Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 38:1 (2021) ► pp.25–63

On the nature of inverse systems

The rise of inverse marking via antipassive constructions

| University of Regensburg | University of Oregon
Previous theoretical discussion about inverse systems has largely revolved around the synchronic and diachronic relationship between the inverse and the passive. In contrast, this study argues for the antipassive origins of two inverse constructions in Monsang (Trans-Himalayan), which are used for 3→SAP and 2→1 scenarios. This questions central assumptions from previous accounts about the functional motivation underlying inverse systems, and suggests that strategies of avoiding overt reference may be at play. The diachronic pathway proposed here connects the traditional inverse with other special marking patterns that involve speech act participant objects, in particular the “pseudo-inverse” construction of innovative first person object indexation.
Keywords: inverse, antipassive, hierarchical indexation, referential hierarchy, person indexation, pseudo-inverse, South-Central Trans-Himalayan, Kuki-Chin, Monsang
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Diachronic sources of inverse markers cross-linguistically
  • 3.Background on Monsang
    • 3.1Postverbal and preverbal person marker sets
    • 3.2Transitivity
  • 4.Antipassive origins for Monsang inverse constructions
    • 4.1Mixed paradigm
    • 4.2Postverbal paradigm
    • 4.3Transitivity of inverse verb forms
    • 4.4Comparison with intransitive person indexation
    • 4.5Antipassive origins
  • 5.Taking a step back: Origins of antipassive constructions
    • 5.1Antipassive from detransitivization via ŋ-
    • 5.2Antipassive from nominalization via i-
    • 5.3Summary
  • 6.Making sense of inverse < antipassive
    • 6.1Antipassive and the “pseudo-inverse”
    • 6.2The Yukulta antipassive
    • 6.3Diachronic stages of inverse < antipassive
  • 7.On the nature of inverse marking
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18055.kon
References (51)
References
Bauman, James. 1975. Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Ph.D. dissertation, Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang & Yogendra P. Yādava. 1999. Face vs. empathy: The social foundation of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37(3): 481–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Martin Gaenszle. 2015. First person objects, antipassives, and the political history of the Southern Kirant. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2(1): 63–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Gwendolyn Hyslop. 2011. Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2): 1–7.Google Scholar
Chhangte, Lalnunthangi. 1993. Mizo syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Cooreman, Ann. 1994. A functional typology of antipassives. In Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds.) Voice: Form and function, 49–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.) Languages across boundaries: Studies in the memory of Anna Siewierska, 69–93. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57 (3): 626–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52(2): 315–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 9 (1): 1–39.Google Scholar
. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta, & Janick Wrona (eds.) Nominalization in Asian languages: diachronic and typological perspectives, 343–59. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(1): 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Deictic and sociopragmatic effects in Tibeto-Burman SAP indexation. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.) Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 343–76. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denniss, Jessica. 2007. Antipassives in Yukulta. In Robyn Loughnane, Cara Penry Williams, & Jana Verhoeven (eds.) In between wor(l)ds: transformation and translation, 167–81. Melbourne, Australia: School of Languages and Linguistics, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 1997. A typology of argument-determined constructions. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.) Essays on language function and language type. Dedicated to T. Givón, 71–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1993. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 56(2): 292–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1991. Inverse and pseudo-inverse prefixes in Kiranti languages: evidence from Belhare, Athpare and Dungmali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1): 73–92.Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena (ed.). 2005. Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive Distinction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleck, David W. 2006. Antipassive in Matses. Studies in Language 30(3): 551–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forrest, Linda B. 1994. The de-transitive clauses in Bella Coola: passive vs. inverse. In Talmy Givón (ed.) Voice and inversion, 147–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Fernando Zúñiga. 2016. Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns. Linguistics 54(3): 483–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1994a. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Talmy Givón (ed.) Voice and inversion, 65–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. ed. 1994b. Voice and inversion, vol. 281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, 2nd edn., vol. 21. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2016. Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics 54(3): 433–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Frans Plank (ed.) Paradigms: the economy of inflection, 75–89. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1↔2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64(2): 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Anton Antonov. 2014. Direct/inverse systems. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(7): 301–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keen, Sandra. 1972. A description of the Yukulta language – an Australian Aboriginal language of North-West Queensland. M. A. thesis, Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
. 1983. Yukulta. In R. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.) Handbook of Australian Languages, 31:190–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Konnerth, Linda. forthcoming. On the phylogenetic status of the northwestern subbranch of South-Central (‘Kuki-Chin’): A case study in historical phonology. In Toni Huber, Stephen Morey, & Mark W. Post (eds.) Ethno-Linguistic Prehistory of the Eastern Himalayas. Leiden: Brill.
Konnerth, Linda & Koninglee Wanglar. 2019. Person indexation in Monsang from a diachronic perspective. Himalayan Linguistics 18(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mang, Kee Shein. 2006. A syntactic and pragmatic description of verb stem alternation in K’Chò, a Chin language. M.A. thesis, Chiang Mai, Thailand: Payap University.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 2001. Limbu nous autres and 1st person morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(1): 145–56.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1996. New directions in referentiality. In Barbara Fox (ed.) Studies in Anaphora, 331: 413–35. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Integrating approaches to diversity: Argument structure on the NW Coast. In Yoshiko Matsumoto, David Y. Oshima, Orrin R. Robinson, and Peter Sells (eds.) Diversity in language: perspectives and implications, 9–36. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2012. Core argument patterns and deep genetic relations. In Bernard Comrie (ed.) Argument structure and grammatical relations: a crosslinguistic typology, 257–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.) Essays on language function and language type. In honor of T. Givón, 373–94. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2019. Person indexation in Anal. Himalayan Linguistics 18(1): 26–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2003. Agreement and grammatical relations in Hyow. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky, & Graham Thurgood (eds.) Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 173–83. Canberra, Australian National University: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2017. Antipassive. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa D. Travis (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Round, Erich R. 2017. The Tangkic languages of Australia: Phonology and morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL]
Sansò, Andrea. 2017. Where do antipassive constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica 34(2): 175–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Maria Papastathi. 2011. Towards a typology of third person plural impersonals. Linguistics 49(3): 575–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–71. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Chad. 1994. Passive and inverse constructions. In Talmy Givón (ed.) Voice and inversion, 281: 47–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Haude, Katharina
2024. Between Symmetrical Voice and Ergativity: Inverse and Antipassive in Movima. International Journal of American Linguistics 90:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Konnerth, Linda & Andrea Sansò
2021. Towards a diachronic typology of individual person markers. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.