Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 40:2 (2023) ► pp.195–237

The rise of middle voice systems

A study in diachronic typology

ORCID logo | Università di Torino
Middle markers are characterized by a distribution halfway between grammar and the lexicon: with some verbs, middle marking encodes valency change, while with others it obligatorily occurs with no obvious synchronic motivation. Despite the existing cross-linguistic work on middle markers, their history is still largely unknown. In the typological literature, the standard view is that middle markers predominantly have their origin in reflexive markers, and that, in their development, it is invariantly the grammatical component that expands to the lexical component. In this paper, I challenge these assumptions based on the analysis of a sample of 129 middle marking languages. As I show, the sources and pathways whereby middle markers come about are much more numerous and varied than what has been reported in the literature. By taking a source-oriented approach, I also discuss how recurrent cross-linguistic trends in the distribution of middle markers can in part be explained by looking at their history.
Keywords: middle voice, middle marker, diachronic typology, reflexive
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Towards a comparative concept of middle marker
  • 3.The diachrony of valency reducing markers
  • 4.The diachrony of MVSs in a cross-linguistic perspective
    • 4.1Sources of MMs
      • 4.1.1MMs from reflexives
      • 4.1.2MMs from valency changing markers
      • 4.1.3MMs from lexical verbs (and spatial elements)
      • 4.1.4MMs from other sources
        • 4.1.4.1MMs from markers of uncontrolled events
        • 4.1.4.2MMs from markers of plurality
        • 4.1.4.3MMs from nominalizers and verbalizers
        • 4.1.4.4MMs from aspectual-like markers
      • 4.1.5MMs from multiple sources
    • 4.2Oppositional and non-oppositional middles in diachrony
      • 4.2.1Oppositional > non-oppositional
      • 4.2.2Non-oppositional > oppositional
      • 4.2.3The emergence of MVSs: A third way?
  • 5.MVSs and language contact
  • 6.The typology of MVSs: Weighing the diachronic evidence
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 19 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20058.ing
References (166)
References
Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap. 2017. From middle to passive: A diachronic analysis of Korean -eci constructions. Diachronica 34(4). 437–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, Rutger. 2003. The middle voice in Ancient Greek: A study of polysemy. Amsterdam: Gieben. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Media tantum. In Georgios K. Giannakis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics, 440–441. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Alpher, Barry, Nicholas Evans & Mark Harvey. 2003. Proto-Gunwinyguan verb suffixes. In Nicholas Evans (ed.), The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of Northern Australia, 305–352. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Authier, Gilles. 2012. The detransitive voice in Kryz. In Gilles Authier & Katharina Haude (eds.), Ergativity, valency and voice, 133–164. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bahrt, Nicklas. 2021. Voice syncretism. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Bashir, Elena. 2006. Le préfixe D- en Bourouchaski: deixis et point de référence. Bourouchaskiana 1131. 17–62.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2000. Unitariness of participant and event in the Bella Coola (Nuxalk) middle voice. International Journal of American Linguistics 66(2). 218–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benito Moreno, Carlota de. Forthcoming. From (semi-)oppositional to non-oppositional middles: The case of Spanish reír(se) . STUF – Language Typology and Universals.
Bostoen, Koen & Yolande Nzang-Bie. 2010. On how “middle” plus “associative/reciprocal” became “passive” in the Bantu A70 languages. Linguistics 48(6). 1255–1307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2012. A grammar of Bardi. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2014. What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica 48(2). 469–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2005. Semantic and functional diversification of reciprocal and middle prefixes in New Caledonian and other Austronesian languages. Linguistic Typology 9(1). 25–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bubeník, Vit. 2013. On the remaking of the middle voice in Indo-Iranian. [URL] (accessed 22/07/2021).
Callaghan, Catherine. 2013. Proto Utian grammar and dictionary. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 1993. The reanalysis of reflexives: A diachronic perspective. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
. 1999. Late Latin pleonastic reflexives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Transactions of the Philological Society 97(1). 103–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020a. The actualization of new voice patterns in Romance. Persistence in diversity. In Bridget Drinka (ed.), Historical linguistics 2017. Selected papers from the 23rd conference on historical linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017, 109–142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Mechanisms and paths of grammaticalization and reanalysis in Romance. In Walter Bisang & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Grammaticalization scenarios: Cross-linguistic variation and universal tendencies, Vol. 11, 165–248. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2015. Semantic and (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization: Evidence from Latin and Old Norse-Icelandic. Linguistics 53(4). 677–729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chavula, Jean. 2018. The polysemy of the neuter extension -ik in Citumbuka (N21) and Citonga (N15). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36(3). 197–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chhangte, Lalnunthangi. 1993. Mizo syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Clendon, Mark. 2014. Worrorra: A language of the north-west Kimberley coast. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2006. Transitivity pairs, markedness, and diachronic stability. Linguistics 44(2). 303–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2010. Semantic maps and mental representation. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 35–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Taking diachronic evidence seriously: Result-oriented vs. source-oriented explanations of typological universals. In Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence, 25–46. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2013. On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devos, Maud & Jenneke van der Wal (eds.). 2014. “COME” and “GO” off the beaten grammaticalization path. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1983. The status of verbal reflexives. In Liliane Tasmowski & Dominique Willems (eds.), Problems in syntax, 231–256. New York & London: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2019. ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Kimi Akita & Prashant Pardeshi (eds.), Ideophones, mimetics and expressives, 13–33. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2002. Australian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dom, Sebastian, Leora Bar-el, Ponsiano Sawaka Kanijo & Malin Petzell. Forthcoming. Middle voice in Bantu: In- and detransitivizing morphology in Kagulu. STUF – Language Typology and Universals.
Dom, Sebastian, Leonid Kulikov & Koen Bostoen. 2016. The middle as a voice category in Bantu: Setting the stage for further research. Lingua Posnaniensis 58(2). 129–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dom, Sebastian, Guillaume Segerer & Koen Bostoen. 2015. Antipassive/associative polysemy in Cilubà (Bantu, L31a): A plurality of relations analysis. Studies in Language 39(2). 354–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunkel, George E. 2014. Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Estrada Fernández, Zarina. 2005. The pronominal form -a as a middle marker in Pima Bajo. International Journal of American Linguistics 71(3). 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas D. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evseeva, Natalia & Iker Salaberri. 2018. Grammaticalization of nouns meaning “head” into reflexive markers: A cross-linguistic study. Linguistic Typology 22(3). 385–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Garay, Ana. 2005. Contacto ranquel-español en la pampa argentina. In Claudine Chamoreau & Yolanda Lastra (eds.), Dinámica lingüística de las lenguas en contacto, 49–66. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar
Fufa Teso, Tolemariam. 2009. A typology of verbal derivation in Ethiopian Afro-Asiatic languages. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Gandon, Ophelie. 2018. The verbal reciprocal suffix in Turkic languages and the development of its different values. In Mehmet Ali Akıncı & Kutlay Yagmur (eds.), The Rouen Meeting: Studies on Turkic structures and language contacts, 29–43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma Š. 1987. The typology of reflexives. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. & Thomas E. Hukari. 2006. The Halkomelem Middle: A complex network of constructions. Anthropological Linguistics 48(1). 44–81.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Andrea Sansò. 2011. From passive to impersonal. A case study from Italian and its implications. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 189–228. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara. 2010. I verbi deponenti latini e l’unità della flessione in -r . Incontri triestini di filologia classica 81. 23–49.Google Scholar
Gibert-Sotelo, Elisabeth. 2018. Deriving ablative, privative, and reversative meanings in Catalan and Spanish. Borealis 7(2). 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gijn, Rik van. 2010. Middle voice and ideophones, a diachronic connection: The case of Yurakaré. Studies in Language 34(2). 273–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Ian. 1995. The death of ‘prefixing’: Contact induced typological change in Northern Australia. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 414–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grestenberger, Laura. 2016. Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European deponents. Indo-European Linguistics 4(1). 98–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Eitan. 2021. Transitivity, diachrony, and language contact. In Silvia Luraghi & Elisa Roma (eds.), Valency over time, 13–30. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Eitan & Stéphane Polis. 2018. Swimming against the typological tide or paddling along with language change? Dispreferred structures and diachronic biases in affix ordering. Journal of Historical Linguistics 8(3). 388–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guérois, Rozenn. 2015. A grammar of Cuwabo (Mozambique, Bantu P34). PhD dissertation, Université Lyon 2.
Guérois, Rozenn & Koen Bostoen. 2018. On the origins of passive allomorphy in Cuwabo (Bantu P34). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36(3). 211–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gunnik, Hilde. 2018. A grammar of Fwe. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
Haas, Mary. 1977. From auxiliary verb to inflectional suffix. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 525–537. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardy, Donald E. 1994. Middle voice in Creek. International Journal of American Linguistics 60(1). 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14(1). 25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Review of ‘The middle voice’ by Suzanne Kemmer. Language 71(2). 372–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and crosslinguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2019. Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by constraints on change? In Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence, 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Thomas Müller-Bardey. 2004. Valency change. In Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, 1130–1145. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, Anna Granville. 1942. Reflexive verbs. Latin, Old French, Modern French. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Hayward, Richard. 1984. A reconstruction of some root extensions of the Eastern Cushitic verb. In James Bynon (ed.), Current progress in Afro-Asiatic linguistics, 69–109. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Hiroyuki Miyashita. 2008. The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 169–224. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hieber, Daniel. 2018. Category genesis in Chitimacha. In Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective, 15–46. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holton, Gary. 2006. The relational noun marker in Tobelo (Northeast Halmaheran). In Tenth international conference on Austronesian linguistics. [URL]. (accessed 22/07/2021)
Holvoet, Axel. 2020. The middle voice in Baltic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2020. The Hittite middle voice: Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Towards a typology of middle voice systems. Linguistic Typology ahead of print. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inglis, Stephanie Heather. 1986. The fundamentals of Micmac word formation. MA thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Jacques, Guillaume. 2016. How many *-s suffixes in Old Chinese? Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics. 9(2). 205–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Grammaticalization in Japhug. In Walter Bisang & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Grammaticalization scenarios: Cross-linguistic variation and universal tendencies, 539–574. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Antipassive derivations in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan and their sources. In Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Antipassive: Typology, diachrony, and related constructions, 427–446. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Aimée Lahaussois & Dhan Bahadur Rai. 2016. Reflexive paradigms in Khaling. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39(1). 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, Philip. 1988. Affected-subject (‘grade 7’) verbs in Hausa: What are they and where do they come from. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 387–416. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna. 2016a. L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives. Bruxelles: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Synchronic and diachronic aspects of valency-reducing devices in Oceanic languages. Lingua Posnaniensis 58(2). 151–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karaj, Dawid & Andrea Sansò. Forthcoming. From agent-oriented verbalizer to middle marker: The diachrony of the middle voice in Malayo-Sumbawan. STUF – Language Typology and Universals.
Karst, Josef. 1901. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Terence. 1990. Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas mayances con referencia especial al K’iche’. In Nora England & Stephen Elliott (eds.), Lecturas sobre la lingüística maya, 59–114. Antigua Guatemala: CIRMA.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Ingrid. 2007. Middle voice. Lingua 117(10). 1677–1714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kondic, Ana. 2011. Middle voice in South Eastern Huastec. In Heriberto Avelino (ed.), New perspectives in Mayan linguistics, 114–143. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 41–74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (accessed on 19/04/2021).
Körtvély, Erika. 2005. Verb conjugation in Tundra Nenets. Segzed: Goldpress.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 2010. The Akkadian verb and its Semitic background. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Kruspe, Nicole. 2004. A grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2010. Voice typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 368–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. Passive to anticausative through impersonalization. The case of Vedic and Indo-European. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 229–254. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The Vedic -ya-present: Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee. 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuular, Klara. 2007. Reciprocals, sociatives, comitatives, and assistives in Tuvan. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušienė & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions, 1163–1230. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimée. 2016. Reflexive derivations in Thulung. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39(1). 49–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Yunfan. Forthcoming. The denominal origin of causative and passive derivations in Rgyalrongic languages. In Michela Cennamo (ed.), Voice systems in diachrony. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. & Pamela Munro. 1975. Passives and their meaning. Language 51(4). 789–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy. 1996. Middle voice marking in Tibeto-Burman. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics 51. 1940–1954.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy & Yang Jiangling. 2005. Reflexive and Middle Marking in Dulong-Rawang. Himalayan Linguistics 21. 1–13.Google Scholar
Lazzeroni, Romano. 2004. Inaccusatività indoeuropea e alternanza causativa vedica [Indo-European unaccusativeness and Vedic causative alternation]. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 89(2). 139–164.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization (3rd edn.). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2000. Reciprocals without reflexives. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions, 32–62. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liljegren, Henrik. 2016. A grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne.
Lukaniec, Megan. 2018. The elaboration of verbal structure: Wendat (Huron) verb morphology. PhD dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2012. Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies in Language 36(1). 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Jack B. 2000. Creek voice: Beyond valency. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 375–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31(4). 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattiola, Simone. 2017. The conceptual space of pluractional constructions. Lingue e Linguaggio 16(1). 119–146.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 2000. Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions, 85–122. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meira, Sérgio. 1999. A grammar of Tiriyó. PhD dissertation, Rice University.
. 2000. The accidental intransitive split in the Cariban family. In Spike Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 201–230. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meira, Sérgio, Spike Gildea & Berend Hoff. 2010. On the origin of ablaut in the Cariban family. International Journal of American Linguistics 761. 474–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Anna-Maria. 2020. The impact of Slavic languages on Romani. In Yaron Matras & Anton Tenser (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Romani language and linguistics, 261–302. Cham: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mous, Maarten. 2001. The middle in Cushitic languages. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 75–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mous, Maarten & Martha Qorro. 2000. The middle voice in Iraqw. In Kulikoyela Kahigi, Yared M. Kihore & Maarten Mous (eds.), Lugha za Tanzania, 157–176. Leiden: CNWS.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 2008. Constructions expressing middle, reflexive and reciprocal situations in some Oceanic languages. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 105–168. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2017. Reflexive markers in Oceanic languages. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2). 107–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2012. A grammar of (Western) Garrwa. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nater, Hank. 2015. Complex predicate-argument relations in Bella Coola. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 401. 103–120.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. A grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Olawsky, Knut. 2011. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ottosson, Kjartan G. 2008. The Old Nordic middle voice in the pre-literary period: Questions of grammaticalisation and cliticisation. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses, 185–219. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pacchiarotti, Sara & Leonid Kulikov. 2022. Bribri media tantum verbs and the rise of labile syntax. Linguistics. 60(2). 617–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palancar, Enrique L. 2004. Middle voice in Otomi. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(1). 52–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Intransitivity and the origins of middle voice in Otomi. Linguistics 44(3). 613–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1995. Review of The middle voice by Suzanne Kemmer. Journal of Linguistics 31(2). 478–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas & Doris Payne. 2013. A typological grammar of Panare. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piar, Karim. 2013. Middle voice construction in Burushaski. MA thesis, University of North Texas.
Pinkster, Harm. 2015. The Oxford Latin syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polian, Gilles. 2013. Gramática del tseltal de Oxchuc. Ciudad de Mexico: CIESAS.Google Scholar
Portilla, Mario Chaves. 2007. Diacronía de las construcciones con pronombres reflexivos en español. Filología y lingüística 131–149.Google Scholar
Post, Mark & Yankee Modi. 2022. Subject autonomy marking in Macro-Tani and the typology of middle voice. Linguistics. 60(1). 215–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puddu, Nicoletta. 2007. Typology and historical linguistics: Some remarks on reflexives in ancient IE languages. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), New challenges in typology, 249–270. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Voice and valency in the Athapaskan family. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 173–235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romagno, Domenica. 2010. Anticausativi, passivi, riflessivi: Considerazioni sul medio oppositivo. In Ignazio Putzu, Giulio Paulis, Gianfranco Nieddu & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), La morfologia del greco tra tipologia e diacronia, 430–441. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. The verbness markers of Mosetén from a typological perspective. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), New challenges in typology, 315–335. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2016. Agent-defocusing constructions from nominalized VPs: A cross-linguistic type? Studies in Language 40(4). 894–954. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Where do antipassive constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica 34(2). 175–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Explaining the diversity of antipassives: Formal grammar vs. (diachronic) typology. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(6). e12277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schadeberg, Thilo. 1982. Les suffixes verbaux séparatifs en bantou. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 41. 55–66.Google Scholar
Schadeberg, Thilo & Koen Bostoen. 2019. Word formation. In Mark van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu languages (2nd edn.), 172–203. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schladt, Mathias. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 103–124. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segerer, Guillaume. 2002. La langue bijogo de Bubaque (Guinée Bissau). Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Seidel, Frank. 2008. A grammar of Yeyi: A Bantu language of Southern Africa. Köln: Köppe.Google Scholar
Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
So-Hartmann, Helga. 2009. A descriptive grammar of Daai Chin. Berkeley: Center for Southeast Asia Studies.Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 1997. The development of antipassive constructions in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 17(1). 71–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Chad. 1996. The Na-Dene middle voice: An impersonal source of the D-element. International Journal of American Linguistics 62(4). 351–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2006. Reflexive and middle constructions of Warrungu (Australia). In Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations, 299–334. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Peter. 2012. A grammar of North West Lovari Romani. PhD dissertation, Univerzita Karlova.
Whitehead, Carl. 2004. A reference grammar of Menya, an Angan language of Papua New Guinea. Ann Arbor: UMI.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2018. A grammar of Bunan. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Bjorn. 2011. The grammaticalization of passives. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 536–546. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wimbish, Sandra. 1991. An introduction to Pagu through the analysis of narrative discourse. Ann Arbor: UMI.Google Scholar
Wise, Mari R. 1990. Valence-changing affixes in Maipuran Arawakan languages. In Doris L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian linguistics, 89–116. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wit, Gerrit de. 2015. Liko phonology and grammar. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Wolfsgruber, Anne. 2019. Impersonal interpretations of Medieval Romance se – tracing initial contexts. In Peter Herbeck, Bernhard Pöll, Anne Wolfsgruber (eds.), Semantic and syntactic aspects of impersonality, 125–148. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Zaslansky, Matthew. Forthcoming. The Turkic middle voice system: Deponency and paradigm reorganization. STUF – Language Typology and Universals.
Zúñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä. 2019. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Basile, Rodolfo
2024. ‘I Am Also Found on Facebook’ Locuphoric ‘Find’-Based Strategies in Finnish Internet Corpora . In Partitive Constructions and Partitive Elements Within and Across Language Borders in Europe , DOI logo
de Benito Moreno, Carlota
2023. From (semi-)oppositional to non-oppositional middles: the case of Spanish reír(se) . STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:2 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo & Andrea Sansò
2023. Introduction: towards a diachronic typology of the middle voice. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
2023. Evidence against unidirectionality in the emergence of middle voice systems. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:2 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. The Middle Voice and Connected Constructions in Ibero-Romance [Studies in Language Variation, 29], 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.