Cover not available
Part of
Proto-Indo-European Syntax and its Development
Edited by Leonid Kulikov and Nikolaos Lavidas
[Benjamins Current Topics 75] 2015
► pp. 101–124

Reconstructing passive and voice in Proto-Indo-European

 | Ghent University & Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
This article examines various aspects of the reconstruction of the passive in Proto-Indo-European (PIE), foremost on the basis of evidence from the Indo-Aryan (Early Vedic) and Greek branches. In Proto-Indo-European the fundamental distinction within the verbal system is between the active and middle, while specialized markers of the passive are lacking and the passive syntactic pattern is encoded with middle inflection. Apart from the suffix *-i̯(e/o)- (for which we cannot reconstruct a passive function in the proto-language) and several nominal derivatives, we do not find sufficient evidence for specialized passive morphology. The role of the middle (and stative) in the expression of the passive in ancient IE languages raises important theoretical questions and is a testing ground for the methods of syntactic reconstruction. We will examine the contrast between non-specialized and specialized markers of the passive in Early Vedic and Greek. Most Indo-European languages have abandoned the use of middle forms in passive patterns, while Greek is quite conservative and regularly uses middle forms as passives. In contrast, Indo-Aryan has chosen a different, anti-syncretic, strategy of encoding detransitivizing derivational morphology, though with the middle inflection consistently preserved in passive ya-presents. These two branches, Indo-Aryan and Greek, arguably instantiate two basic types of development: a syncretic type found in many Western branches, including Greek, and an anti-syncretic type attested in some Eastern branches, in particular in Indo-Aryan.
Published online: 16 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.75.06kul
References (87)
Allan, Rutger. 2003. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study of Polysemy. Amsterdam: J. Gieben.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Construction-Based Historical-Comparative Reconstruction. Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar ed. by Graeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffmann, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012. Reconstructing Syntax: Construction Grammar and the Comparative Method. Sign-Based Construction Grammar ed. by Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag, 257–308. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Valéria Molnár. 2003. The Passive in Icelandic — Compared to Mainland Scandinavian. Structures of Focus and Grammatical Relations ed. by Jorunn Hetland & Valéria Molnár, 231–260. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedetti, Marina. 2006. Mehr als Passiv: Über einige Verbalmorpheme in altindogermanischen Sprachen. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 3:2.91–110.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 1993. The Reanalysis of Reflexives: A Diachronic Perspective. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
. 1998. The Loss of the Voice Dimension between Late Latin and Early Romance. Historical Linguistics 1997: Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics ed. by Monika Schmid, Jennifer Austin & Dieter Stein, 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle a. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
. 1897. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweiter Teil. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Di Giovine, Paolo. 1990–1996. Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo, Vol. I–III. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1990. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67:3.547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernout, Alfred. 1908–1909. Recherches sur l’emploi du passif latin à l’époque républicaine. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 15.273–333.Google Scholar
Flobert, Pierre. 1975. Les verbes déponents latins des origines à Charlemagne. Paris: Les belles lettres.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Johannes. 1967. Hethitisches Elementarbuch, 3rd edition, Vol. I–II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. Valency Changes in the History of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1:1.106–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. (= Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 2.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
George, Coulter H. 2005. Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildersleeve, Basil L. 1900. Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1981. Typology and Functional Domains. Studies in Language 5:2.163–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonda, Jan. 1979. The Medium in the R̥gveda. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Goodwin, William W. 1978 [1894]. A Greek Grammar. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Gotō, Toshifumi. 1997. Überlegungen zum urindogermanischen “Stativ”. Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft ed. by Emilio Crespo & José Luís, 165–192. Madrid: UAM; Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Grosse, Hermann. 1889. Beiträge zur Syntax des griechischen Mediums und Passivums. Dramburg: Druck von Th. Kämpf.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Thomas Müller-Bardey. 2004. Valency Change. Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, Vol. 2 ed. by Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, 1130–1145. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen. 2010. French Anticausatives: A Diachronic Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Karl. 1976. Die Aoristbildungen von ved. vr̥t. In K. Hoffmann, Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Bd. 2 ed. 562–569. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A. & Craig H. Melchert. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Hooker, James T. 1980. Linear B: An Introduction. Bristol: Classical Press.Google Scholar
Humbert, Jean. 1945. Syntaxe Grecque. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. 1983. Function and Form in the -áya-formations of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. (= KZ, Ergänzungsheft 31.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Jankuhn, Harald. 1969. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. (= KZ, Ergänzungsheft 21.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Jannaris, Antonius. 1968 [1897]. An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect, as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time, Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri, and Present Popular Greek. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay. 1978. Stative and Middle in Indo-European. (= Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, 23.) Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. (= Typological Studies in Language, 23.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortlandt, Frederik H.H. 1979. Toward a Reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic Verbal System. Lingua 49.51–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. 1st sg. middle *-H2. Indogermanische Forschungen 86.123–136.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Armenian Causative. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 20.47–49.Google Scholar
. 2009. Baltica & Balto-Slavica. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2010. An Outline of Proto-Indo-European. In: F.H.H. Kortlandt, Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic, 37–45. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang. 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen. 3rd ed. München: C.H. Beck‘sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Bernhard Gerth. 1963 [1898–1904]. Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hannover: Hannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 1999. Split Causativity: Remarks on Correlations between Transitivity, Aspect, and Tense. Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity: Essays in Honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov (= Studies in Language Companion Series, 50) ed. by Werner Abraham & Leonid Kulikov, 21–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. Passive and Middle in Indo-European: Reconstructing the Early Vedic Passive Paradigm. Passivization and Typology: Form and Function (= Typological Studies in Language, 68) ed. by Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö, 62–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. The Vedic Mediopassive Aorists, Statives and their Participles: Reconsidering the Paradigm. Themes and Tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan Linguistics ed. by Bertil Tikkanen & Heinrich Hettrich, 45–63. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
. 2007a. Reciprocal Constructions in Vedic. Reciprocal Constructions, Vol. 2 (= Typological Studies in Language, 71) ed. by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, 709–738. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. The Reflexive Pronouns in Vedic: A Diachronic and Typological Perspective. Lingua 117:8.1412–1433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Valency-Changing Categories in Indo-Aryan and Indo-European: A Diachronic Typological Portrait of Vedic Sanskrit. Multilingualism: Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (= Studia Linguistica Upsaliensis, 8) ed. by Anju Saxena & Åke Viberg, 75–92. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Voice Typology. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology ed. by Jae-Jung Song, 368–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Passive to Anticausative through Impersonalization: The Case of Vedic and Indo-European. Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (= Studies in Language Companion Series, 124) ed. by Anna Siewierska & Andrej Malchukov, 229–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The Vedic -ya-presents: Passives and Intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan. (= Leiden Studies in Indo-European, 19.) Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2014a. The decline of labile syntax in Old Indo-Aryan: A diachronic typological perspective. Linguistics 52:4 (special issue: Typology of labile verbs: Focus on diachrony).1139–1165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Grammaticalization of reciprocal pronouns in Indo-Aryan: Evidence from Sanskrit and Indo-European for a diachronic typology of reciprocal constructions. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 1:2.117–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kümmel, Martin. 1996. Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. (= HS, Ergänzungsheft 39.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
. 2000. Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1932. Les désinences moyennes de l’indo-européen et du hittite. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 30:1.1–4.Google Scholar
. 1935. Études indoeuropéennes I. Krakow: Gebethner & Wolff.Google Scholar
. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Lavidas, Nikolaos. 2009. Transitivity Alternations in Diachrony: Changes in Argument Structure and Voice Morphology. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu & Johann B. Hofmann. 1928. Lateinische Grammatik, Bd. 2, Syntax. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010a. The Extension of the Transitive Construction in Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 42:1.60–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Transitivity, Intransitivity and Diathesis in Hittite. Indo-evropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassičeskaja filologija 14.133–154.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia, Anna Pompei & Stavros Skopeteas. 2005. Ancient Greek. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. 1910. Vedic Grammar. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
McMillion, Alan. 2006. Labile Verbs in English: Their Meaning, Behavior and Structure. Stockholm: Stockholm University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1964 [1903]. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine & Joseph Vendryes. 1924. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1993. The Inflectional Category of Voice: Towards a more Rigorous Definition. Causativity and Transitivity (= Studies in Language Companion Series, 23) ed. by Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky, 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neu, Erich. 1968a. Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. (= Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, 6.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1968b. Interpretation der hethitischen mediopassiven Verbalformen. (= StBoT, 5.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Renou, Louis. 1925. La valeur du parfait dans les hymnes védiques. (= Collection linguistique, 18.) Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Schaefer, Christiane. 1994. Das Intensivum im Vedischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1963a. Präteritum und Medio-Passiv. Sprache 9.14–20.Google Scholar
. 1963b. Zum altirischen Passiv. Indogermanische Forschungen 68.257–275.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1943. Zum persönlichen Agens beim Passiv, besonders im Griechischen. (= Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophische-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1942: Nr 10.) Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard & Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Zweiter Band: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. (= Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2. Abt., 1. Teil, 2. Bd.) München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. On the Conceptual Framework for Voice Phenomena. Linguistics 44.217–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Smyth, Herbert W. 1984 [1920]. Greek Grammar, 13th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (rev. ed. by Gordon M. Messing.)Google Scholar
Stahl, Johann M. 1907. Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Stang, Christian S. 1932. Perfektum und Medium. Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 6.29–39.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1990. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (4., durchgesehene Auflage.)Google Scholar
Šackov, Аndrej В. 2008. Xettskie glagoly s suffiksom -nu- [Hittite Verbs with the Suffix -nu-]. Indoevropejskoe jazykoznahie i klassičeskaja filologija 12.471–474.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1904. Studien zum griechischen Perfectum. Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung, 3–24. Göttingen. [Reprinted in: Jacob Wackernagel. 1953. Kleine Schriften, 1000–1021. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.]Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik, III: Formenlehre. 1. Teil. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1885. The Roots, Verb-Forms, and Primary Derivatives of the Sanskrit Language. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Milićević, Jasmina
2024. Voice. In The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics, ► pp. 447 ff. DOI logo
de Santis, Leonardo & Luigi Battezzato
2020. Aoristo e perfetto nel greco tardo-antico. Glotta 96:1 ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Rozwadowska, Bożena, Arkadiusz Nowak & Anna Bondaruk
2020.  Psych verbs. In Beyond Emotions in Language [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 263], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Guérois, Rozenn & Koen Bostoen
2018. On the origins of passive allomorphy in Cuwabo (Bantu P34). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36:3 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.