LINGUIST List 26.4615
Mon Oct 19 2015
Calls: General Linguistics, Typology/Italy
Editor for this issue: Anna White <awhitelinguistlist.org>
Date: 19-Oct-2015
From: Katarzyna Janic <katarzyna.janic
univ-lyon2.fr>
Subject: The Crosslinguistic Diversity of Antipassives: Function, Meaning and Structure
E-mail this message to a friend Full Title: The Crosslinguistic Diversity of Antipassives: Function, Meaning and Structure
Date: 31-Aug-2016 - 03-Sep-2016
Location: Naples, Italy
Contact Person: Katarzyna Janic Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
Meeting Email:
< click here to access email >
Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Typology
Call Deadline: 15-Nov-2015
Meeting Description:
The crosslinguistic diversity of antipassives: function, meaning and structure
This workshop brings together linguists working within different theoretical frameworks in order to update our understanding of the cross-linguistic diversity of the antipassive and antipassive-like constructions across the world’s languages. This includes such aspects as morphosyntactic properties of the arguments of the antipassive construction, the antipassive verbal markers, morphosyntactic factors determining the structural realization of antipassives, as well as the functions these constructions perform crosslinguistically. The term antipassive refers to a derived detransitivized construction illustrated in (1):
(1) West Greenlandic (Eskimo-Aleut; Keenan & Dryer 2007: 359)
a. arna-p niqi-∅ niri-vaa
woman-ERG meat-ABS eat-IND.3SG.3SG
‘The woman ate the meat.’
b. arnaq-∅ niqi-mik niri-NNig-puq
woman-ABS meat-INS eat-ANTIP-IND.3SG
‘The woman ate meat.’
The antipassive (1b) is derived from the transitive predication (1a) by means of the antipassive suffix -NNig. The semantic patient (niqi-∅ ‘meat-ABS’) loses its properties of a core argument. The peripheral status of this argument is indicated by the instrumental case -mik and the lack of indexing on the verb in (1b). Additionally, the antipassive modifies the coding properties of the agent: it is no longer marked with the ergative case.
The antipassive construction is often characterized by the following properties (Polinsky 2005):
a) the patient-like argument of the transitive predicate has lost some or all of its morphosyntactic properties of a core argument;
b) the agent-like argument acquired some morphosyntactic properties usually associated with S
c) the reassignment of semantic roles to syntactic functions is usually indicated on the verb (e.g. by an affix)
Up to now, the literature on detransitivizing operations primarily focused on the more familiar passive construction. As a result, not a single book-length on the antipassive has appeared. Given how much progress has been made recently in the study of linguistic diversity and the increasing accessibility of modern descriptive grammars, it is time to update our understanding of the antipassive, its morphosyntactic properties, distributional patterns and functional motivation. The proposed workshop is intended to bring together scholars interested in various aspects of the antipassive construction in individual languages and typological variation of antipassive constructions.
Call for Papers:
Possible topics of the workshop will include, but are not limited to, the following:
- The morphosyntactic properties of the arguments of the antipassives i.e. the properties acquired by the agent and the properties lost by the patient, e.g. Kiranti languages
- Restrictions and on the use of antipassives, such as the obligatory use of antipassive with non-referential patient observed in some Mayan languages
- Lexical and grammatical restrictions on antipassive formations
- Antipassive constructions in primarily non-ergative languages
- Functional motivation for the use of antipassive constructions
- Markedness of antipassive constructions
- Nature and sources of antipassive verbal markers
- Diachronic development of the antipassive construction
We invite you to submit an abstract of up to 500 words related to the topics outlined above.
Page Updated: 19-Oct-2015