.N. et al] The element j- is one of three pronominal prefixes, j-, i- and e- (all descending from if ‘he’) required by certain transitive verbs when their direct object is omitted (the direct object, when present, usually occupies the position immediately preceding the verb).
latter group of languages, at least as far as intransitive Vi’s (IVi’s) are concerned; the semantic differences between the two types of causative will be discussed in section 2.7– 2.9. In the majority of cases, however, one of the two possibilities is not realized. 195 of the intransitive verbs in the corpus have only a single causative correlate (5 of type ,
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
61
190 of type , compared to 80 with two causatives). The formation of type is no longer productive.4 Causatives of this type will henceforth be called ‘lexical causatives’ (LC’s).] 2.2. The opposition may be marked in one of three ways: (a) both members of the opposition may receive equal formal marking; (b) there may be a marker on alone; or (c) both members may be marked, and may also have an additional marker. These three types of marking are discussed in turn in the next three sections.5 2.3. Type (a). The roots of IVi and begin with different consonants: IVi has an initial stop or affricate, while has an initial fricative or liquid. The following alternations are found: t- vs r-, t’- vs z-, th- vs rš-, č- vs s-, p- vs v-, ph- vs f-, k- vs , and qh- vs χ-. At least 18 pairs belong to this type, including: IVi:
4. [V.P.N. et al] It seems that, in general, if a language has a secondary means of forming causatives alongside the predominant one, the number of causatives formed by the secondary process will not exceed 200. 5. [V.P.N. et al] About 10 pairs are related in other ways: (1) is formed by the addition of the pronominal prefix j- (cf. n.3) to IVi: ‘choke (intr.)’↔ : (j-) ‘block, IVi: stop up’ (2) is formed by the addition of the pronominal prefix j- or e- and of the suffix -u- to IVi: IVi: oz-d’ ‘get up’↔ : (j-)oz-u-d’ ‘wake up (tr.)’ mχaq-t’ ‘be short’↔(e-) mχaq-u-d’ ‘shorten” (3) IVi begins with h- while begins with j- or h-: IVi: he-d’ ‘boil (intr.)’↔ :je-d’/he-d’ ‘boil (tr.)’
Subject, voice and ergativity
62
(4) The alternation h- vs h-/j- is accompanied by the addition of the suffix -u-: IVi: hamam-d’ ‘be soft’↔ : jamam-ud’/hamam-u-d’ ‘crumple’ (5) IVi: begins with kh- while begins with : IVi: :
‘rest (intr.)’↔ ‘rest (tr.), give a rest’
6. [J.M.K.] The symbol ↔ signifies that both members of the pair have equal formal marking, so that neither can be said to be formally derived from the other. Note that, within the approach adopted here, the formal ‘derivation’ of one form from another is equated with the ADDITION of material (just as semantic derivation is equated with the addition of semantic components of meaning, such as ‘causation’).
(depending on the consonant involved), only one of which is a fricative or liquid. A more accurate representation of the alternations cited above would therefore be: t- vs r-/d-/t(IVi: ↔ : ), th- vs rš-/th- (IVi: tha-d’↔ : rša-d’/tha-d’), etc.7 The choice of alternants for the initial consonant of is governed by the final consonant of the preceding direct object. The fricative or liquid alternant occurs not only after certain consonants, but also when the direct object is omitted. 2.4. Type (b). is formed by adding the suffix -u- to the root of IVi: there is no initial consonant alternation. At least 18 pairs belong to this type; they include the following: IVi: nok-t’ ‘be narrow’ ‘deteriorate’ ‘be straight’
→ :
nok-u-d’ ‘make narrow’8 ‘spoil’
→ →
‘straighten’
2.5. Type (c). is formed by adding the suffix -u- to the root of IVi; and there is also an alternation between the initial consonants of IVi and . In other words, type (c) is a combination of types (a) and (b). There are at least 36 pairs of verbs which are formally related in this way; a few examples are listed below: IVi:
‘melt
→
(intr.)’
‘melt :
pol-d’ ‘fall’
→
phaz-d’ ‘undress (intr.)’ ketv-d’ ‘stick to (intr.)’
2.6 The opposition is always marked in the same way. is formed by adding the suffix -gu- (or -ku- after a voiceless consonant) to the root of IVi: e.g. IVi: vi-d’ ‘go’
→ :
vi-gu-d’ ‘make go, send’
Causatives of this type will henceforth be called “morphological causatives” (MC’s). 2.7. If an intransitive verb has causative correlates of both types, then these are semantically differentiated: the LC has contact-factitive meaning (cf. the (b) examples below), while the MC may have either distant-factitive or permissive meaning (cf. respectively the (c) and (d) examples below)9,10 7. [V.P.N. et al] The details of these alternations are given in Krejpovič (1937:65–67) and Panfilov (1962:14–17). 8. [J.M.K.] The single arrow used here and in type (c) signifies that is formed by adding material to IVi, and can therefore be said to be formally derived from IVi. 9 and 10. See Appendix on p. 81. (1) (a) If pold’ IVi: he fall-FIN11 ‘He fell’ (b) If phatik volud’ : he his younger brother fall-LC-FIN ‘He knocked down his younger brother’ ,12 jax polgud’ (c) If phatik : he his younger brother nudge-ADV heCAUSEE fall-MC-FIN ‘By nudging his younger brother, he caused him to fall’ (d) If phatik vodoxqhaur, jax : he his younger brother support-NEGADV he-CAUSEE polgud’ fall-MC-FIN ‘By not supporting his younger brother, he allowed him to fall’ (2) (a) If phazd’ IVi: he undress-FIN ‘He undressed’ (b) phōla fazud’ mother her child undress-LC-FIN : ‘The mother undressed her child’ (c) phōlaax phazgud’ : mother her child-CAUSEE undressMC-FIN ‘The mother made her child undress’
Subject, voice and ergativity
(d)
64
phōlaax phazgudoxqhaud’ : mother her child-CAUSEE undressMC-NEG-FIN ‘The mother did not allow her child to undress’
2.8. If an intransitive verb has only a single causative correlate, then in theory the meaning of this causative could either (a) be a combination of all the meanings found when there are two causative correlates (i.e. contact-factitive or distant-factitive or permissive); or (b) depend on the form of the causative (i.e. contact-factitive if it is a LC, distant-factitive or permissive if it is a MC). In general, the second possibility applies in Nivkh: a LC always has contact-factitive meaning; and a MC usually has distant-factitive or permissive meaning, though occasionally it may also have contact-factitive meaning. 11. [V.P.N. et al] Almost all the examples are in the ‘past/present’ tense, which is not overtly marked. 12. [V.P.N. et al] The adverbial suffix -r/-t marks an action accompanying that denoted by the main verb. It agrees with the syntactic subject of the sentence (i.e. with the causer of a causative sentence): sg 1 -t pl 1 -t 2 -r 2 -t 3 -r 3 -t
LC with contact-factitive meaning: e.g.
n’o χasku d’eqaud’ father barn posts be strong-LC-FIN ‘Father strengthened the posts on the barn’
MC with distant-factitive meaning: e.g. N’i khezt jax lugud’ I that woman turn to-ADV she-CAUSEE sing-MC-FIN ‘Turning to that woman, I asked her to sing’
In this example the causation is oral, but in other cases it may be non-oral. MC with permissive meaning: e.g.
n’az ! mother-VOC I-CAUSEE bathe-MC-IMPER ‘Mother, let me have a bath!’ Tha jax t’oŋt’oŋguja! NEG she-CAUSEE turn head-MC-IMPER ‘Don’t let her turn her head!’
This meaning is particularly common if the verb is in the imperative, or if it is negated. MC with distant-factitive or permissive meaning: e.g. N’i atikax
vigud’ I younger brother-CAUSEE my mother go-
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
65
MC-FIN ‘I made/let (my) younger brother go after mother’
MC with contact-factitive or distant-factitive or permissive meaning: e.g. N’i phōlaax tuin I my child-CAUSEE here stand-MC-FIN ‘I stood my child here’ or ‘I made/let my child stand here’
2.9 A MC may also express a special, weakened type of permissive meaning, where the ‘causer’ merely waits for an expected action—often one which is beyond his control, such as a natural phenomenon—usually with a view to performing another action afterwards. The causative verb usually takes the adverbial suffix -ror/-tot,13 marking an action preceding that denoted by the main verb: e.g.
la vid’ we wind blow-MC-ADV sail-INS go-FIN ‘Having waited for the wind to blow, we set sail’
13. [J.M.K.] This suffix seems to agree with the syntactic subject of the sentence (like the adverbial suffix -r/-t): sg 1 -tot pl 1 -tot 2 -ror 2 -tot 3 -ror 3 -tot
In effect, we are dealing here with a special compound suffix, -gu-ror/-gu-tot (cf. section 6.2). MC’s, in contrast to LC’s, are usually accompanied by a phrase indicating the means of causation: e.g. If, phlark krasir, he shirt dye-ADV be black-MC-FIN ‘By dyeing his shirt, he made (it) black’ Umguōla, phatik lerur, jax girl her younger sister amuse-ADV sheCAUSEE smile-MC-FIN ‘By amusing her younger sister, the girl made her smile’
The informants often considered sentences without such a phrase to be elliptical. The type of causation involved (factitive or permissive) may be indicated in various ways. One such indicator is the communicative structure of the utterance. For example, a MC is likely to have permissive meaning if it is in the imperative and the causee is coreferential with the speaker (‘let me’); though if the verb is negated it will usually have factitive meaning (‘don’t make me’). If the causee is not coreferential with the speaker,
Subject, voice and ergativity
66
then negation will tend to favour permissive meaning (‘don’t let him’ rather than ‘don’t make him’). 2.10 A MC may be formed from a base which is itself a LC: e.g. IV1: vaχt’- LC: vaχt’- MC: vaχt’-u-gu-d’ t’ → u-d’ → ‘make/let (s.o.) ‘break ‘break break (s.th.)’ (intr.) (s.th.)’ MC: IV1: kuku- LC: ‘make/let (s.o.) d’ ↔ → shake (s.o./ ‘be ‘shake s.th.)’ scattered’ (s.o./s.th.)’
It is not, however, possible to form a MC from a base which is already a MC [even if the latter has contact-factitive meaning].14 Artificial formations such as * , which ‘place, we might expect to mean ‘make/let (s.o.) place (s.th.)’ (from the MC ‘stand (intr.)’), were unintelligble to the stand (s.th)’, in turn from the IVi informant. 2.11 LC’s and MC’s derived from them [but not MC’s derived directly from IVi’s] may be made reflexive by the addition of the prefix ph- (the reflexive pronoun phi minus its vowel).15 The resultant forms may be 14. [J.M.K.] Comments enclosed in square brackets are my additions to the text. 15. [V.P.N. et al] It is usual for personal pronouns to be prefixed to the verb when functioning as direct object.
2.12 A RLC may in turn serve as the base for a MC:
e.g. RLC: ph-xuku- → MC: ph-xuku-gu-d’ d’ ‘make/let (s.o.) ‘shake shake himself, the oneself’ CAUSEE’
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
67
The resulting form is in fact ambiguous: it could also be a RMC meaning ‘make/let (s.o.) shake oneself, the CAUSER’ (cf. the previous section.)17 The meaning of the base verb and the context generally serve to resolve the ambiguity. 2.13 The derivation of causative verbs from a basic intransitive may be represented by the following diagram: IVi ↓ MC1
→
LC ↓ MC2
→ →
RLC ↓ RMC/MC3
It is possible to divide intransitive verbs into six classes, according to how they participate in this chain of derivation. Class I Verbs with just one link of the derivational chain. These are the 70 intransitive verbs with no causative derivatives (‘uncausable’ verbs; cf. section 1.2): e.g. ‘blow (of the wind)’, thiv-d’ ‘swell (of a person’), 16. [V.P.N. et al] In some cases, the RLC may be synonymous with the basic IVi from which the LC is formed, because the IVi has an inherently reflexive meaning: e.g. IVi: veta-d’ → LC: veta-u-d’ RLC: phfeta-u‘dress d’ → (intr.), ‘dress ‘dress dress oneself’ (s.o.)’ oneself’ IVi: phaz-d’ → LC: faz-u-d’ RLC: ph-faz-u‘undress → d’ (intr.), ‘undress ‘undress undress (s.o.)’ oneself’ oneself’ 17. [J.M.K.] The two meanings of the form may be represented by different bracketings:
ph-xuku-gu-d’ [[[refl-shake(LC)]-MC]-fin] MC from RLC: ‘make/let (s.o.) shake himself’ [[refl-[shake(LC)-MC]]-fin] RMC: ‘make/let (.s.o.) shake oneself’ hoklhokl-d’ ‘be deficient’, hurju-d’ ‘make a noise’, ‘stutter’, roj-d’ ‘be sufficient’, ršoli-d’ ‘become sober’, tharftharfha-d’ ‘stamp one’s feet’. Many of the verbs in this class are so-called ‘quantitative’ verbs, which translate into English as predicative adjectives: molo-d’ ‘be sheer (of a slope)’, khe-d’ ‘be thin’. Class II Verbs with two links of the chain:18 IVi ↓ ↓ MC
‘bathe’ ‘make/let (s.o.) bathe’
There are about 190 IVi’s in this class: e.g. vār-d’ ‘be ashamed’, vi-d’ ‘go’, food’, ‘struggle’, it-t’ ‘speak’, jo-d’ ‘rust’, ‘stand (intr.)’. Class III Verbs with four links of the chain:
About 25 IVi’s belong to this class: e.g. kez-d’ ‘flow’,
‘be long’, qār-d’ ‘be tight’,
h
qorqor-d’ ‘boil (intr.)’, perqr-d’ ‘be crooked’, p az-d’ ‘undress (intr.)’, (intr.)’, ‘break (intr.)’, phirk-t’ ‘turn (intr.)’. Class IV Verbs with five links of the chain: IVi ↓ MC1
→
LC ↓ MC2
→
‘tear
RMC
18. [J.M.K.] To judge from section 2.1, there are also 5 verbs with the following pattern: IVi→LC ŋazaqr-d’ → ŋazaqr‘be terrified’ u-d’ ‘terrify (s.o.)’ ↓ ↓ ŋazaqr-gu-d’ ŋazaqr- → ph-ŋazaqr-u-gu‘accidentally u-gu-d’ d’ terrify (s.o.)’ ‘terrify ‘let (s.o.) terrify (s.o.)’ oneself, let oneself be terrified’
About 10 IVi’s belong to this class: e.g. (from s.o.’s hands)’, por-d’ ‘lie’. Class V Verbs with six links of the chain: IVi
‘make (s.o.) weigh oneself’ (RMC) OR ‘make (s.o.) weigh himself’
‘fall
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
69
(MC3)
There are only three IVi’s in this class. Class VI Verbs with all seven links of the chain: IVi → LC ↓ ↓ MC1 MC2 kuku-d’ → ‘be ‘shake scattered’ (s.o./s.th.)’ ↓ ↓ kuku-gu-d’ ‘let (s.th.) ‘make (s.o.) be shake scattered’ (s.o./s.th.)’
About 35 IVi’s belong to this class: e.g. vaχt’-t’ ‘break, burst (intr.)’, ‘become free’, čiŋr-d’ ‘worry’, če-d’ ‘be dry’. The absence of particular links in the chain in classes I–V can usually be explained in terms of pragmatics; the forms are not ruled out by the structure of the language itself. MC’s such as *the-gu-d’ from the-d’ ‘sing (of birds)’, and * from ‘blow (of the wind)’ are potentially grammatical, but they would not have a natural interpretation. The same may be said of reflexives such as *ph-ŋazaqr-u-d’ from ŋazaqr-u-d’ ‘terrify (s.o.)’, and *ph-folu-d’ from volu-d ‘knock (s.o./s.th.) down’. The situations which these forms would denote are highly improbable. 3 Anticausative verbs 3.1. In the examples which we have looked at so far, the semantic opposition ‘noncausative’:‘causative’ has been expressed by formal marking on the right-hand member (or, in a few cases, on both members; cf. section 2.3). However, there are a number of cases where it is the left-hand member of the opposition which is formally marked, so that formal derivation is in the opposite direction to semantic derivation.19 The formally marked non-causative verb may be called an anti-causative (AC). There are only about 15 anti-causative verbs in Nivkh. They are formed by adding the prefix ph- (whose more basic function is to form reflexive verbs) to either a LC or a simplex transitive (TVi) verb with inherently causative meaning.20,21 Anti-causatives derived from LC’s: e.g. IVi:
Anti-causatives derived from simplex transitive verbs: e.g TV1: ‘save (s.o.)’
AC: ph-χoni-d’ ‘escape’
19. [J.M.K.] The assumed direction of semantic derivation, ‘non-causative’→ ‘causative’, follows directly from the claim (cf. section 1.2) that the meaning of a causative verb results from the addition of a causative component to the meaning of a non-causative verb (i.e. ‘causative’=‘noncausative’+‘causation’). 20. [V.P.N. et al] The semantic oppositions expressed in Nivkh by the formal opposition AC : base, are often expressed in other languages by the opposition base : MC. E.g. Chukchi ‘escape’ MC: ‘save’ 21. [V.P.N. et al] There are also two isolated instances of AC’s formed by the addition of the suffix -r-:
(e-) mq-t’/moq-t’ ‘snap (s.th)’ AC: moq-r-d’ ‘snap (intr.)’ roq-t’ ‘rip (s.th.) open’ AC: toq-r-d’ ‘rip (intr.)’ In the second case there is also an initial-consonant alternation of the type discussed in section 2.3. 22. [J.M.K.] The upper arrow marks the direction of semantic derivation, the lower arrow the direction of formal derivation. AC: TV1: ‘hide ‘hide (intr.)’ (s.o/s.th.)’ AC: ph-ršatu-d’ TVi: ršatu-d’ ‘teach (s.o.)’ ‘learn’ TVi: vevu-d’ AC: ph-vevu-d’ ‘separate ‘separate (intr.), begin to (s.th.)’ live separately’
A notable feature of the AC’s listed above is the fact that their subject must be animate. This restriction holds even if the direct object of the corresponding semantically causative verb must be inanimate: e.g.
vevud’ If phi he his food separate-FIN ‘He separated his food (from the rest)’
vs lmŋ they marry-ADV AC-separate-FIN-PL ‘Having got married, they began to live separately’
Only two AC’s can take an inanimate subject; they seem to be caiques on Russian forms in which the ‘reflexive’ suffix -sja functions as an anti-causative marker: (Ru. (j-) otkryvat’) ‘open (s.th.)’ (j)-ark-t’ (Ru.
(Ru. otkryvat’-sja) ‘open (intr.)’ ph-ark-t’ (Ru.
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
71
zakryvat’) zakryvat’-sja) ‘close (s.th.)’ ‘close (intr.)’ e.g. Jeskinivx magazin ark-t’ shop-assistant shop close-FIN ‘The shop-assistant closed the shop’ vs Magazin ph-ark-t’ shop AC-close-FIN ‘The shop closed’
3.2 An AC may serve as the base for a MC: e.g.
AC: ‘learn’
MC: ‘make/let (s.o.) learn’
AC: ‘escape’
MC: ‘make/let (s.o.) escape’
If, as in the first example, the AC is itself derived from a LC, then the MC will be identical in form to a RMC (just as MC’s derived from RLC’s are identical to RMC’s; cf. section 2.11). Its meaning and derivational history will, however, be different: e.g. IVi:
Sentences containing the forms in question may be ambiguous, if taken out of context: phχonigud’ AC-save-MC-FIN (MC from AC) CAUSEE REFL-save-MC-FIN (RMC) ‘I asked him to escape’ (MC from AC) or ‘I asked him to save me’ (RMC)
e.g. N’i jax I he-
4 The causative correlates of transitive verbs 4.1 Transitive Vi’s have causative correlates of the morphological type only, formed by adding the suffix -gu-/-ku- to the transitive root:
There are only 15 transitive Vi’s with no causative correlate (‘uncausable’ verbs)’. 4.2. MC’s derived from transitive Vi’s usually have distant-factitive or permissive meaning; both types of meaning may be oral or non-oral. Contact-factitive meaning is even less common than with MC’s derived from intransitive Vi’s. The nature of the causation may or may not be made explicit. If it is not, then factitive meaning is more usual, and the causation is generally oral. However, the (extralinguistic) characteristics of the action denoted by the verb, and the relationship of the causee to this action, may sometimes determine the type of causation involved. For example, an action such as ‘sawing firewood’, or some other kind of work, is unlikely to be performed on the initiative of the causee. Other things being equal, then, permissive meaning—which presumes the initiative of the causee—is unlikely. One can therefore assume factitive meaning, in the absence of explicit indications to the contrary or strong contextual support for permissive meaning (for example, if the listener knows that the causee is a child who wanted to saw firewood the previous week, but was not allowed to do so). On the other hand, an action such as ‘tasting a dish’ would usually be performed on the initiative of the causee. Permissive meaning can therefore be assumed, unless the unwillingness of the causee is specifically indicated. Contact-factitive meaning: e.g.
phōlaax amagud’ father his child- CAUSEE book look at-MCFIN ‘The father showed his child the book’
Distant-factitive meaning (oral or non-oral): e.g.
n’ax phuvgud’ father I-CAUSEE firewood saw-MC-FIN ‘Father told me to saw some firewood’
Permissive meaning (oral) or (non-oral): e.g.
n’ax mos amlagud’ grandmother I-CAUSEE mos taste-MC-FIN ‘Grandmother let me taste the mos (a dish made from berries)’
4.3. Both TVi’s and MC’s derived from them [like MC’s derived from LC’s, but unlike MC’s derived directly from IVi’s] may be reflexivized by means of the prefix ph-. The resulting verbs may be called ‘reflexive transitive Vi’s’ (TVi’s) and ‘reflexive morphological causatives’ (RMC’s—cf. section 2.11) respectively. e.g. TVi:χa- RTVi: ph-χa-d’ d’→ ‘shoot oneself ‘shoot (s.o.)’ RMC: ph-χa-gu-d’ or TVi:χa- MC: χa-gud’→ d’→ ‘make/let
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
‘shoot (s.o.)’
‘make/let (s.o.) shoot (s.o.)’
73
(s.o.) shoot oneself (the CAUSER)’
4.4 A RTVi may in turn serve as the base for a MC:
e.g. RTVi: ph- → MC: ph-χa-gu-d’ χa-d’ ‘make/let (s.o.) shoot ‘shoot himself (the CAUSEE)’ oneself
The resulting form is in fact ambiguous (cf. section 2.12): it could also be a RMC meaning “make/let (s.o.) shoot oneself, the CAUSER” (cf. the previous section).23 In some cases, the meaning of the base verb may help 23. [J.M.K.] As in section 2.12, the two meanings may be represented by different bracketings:
ph-χa-gu-d’ [[[REFL-shoot]-MC]-FIN] MC from RTVi: ‘make/let (s.o.) shoot himself’ [[REFL-[shoot-MC]]-FIN] RMC: ‘make/let (s.o.) shoot oneself’
to resolve the ambiguity. For example, the form ph-sa-gu-d’ from the base sa-d’ ‘beat’ is far more likely to be a RMC meaning ‘let (s.o.) beat oneself’ than to be a MC derived from a RTVi and meaning ‘make/let (s.o.) beat himself’. In the following example, on the other hand, both meanings are possible; the ambiguity could only be resolved by the context: n’ax ph-sugud’ father I-CAUSEE REFL-wash-MC-FIN ‘Father told me to wash myself’ (MC from RTVi) ‘Father told me to wash him (father)’ (RMC) 4.5 The derivation of causative verbs from a basic transitive may be represented by the following diagram: TVi ↓ MC1
→ →
RTVi ↓ RMC/MC2
TVi’s may be divided into four classes according to the way in which they participate in this chain of derivation. Class I TVi’s with no causative derivative (so-called ‘uncausable’ verbs).24 There are 15 such verbs in the corpus; examples were given in section 1.2. Class II Verbs with none of the reflexive links of the chain: TVi ep-t’ ‘keep (s.th.) secret’ ↓ ↓
Subject, voice and ergativity
74
MC ep-ku-d’ ‘make/let (s.o.) keep (s.th.) secret’
There are about 140 TVi’s in this class. Class III TVi’s which cannot be reflexivized directly, but which can form a RMC via their causative derivative:25 TVi ↓ MC
→
RMC
24. [J.M.K.] Presumably, some of these verbs may be able to form a reflexive, so that they have the two non-causative links of the chain. TVi→RTVi 25. [J.M.K.] The fact that many TVi’s cannot be reflexivized, while their causative derivatives can, implies that the reflexive of causative verbs is more widespread that the reflexive of simple transitives. mot’-t’ ‘kiss (s.o.)’ ↓ mot’-ku-d’→ ph-mot’-ku-d’ ‘make/let (s.o.) kiss (s.o.)’ ‘let (s.o.) kiss oneself’
About 80 TVi’s belong to this class. Class IV Verbs with all five links of the derivational chain: TVi → ↓ MC1 → zu-d’ ‘wash (s.th./s.o.)’ ↓ zu-gu-d’ ‘make/let (s.o.) wash (s.th./s.o.)’
There are about 50 TVi’s in this class: e.g. za-d’ ‘beat’, fiti-d’ ‘cover (with a blanket)’, χa-d’ ‘shoot’. 4.6. RMC’s may, in principle, show the same range of causative meanings as nonreflexive causative forms. Statistically speaking, however, they tend to show permissive meaning (especially when the base verb denotes something unpleasant [for its object, which is coreferential with the ‘causer’]). They often denote situations where the ‘causer’, far from allowing the action willingly, is not in a position to prevent it:26 e.g. Ōla, naval či
, kinsku khura, či
son now you stronger devils kill-CONJ you
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
75
weaker kinsku devils REFL-kill-MC ‘Now, son, if you are stronger, you will kill the devils; if you are weaker, the devils will kill you (lit. you will let the devils kill you)’ 26. [J.M.K.] In cases like this, the RMC is almost equivalent to a passive (‘You will let the devils kill you’ ≈ ‘You will be killed by the devils’). Nivkh does not have a special passive construction.
5 Multiple causation There are various ways of expressing the causation of a number of different actions [with the same causer and causee] within a single sentence. If there is no logical ordering among the actions, all the verbs appear in the ‘conjunctive’ form (-ra), without the causative suffix, and are followed by the causative form of the pro-verb ha-d’ (cf. English do).27 The verbal group as a whole follows the noun phrase denoting the causee; any verbs with a transitive base are immediately preceded by their object: e.g.
phōlaax , ma mother her daughter-CAUSEE cook foodCONJ dried fish khe ovra hagud’ bring-CONJ net mend-CONJ do-MC-FIN ‘The mother asked her daughter to cook food, bring dried fish, and to mend the net’
If there is some logical ordering among the actions, various constructions are possible: (a) The verb denoting the first action is placed first, and takes the adverbial suffix -r/t;28 the remaining verbs are formulated as described in the preceding paragraph: phōlaax vir, , mother her daughter-CAUSEE go-ADV cook food-CONJ khe ovra hagud’ net mend-CONJ do-MC-FIN ‘The mother asked her daughter to go and cook food and mend the net’ (b) The verb(s) denoting the earlier action(s) take(s) the suffix -r/-t, while the verb denoting the last action appears in the finite form and includes the causative suffix.29 N’i phōlaax ozt, vit, I my daughter-CAUSEE get up-ADV go-ADV cook food-MCFIN ‘I asked my daughter to get up and go and cook food’ (c) The verb denoting the first action stands last in the sentence, and takes the causative and finite suffixes. The verb denoting the last action may
Subject, voice and ergativity
76
27. [V.P.N. et al] Only one verb in a sentence (the last) can take the marker of finiteness, -d’/-t’; the other verbs must either take an adverbial suffix, or be in the conjunctive form (-ra). 28. [V.P.N. et al] Cf. n.12. 29. [V.P.N. et al] Verbs preceding the NP denoting the causee do not form part of the causative group:
cf. N’i ozt phōlaax vit I get up-ADV my daughter-CAUSEE go-ADV cook food-MC-FIN ‘Getting up, I asked my daughter to go and cook food’ either take the causative suffix, plus the future tense suffix suffix -r/-t:
,30 plus the adverbial
phōlaax vigud’ mother her daughter-CAUSEE cook food-MC-FUT-ADV go-MC-FIN ‘The mother asked her daughter to go and cook food’ or it may take the adverbial suffix alone: phōlaax vigud’ mother her daughter-CAUSEE cook food-ADV go-MC-FIN ‘The mother asked her daughter to go and cook food’ 6 The structure of causative constructions 6.1 A sentence containing a causative verb, whether a LC or a MC, may be called a causative construction. The subject of a causative construction (expressing the causer) is, as a rule, animate.31 Causative constructions with an inanimate subject are felt to be ungrammatical.32 *
lavgud’ mist we-CAUSEE this village-LOC stay-MC-FIN ‘The mist caused us to stay in this village’
This sentence sounds more natural if a verbal adverb is added; this seems to weaken the link between subject and causative verb: Maŋgla dense mist come down-ADV we-CAUSEE that village-LOC lavgud’ stay-MC-FIN lit. ‘The dense mist, coming down, caused us to stay in that village’ However, the best way of conveying this meaning would be to use a postposition of cause instead of a causative verb: lavd’
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
77
we mist-because of that village-LOC stay-FIN ‘We stayed in that village because of the mist’ If the causative verb is formed from an intransitive base, then the causee may be either animate or inanimate. If, on the other hand, the verb has a transitive base, then the causee must as a rule be animate; an inanimate causee is extremely rare, and must be something which is 30. [J.M.K.] The future tense suffix is crucial here; the form would have quite another meaning (cf. section 6.3). 31. [V.P.N. et al] There are just two causative verbs—both LC’s—which can freely take an inanimate subject such as ‘rain’, čaχ ‘water’: ‘dampen (tr.)’ (cf. -t’ ‘be damp’) and sevčevo-d ‘wet (tr.)’ (cf. čevčevo-d’ ‘be wet’). 32. [J.M.K.] The English causative verb make seems to be subject to a similar restriction: ? The mist made us stay in the village
activated by a human being:
e.g. Khu nik hagin tha phraguja! a single bullet NEG REFL-hit-MC-IMPER ‘Do not let a single bullet hit you!’
Both semantically and syntactically speaking, the valency of a causative verb is generally one higher than that of its base. The following ‘rules’ describe the formation of a causative from a non-causative construction (apart from the change in the verb):33 (i) Introduce a new subject and place it before all the other constituents of the sentence. (ii) Change the subject34 of the non-causative construction into a syntactic object of the causative construction—in the causee case (-ax) if it denotes an animate being and the verb is a MC, otherwise in the absolutive case (-Ø). Even if the conditions for the causee case are fulfilled, the morph -ax may sometimes be omitted, but it is always retained if there are already two objects in the absolutive case (i.e., including the subject, a total of three NP’s in the absolutive case). (iii) Retain the direct and/or oblique object(s) of the non-causative construction unchanged. If there is a phrase denoting the means of causation, then the logical object of the base verb will frequently appear as a dependant of the verbal adverb within this phrase, rather than of the causative verb itself: e.g. Nanak, phatik xezr, thu sister her younger brother turn to-ADV sledge make-MC-FIN ‘The sister, turning to her younger brother, asked (him) to make a sledge’
The table below illustrates the rules outlined in the previous paragraph, for base verbs of different valencies. The (a) sentences are basic non-causative constructions, while the (b) and (c) sentences contain MC’s and LC’s respectively. (1)
Valency of Vi=Ø (a)
Subject, voice and ergativity
78
become dark-FIN ‘(It) became dark’ 33. [V.P.N. et al] It should be remembered that if the causative verb is a LC, its form may depend on the final consonant of the ‘new’ object (=subject of the base construction). In other words, the form of the verb itself is only determined after the application of rule (ii). 34. [V.P.N. et al] See section 6.2 for more discussion of cases where the basic non-causative construction has no subject. 35 (b) father become dark-MC-FIN ‘Father caused it to become dark’ (c) No LC (2) Valency of Vi=1 [-anim] (a) Lep čed’ bread dry out-FIN ‘The bread dried out’ (b) lep čegud’ father bread dry-out-MC-FIN ‘Father let the bread dry out’ (c) lep send’ father bread dry out-LC-FIN ‘Father dried out the bread (to make bread-crumbs)’ (3) Valency of Vi=1 [+anim] (a) Ōla vid’ child go-FIN ‘The child went’ (b) ōla(ax) vigud’ father child (-CAUSEE) go-MC-FIN ‘Father made/let her child go’ (c) No LC (4) Valency of Vi=2 (object in absolutive case)36 (a) Ōla lep n’id’ child bread eat-FIN ‘The child ate the bread’ (b) ōla(ax) lep n’igud’ father child(-CAUSEE) bread eat-MCFIN ‘The father made/let the child eat the bread’ (c) No LC (5) Valency of Vi=3 (both objects in absolutive case) (a) Ōla lep phnanak ximd’ child bread his older sister give-FIN ‘The child gave his older sister the bread’ (b) ōlaax lep phnanak ximgud’
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
79
father child-CAUSEE bread his older sister give-MC-FIN ‘The father made/let the child give the bread to his older sister’
6.2 As indicated in the previous section, there is a small group of intransitive causatives, formed from verbs with zero valency. These verbs may appear in three forms: 35. [V.P.N. et al] For the sake of simplicity, phrases denoting the means of causation have been omitted from the table; but in this case such a phrase (e.g. phax ajr ‘by closing the window’) would be obligatory (cf. section 6.2). 36. [V.P.N. et al] In addition to simplex transitive bases, this type also includes LC’s from which MC’s can be derived.
(1) The finite form (obligatorily accompanied by a phrase denoting the actual or supposed means of causation): e.g.
, phax ajr, father window close-ADV become dark-MCFIN ‘By closing the window, father caused (it) to become dark’
(2) The adverbal form in -ror/-tot. Here the causer simply waits for an event, with a view to performing the action denoted by the main verb (cf. section 2.9): e.g.
, , we become summer-MC-ADV go-home-FIN ‘Having waited for summer to come (lit. having waited for (it) to become summer), we went home’
(3) The adverbial form in -r/-t. Here the formally causative verb does not have its usual meaning; rather, it denotes the cause of the action expressed by the main verb [i.e. the causative morpheme could be said to have the meaning ‘because’ rather than ‘cause to’]: e.g. father become dark-MC-ADV hurry-FIN ‘Because (it) was getting dark, father hurried’ (literal translation: ‘Making/letting it become dark, father hurried’)
6.3 The phenomenon observed in the last example of the preceding section is not restricted to intransitive causatives formed from subject-less verbs. It tends to occur when the cause is something negative or unpleasant: e.g.
la lavd’ we wind blow-MC-ADV stay-FIN ‘Because the wind was blowing, we had to stay’ (literal translation: ‘Making/letting the wind
Subject, voice and ergativity
80
blow, we had to stay’)
[The syntactic structure of these sentences is as the literal translation suggests. The ‘we’ in the above example is the subject of the adverbial form in -gu-; this pronoun is evident from the choice of the allomorph -t for the adverbial suffix, agreeing with a 1st person plural subject (cf. n.12).] The noun la ‘wind’ is equivalent to a causee; this becomes evident in examples where the corresponding noun is animate and appears in the causee case: e.g. If phutkuax phsagur phimd’ she her husband-CAUSEE REFL-beat-MCADV run-away-FIN ‘Because her husband beat her, she ran away” (literal translation: ‘Making/letting her husband beat her, she ran away’)
REFERENCES Krejnovič, Je.A. 1934 ‘Nivxskij (giljackij) jazyk.’ In Jazyki i pis’mennost’ narodov Severa, 111, 181–222. Moscow-Leningrad. Krejnovič, Je.A. 1937. Fonetika nivxskago jazyka. Moscow-Leningrad. Nedjalkov, V.P. and Sil’nickij, G.G. 1969. ‘Tipologjia morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo kauzativov.’ In Xolodovič, A.A. (ed.) Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Morfologičeskij kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 20–50. Panfilov, V.Z. 1960. ‘O zaloge glagola v nivxskom jazyke.’ In Voprosy grammatiki. pp. 113–5. Moscow-Leningrad. Panfilov, V.Z. 1962. Grammatika nivxskogo jazyka, I. Moscow-Leningrad. Panfilov, V.Z. 1965. Grammatika nivxskogo jazyka, II. Moscow-Leningrad. Savel’eva, V.N. and Taksami, Č.M. 1965. Russko-nivxskij slovar. Moscow.
APPENDIX—Footnotes 9 and 10 9. [J.M.K., based on material given by V.P.N. et al] The table below summarises the formulation of NP’s in simple causative constructions (cf. section 6.1), to aid the understanding of the Nivkh examples. The term ‘causee’ refers to the participant who actually performs the action denoted by the base of the causative verb (i.e. the subject of the corresponding non-causative construction). LC from IVi: causer causee absolutive absolutive case case
(LC’s cannot be formed from transitive bases) This is just like a normal transitive-verb construction: S-abs O-abs V The causee behaves just like a normal direct object; e.g., its final consonant governs an alternating consonant of the verb.
Morphological and lexical causatives in nivkh
81
MC from IVi:
The cause here does not behave like a direct object, even if it is in the absolutive case; it has no effect on the initial consonant of the verb. MC from TVi:
The absolutive case has no overt marking, and is not specified in the glosses to the examples. Nivkh is unusual in having a special case, the “causee case” in -ax, for an animate causee in constructions containing a MC (whether formed from a transitive or an intransitive Vi). 10. [J.M.K.] The different types of causative meaning are distinguished as follows by Nedjalkov and Sil’nicki (1969): Factitive The causer is the primary or sole initiator of the action denoted by the base of the verb [e.g. ‘I made him go’, ‘I told/asked him to go’]. Permissive The primary initiator is the causee; the role of the ‘causer’ is simply to allow (or, conversely, to prohibit) the action [e.g. ‘I let him go’]. Distant vs contact If there is only an indirect link between the causer and the action denoted by the base of the verb, the causation is ‘distant’. The causee retains a degree of autonomy [at least in the way in which he performs the action, e.g. The mother made the child undress (but he did so very slowly)’; in some cases the causee even has the option of refusing to perform it at all, e.g. ‘The mother told the child to undress (but he refused)’]. ‘Contact causation’ is defined negatively, as the absence of the features distinguishing distant causation. [It is usually equivalent to the transitivization of an intransitive base; e.g. ‘The mother undressed the child’.] Permissive meaning is always of the distant type; factitive meaning may be of either type.
VOICE IN TURKISH Asli Göksel There is considerable cross-linguistic variation in the way languages distinguish between passive, middle and reflexive constructions. It is often the case that a single term covers a variety of constructions in one language without necessarily corresponding to a similar set in another language. This is as much due to the difficulty of finding a morphological or syntactic factor that uniquely distinguishes one construction from the others, as it is to ascribing to any one of them a cluster of properties by which one could provide a universal characterisation. In other words, not only are there differences between, say, the properties of passivisation in various languages, but there is also considerable overlap between each construction within a single language in terms of sensitivity to syntactic phenomena and morphological properties. Such factors make it very difficult to use the terms reflexive, passive and middle as guidelines even at a descriptive level. Conceptually, these terms cover a variety of constructions which share a common feature: that one of the arguments of the verb is thought to be pragmatically insignificant or irrelevant enough not to be overtly expressed. The syntactic analogue of this property is the suppression of one of the arguments of the verb. It seems to be appropriate, then, to exploit the shared property as a basis for checking the weight particular factors have in identifying each construction. In this paper I will try to shed light on some aspects of passive/middle/ reflexive constructions in Turkish.* I will argue that there is a logical distinction between reflexives on the one hand and passives and middles on the other. As for the difference between passives and middles, I will claim that there is no distinction between these two which can be stated within the grammar of Turkish, and that what is called passive is no more than a restricted interpretation of the middle reading. In the second section I will focus on the interpretation of agentivity and problems relating to the presence of understood agents. I There are two suffixes in Turkish which occur in sentences that have passive, middle and reflexive reading: -il and -(i)n.1 The former is taken to be the canonical passive and the latter the canonical reflexive morpheme. However, the fact that il has -(i)n as one of its variants and that both 1. These morphemes have the following variants between them: -il, -il, -ul, -ül, -in, -in, -un, ün, -n. Vowel alterations in these morphemes are due to phonological constraints which are not relevant to the analysis.
Voice in Turkish
83
converge on a ‘middle reading’ blurs the distinction. Consider the following sentences: (1) Kapi aç-il-di. door open- -PAST-3 a. The door was opened. b. The door opened. (2) Çocuklar yika-n-di. children wash- -PAST-3 a. The children were washed. b. The children washed themselves. (3) Çok öv-ün-dü-n. Much praise- -PAST-2 You praised yourself a lot. (4) Çok öv-ül-dü-n. Much praise- -PAST-2 You were praised a lot.2
In (1) -il has a passive and a middle reading, but in (4) it only has a passive reading. In (2) (i)n has a passive and a reflexive reading but in (3) it only has a reflexive reading. Traditional grammars mention the various ‘meanings’ of these constructions, and a more recent work (Bainbridge 1987) argues for two -(i)n/-il pairs; that is, -il and -(i)n are each represented twice in the lexicon: [-il/-(i)n]1 which represents passive and [-il/-(i)n]2 which represents middle/reflexive (-il being the middle morpheme while -(i)n is the reflexive morpheme).3 Although this claim captures an interesting insight relating to the complementarity of middle and reflexive readings, I will argue that it does not lead one to postulate a separate middle morpheme. In what follows, I will start with the specification of the lexical properties of the suffixes mentioned above. One reason for taking this route proceeds from the central position occupied by the lexicon in the framework I will adopt, Licensing Grammar. The grammatical theory put forward in Kempson (1990) provides a model which has a dual system of representation, both systems deriving from lexical properties. One set of properties, the categorial properties of lexical items, creates surface configurations which belong to the natural language system. But there is a 2. The abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: 1, 2, 3: first, second and third person subject agreement; ACC: accusative; AOR: aorist; DAT: dative; INF: infinitival; INT: interrogative; INTR: intransitive; LOC: locative; NEG: negative; NOM: nominaliser; PASS: passive; PL: plural; POSS: possessive; REF: reflexive; TR: transitive. 3. Ergin (1989), for example, suggests that -il has a passive ‘meaning’ as well as a ‘broader meaning’, but points out that this distinction cannot be captured morphologically. Bainbridge (1987), on the other hand, appears to favour a separate characterisation for a middle morpheme by stating that there are two [-il/(i)n] pairs. Although she does not explicitly state that the -il of [-il/(i)n]2 is the middle morpheme, a description of the remaining morphemes leads one to this conclusion.
second set of properties which is also lexically specified, and these are logical properties which are guidelines for forming logical configurations. Logical configurations are artefacts of the language of thought (in the sense of Fodor 1983), a system distinct from the syntax of natural language. This is a formal reflex of the informal observation that
Subject, voice and ergativity
84
when we learn a lexical item such as a suffix, we learn to match a specific phonological form with a set of syntactic properties (like verb or noun) and a set of logical properties (like the logical type of a noun or a verb). In this model these two sets of properties yield two configurations which are related but distinct. They are distinct because they are artefacts of two different systems, the system of natural language, and the system of the language of thought. They are related because part of forming a logical representation depends on configurational properties of surface syntax. The mapping between surface syntax and logical syntax is based on an enrichment process involving principles which are specific not to natural language, but to processes of interpretation and logical deduction. Since lexical representations form the core of representations, an analysis of these properties will be in order. Going back to examples (1) to (4), the minimal assumption one can make by considering the pair (3) and (4) is that -il cannot represent reflexivisation, the coreference of the logical subject and the logical object of a verb. This relation is specifically expressed by -(i)n. I will therefore start with the properties of -(i)n. The suffix -(i)n as in (3) combines with a small number of transitive verbs. It can only combine with those expressing an action that one can inflict on oneself, but not necessarily with all such verbs. Since the concatenation of -(i)n with a verb is not a productive process, the verbs that can combine with -(i)n, of which there are very few, have to be specified for this suffix in the lexicon.4 In line with what has been outlined above regarding lexical properties, the lexical item -(i)n has, as part of its lexical representation, specifications relevant to surface syntactic configurations. Let us assume, as a first approximation, that the properties of -(i)n relevant to the formation of surface structures are as in (5): (5)
-(i)n: [VTR___]VINTR
This specification states the environment in which -(i)n occurs, the kind of verb it combines with (transitive verbs), and the outcome of this combination (intransitive verbs). It thus gives the basis for a surface configuration, such as the one partially illustrated below. (All nodes irrelevant to the analysis, such as tense, agreement and aspectual markers will be omitted in this and subsequent representations.) 4. There are verbs that have this suffix which do not have a reflexive meaning like görün which does not mean ‘to see oneself’, but ‘to appear’, and sevin which does not mean ‘to love oneself’, but ‘to be happy’. Such verbs have idosyncratic meaning and have to be listed separately. (6)
At this level the complex verb V-(i)n occurs as a single unit. As mentioned above, lexical specifications that provide surface syntactic configurations form only part of the information in the lexicon. For each lexical item, there is also information relating to what it can combine with in order to form a wellformed logical configuration. Being a configuration of logic and not of surface syntax, it will require a system of symbols different from syntactic-categorial notation. For the
Voice in Turkish
85
purpose of the preliminary exposition of logical constructs, such information will be given in standard type-theoretic notation but later this notation will be elaborated to reflect mechanisms of deduction. What logical information do we need in order to allow the combination of -(i)n with a verb? In fact, as its combination with the logical type of a transitive verb provides an intransitive verb, all we need to state is that it is an intransitiviser. (7a) illustrates this property in type-theoretic notation. The conceptual representation of -(i)n in (7b) gives instructions as to its interpretation, by means of specifying the logical object and the logical subject as coreferential. (7)
-(i)n:
a. <<e,<e,t>>,<e,t>> b. λVλx [V(x)(x)]
(7a) will guarantee that -(i)n combines only with a transitive verb (a function of the logical type <e,<e,t>>). It also guarantees that the result of this combination is an intransitive verb (a function of the logical type <e,t>). In fact, a closer look at these logical properties will tell us that if we leave (5) as it is, we will be stating the same thing twice as a lexical specification of -(i)n, namely, that it is an intranitiviser applied to transitive verbs. To do away with this redundancy, we will state this information only as a logical property. That is, for the purposes of surface syntax, we do not need to specify that -(i)n combines with transitive verbs to form intransitive verbs. The revised form of (5) is given below: (8)
-(i)n: [V____]v
Notice that (8) allows -(i)n to combine with an intransitive verb as well as a transitive one. In cases where -(i)n does combine with an intransitive verb, a surface syntactic configuration will be formed, but it will be ruled out by (7a), which only gives a wellformed construct if -(i)n attaches to a transitive verb. As mentioned above, for an utterance to be fully interpreted there must be a logical configuration that a surface configuration maps onto. The permissible combination of the logical specification each lexical item has yields logical configurations. The logical configuration of a complex verb containing -(i)n is similar to its surface representation except that the verb and -(i)n are separate units: (9)
In order to understand the nature of the mapping between surface configurations and logical configurations consider a sentence like (3), repeated below: (10) Sen çok öv-ün-dü-n. you much praise-REF-PAST-2 You boasted a lot.
For (10) there are two configurations deriving from two different sets of properties specified in each lexical item. The properties relevant to surface syntax yield (11a), whereas (11b) is derived partly from logical specifications, partly from clues in the surface string, and partly from an enrichment process.5 The process of logical form
Subject, voice and ergativity
86
enrichment does not come into play in the analysis of -(i)n, but this notion, crucial to the structuring of Licensing Grammar, will be elaborated in section II. (11)
The derivation of (11b) from (11a) follows a bottom-up pattern. Leaving aside the agreement and tense morphemes which are irrelevant to the analysis, the first morpheme that we come across is -(i)n. To guarantee a well-formed logical configuration, -(i)n has to combine with a transitive verb. The surface configuration contains such a verb: öv ‘praise’. -(i)n combines with öv and forms the logical type of an intransitive verb övün ‘praise-self, boast’ which is <e,t>. The logical specifications of intransitive verbs require that they combine with individuals (of logical type e) to give propositions (of logical type t). Thus, t is formed, which then combines with an adverb to form another 5. Clues in surface strings include, among other things, case markers, concord markers, and possibly word order. The role of case markers as procedures building logical configurations formation is mentioned in Göksel (1990a) and elaborated in Göksel (1993). I will not go into these here, as at this stage further details are not necessary.
proposition. It should be noticed that the branching patterns in (11a) and (11b) are not isomorphic. This follows from the fact they are constructs of two different systems, that of natural language and that of logic, and there is no requirement that they should match. To summarise what we have said so far, -(i)n combines with only a small number of verbs which have to be specified to combine with it, and has the following properties apart from its phonological properties: (12)
-(i)n:
[V___]v <<e,<e,t>>,<e,t>> λVλx [V(x)(x)]
where the first line indicates categorial properties, the second line indicates logical properties, and the third line indicates that the logical object and the logical subject are to be coreferential. We have thus explained the properties of -(i)n that cover the readings in (2b) and (3). We can now turn to the properties of -(i)n in (2a), and the properties of -il. The instructions the suffix -il has regarding the construction of surface syntactic configurations are identical to (8). All that is needed for the purposes of surface syntax is the information that -il attaches to verbs. Logically, too, one might be tempted to argue that it is an intransitiviser, as it reduces the argument structure of a verb as in (4).
Voice in Turkish
87
However -il not only combines with transitive verbs but also with intransitive ones. Therefore it cannot be treated merely as an intransitiviser and warrants a separate characterisation. I have argued elsewhere (Göksel 1990b) that logically -il is a type that combines with the logical type of intransitive verbs to give a proposition: (13)
-il:
<<e,t>,t>
(13) specifies that -il can only combine with the logical type of an intransitive verb. Such a characterisation leads one to question how the passive combines with a transitive verb. Let us take the case of a sentence such as the one in (1) repeated below: (14)
Kapi aç-il-di. door open- -PAST The door opened.
The surface representation of (14) is straightforward. Like (11a), it combines with a verb and is generated as a single unit at surface structure. As for the logical configuration, this involves the building up of a well-formed construct where the logical properties of the lexical items are satisfied. Again, starting with the outermost suffix, -il, we know from its lexical specifications that it has to combine with the logical type of an intransitive verb. But the sentence does not contain one. What I have so far been referring to as the logical type of an intransitive verb is, in fact, a type that is saturated in terms of combining with internal arguments. (14) does not have an intransitive verb, but once the transitive verb combines with its internal argument such that it cannot take any further internal arguments, it becomes exactly the type we need, a <e,t>. This, then, is what -il combines with: the logical type given by the verb that has already combined with its internal argument. More specifically, (where <x> is the logical type of x), first combines with yielding . It is this which combines with the logical type of -il: (15)