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
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