Cover not available
Part of
Vagueness, Ambiguity, and All the Rest: Linguistic and pragmatic approaches
Edited by Ilaria Fiorentini and Chiara Zanchi
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 347] 2024
► pp. 110–147

Chapter 6
Underspecification and ambiguity of voice markers

Synchrony and diachrony

 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
Voice markers have a notorious cross-linguistic tendency towards multifunctionality, in that a given marker can encode more than one voice operation at a time, such as reflexive and passive. In addition, diachronic typological research has also shown that patterns of multifunctionality of voice markers historically come about following paths that are not necessarily unidirectional. Taking stock of these premises, in this paper we propose a new typology of voice markers grounded on the notion of underspecification and ambiguity, and, by adopting the perspective of Functional Discourse Grammar, we argue that the lack of unidirectionality in the grammaticalization of voice markers follows from their status as interface operators.
Keywords: voice markers, ambiguity vs. underspecification, grammaticalization, Functional Discourse Grammar, typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Towards a typology of voice syncretism
    • 2.1Voice markers and their functions
      • 2.1.1Argument-structure preserving diatheses
      • 2.1.2Argument-structure modifying diatheses
      • 2.1.3Argument co-reference marking diatheses
      • 2.1.4A typology of diatheses: Summary
    • 2.2Voice syncretism patterns
  • 3.Underspecification and ambiguity in voice syncretism
    • 3.1Underspecification and ambiguity
      • 3.1.1Underspecification and ambiguity: The contradiction test
      • 3.1.2Underspecification and ambiguity: The zeugma test
    • 3.2Solving the riddle: The role of context in underspecification and ambiguity
      • 3.2.1Lexical cues
      • 3.2.2Grammatical cues
      • 3.2.3Co-textual and situational cues
  • 4.The diachrony of voice markers
    • 4.1Survey of diachronic changes in the voice domain
    • 4.2The role of context in the grammaticalization of voice markers
    • 4.3Explaining bidirectionality: Voice markers as interface operators
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.347.06gio
References (101)
References
Ahn, Mikyung, and Foong H. Yap. 2017. “From Middle to Passive: A Diachronic Analysis of Korean -eci Constructions.” Diachronica 34 (4): 437–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alpher, Barry, Nicholas Evans and Mark Harvey. 2003. “Proto-Gunwinyguan Verb Suffixes.” In The Non-Pama-Nyungan Languages of Northern Australia: Comparative Studies of the Continent’s Most Linguistically Complex Region, ed. by Nicholas Evans, 305–352. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2006. “Periphrastic Futures in Slavic: Divergence and Convergence.” In Change in Verbal Systems: Issues in Explanation, ed. by Kerstin Eksell and Thora Vinther, 9–45. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1971. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Angster, Marco. Forthcoming. At the boundaries of word-formation. Contrastive coreference in 30 European languages. Zadar: University of Zadar. DOI logo
Authier, Gilles. 2012. “The Detransitive Voice in Kryz.” In Ergativity, Valency and Voice, ed. by Gilles Authier, and Katharina Haude, 133–164. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1999. “Voice and Diathesis in Slavic.” Paper presented at Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax (Bloomington, IN, 5–7 June).Google Scholar
Bahrt, Nicklas N. 2021. Voice Syncretism. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. “Grammatical Relations Typology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology, ed. by Jae Jung Song, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeder, Winfried. 1968. “Uber die Versionen des georgischen Verbs.” Folia Linguistica 2: 82–152.Google 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
. 2015. “Refining Secondary Grammaticalization by Looking at Subprocesses of Change.” Language Sciences 47: 161–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems Lieselotte, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2014. Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical and Descriptive Advances. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Transitivity, valency, and voice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1983. “On the Status of Verbal Reflexives.” In Problems in Syntax, ed. by Liliane Tasmowski and Dominique Willems, 231–256. New York: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dom, Sebastian, Leonid Kulikov, and 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
Evans, Nicholas, Alice Gaby, and Rachel Nordlinger. 2007. “Valency Mismatches and the Coding of Reciprocity in Australian Languages.” Linguistic Typology 11: 543–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language: Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gandon, Ophelie. 2018. “The Verbal Reciprocal Suffix in Turkic Languages and the Development of its Different Values.” In The Rouen Meeting: Studies on Turkic Structures and Language Contacts, ed. by Mehmet A. Akıncı and Kutlay Yagmur, 29–43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, and Andrea Sanso. 2011. “From Passive to Impersonal: A Case Study from Italian and its Implications.” In Impersonal Constructions: A cross-linguistic Perspective, ed. by Andrej Malchukov and Anna Siewierska, 189–228. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giomi, Riccardo. 2020. Shifting Structures, Contexts and Meanings: A Functional Discourse Grammar Account of Grammaticalization. University of Lisbon, PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2023. A Functional Discourse Grammar Theory of Grammaticalization, Volume I: Functional Change. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. “The Evolution of Dependent Clause Morphosyntax in Biblical Hebrew.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume II: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers, ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine, 257–310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grestenberger, Laura, and Iris Kamil. Forthcoming. “Voice alternations in diachrony.” In Wiley Blackwell Companion to Diachronic Linguistics, ed. by Adam Ledgeway, Edith Aldridge, Anne Breitbarth, Katalin É. Kiss, Joseph Salmons, and Alexandra Simonenko. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Guentchéva, Zlatka, and Nicole Rivière. 2007. “Reciprocal and reflexive Constructions in French.” In Typology of Reciprocal Constructions, Volume II, ed. by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, 561–608. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A grammar of Cavineña. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K, and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. An Introduction To Functional Grammar. London: ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Harder, Peter, and Kasper Boye. 2012. “Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification.” In Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification, ed. by Johan van der Auwera and Jan Nuyts, 9–20. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Wetenschappen en Kunsten.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity Alternations of the Anticausative Type. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 1990. “The Grammaticalization of Passive Morphology.” Studies in Language 14 (1): 25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Crosslinguistic Comparison.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Volume II, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 211–242. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2004. “On Directionality in Language Change with Particular Reference to Grammaticalization.” In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, ed. by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde, and Harry Perridon, 17–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology.” Linguistic Typology 15 (3): 535–567.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, and Thomas Müller-Bardey. 2008. “Valency Change.” In Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Volume II, ed. by Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, and Stavros Skopeteas, 1130–1145. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. “On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization.” In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, 83–101. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Hiroyuki Miyashita. 2008. “The Intersection between Reflexives and Reciprocals: A Grammaticalization Perspective.” In Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations, ed. by Ekkehard König and Volker Gast, 169–223. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. “Layers and Operators in Functional Grammar.” Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “The Grammaticalization of Tense, Mood and Aspect.” In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, ed. by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. “A Hierarchical Approach to Grammaticalization.” In The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective, ed. by Kees Hengeveld, Heiko Narrog, and Hella Olbertz, 13–38. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically–Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2020. The Middle Voice in Baltic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thomposon. 1980. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language 56 (2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2020. The Hittite Middle Voice: Synchrony, Diachrony, Typology. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022a. “Towards a Typology of Middle Voice Systems.” Linguistic Typology 26 (3): 489–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022b. “How do middle voice markers and valency reducing constructions interact? Typological tendencies and diachronic considerations.” Folia Linguistica 56(2): 239–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. “The Rise of Middle Voice Systems: A Study in Diachronic Typology.” Diachronica 40 (2): 195–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna, and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2021. “The Multifaceted Nature of the Antipassive Construction.” In Antipassive, ed. by Katarzyna Janic and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, 1–39. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2014. “Context and Cognition in Functional Discourse Grammar: What, Where and Why?.” Pragmatics 24 (2): 399–423.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2019. “Ambiguity and Vagueness: An Overview.” In Semantics: Lexical Structures and Adjectives, ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 236–271. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2010. “Voice Typology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, ed. by Jae J. Song, 368–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Passive to anticausative through impersonalization. The case of Vedic and Indo-European.” In Impersonal Constructions, ed. by Andrej Malchukov and Anna Siewierska, 229–254. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog, and Seongha Rhee. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuular, Klara. 2007. “Reciprocals, Sociatives, Comitatives, and Assistives in Tuvan.” In Reciprocal constructions, ed. by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, 1163–1230. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George 1970. “A Note on Vagueness and Ambiguity.” Linguistic Inquiry 1 (3): 357–359.Google Scholar
Langacker Ronald W., and Pamela Munro. 1975. “Passives and Their Meaning.” Language, 51 (4): 789–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. “On Subjectification and Grammaticization.” In Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, ed. by Jean-Pierre Koenig, 71–89. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
2006. “Dimensions of Defocusing.” In Voice and Grammatical Relations, ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda and Tarō Kageyama, 115–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch. Cologne: University of Cologne.Google Scholar
. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization (3rd edition). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lier, Eva van, and Maria Messerschmidt. 2022. “Lexical Restrictions on Grammatical Relations in Voice and Valency Constructions: An Introduction.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 75 (1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. “A note on Possessive, Existential and Locative Sentences.” Foundations of Language 3: 390–396.Google Scholar
Magni, Elisabetta. 2016. “Sette tipi di ambiguità nel mutamento linguistico.” In Problemi e prospettive della linguistica storica, ed. by Patrizia Cordin and Alessandro Parenti, 13–34. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Ambiguity and Uncertainty in the Synchrony and Diachrony of Language.” In L’ambiguità nelle e tra le lingue, ed. by Elisabetta Magni and Yahis Martari. Quaderni di Semantica, special issue: 13–46.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. “Construcciones con se: Medias, pasivas e impersonales.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua Española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1631–1722. Madrid: Editorial Espasa.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle. 2016. “Can a Language Be Forced? The Case of Estonian.” In Aspects of Grammaticalization: (Inter)Subjectification and Directionality, ed. by Daniel Olmen, Hubert Cuyckens, and Lobke Ghesquière, 281–310. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 2008. “Constructions Expressing Middle, Reflexive and Reciprocal Situations in some Oceanic Languages.” In Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations, ed. by Ekkehard König and Volker Gast, 105–168. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2010. Lexical Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah E. 2008. “Reflexivity and reciprocity with(out) underspecification.” In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, ed. by A. Grønn, 455–469. Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007. “Encoding of the Reciprocal Meaning.” In Reciprocal constructions, ed. by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, 147–208. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., and Georgij G. Silnitsky. 1973. “The Typology of Morphological and Lexical Causatives.” In Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics, ed. by Ference Kiefer, 1–32. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neshcheret, Natalia, and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2016. “Passives with Intransitive Verbs: Typology and Distribution.” Paper presented at the 46th Poznań Linguistic Meeting, (Poznań, 15–17 September).Google Scholar
. 2004. “Remarks on Layering in a Cognitive-Functional Language Production Model.” In A new Architecture for Functional Grammar, ed. by J. Lachlan Mackenzie and María de los Ángeles Gómez González, 275–298. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oikonomou, Despina, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2022. “Voice Syncretism Crosslinguistically: The View from Minimalism.” Philosophies 7: 19 DOI logo.Google Scholar
Palmieri, Giada. 2020. “On the ambiguity between reflexivity and reciprocity in Italian.” In Proceedings of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed by Mariam Asatryan, Yixiao Song, and Ayana Whitmal, 279–289. Amherst(MA): GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Peres, João Andrade, and Telmo Móia. 1995. Áreas Críticas da Língua Portuguesa (2nd edition). Lisbon: Caminho.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2017. “Where do Antipassive Constructions come from?: A Study in Diachronic Typology.” Diachronica 34 (2): 175–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Florian Mathis. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shluinsky, Andrey. 2021. “Verb-verb complexes in Turkic languages: Interaction of Lexical and Delexicalized Verbs.” In Verb-Verb Complexes in Asian Languages, ed. by. Taro Kageyama, Peter E. Hook, and Prashant Pardeshi, 397–429. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas J. 1985. “Case Assignment in Ukrainian Morphological Passive Constructions.” Linguistic Inquiry 16 (4): 649–662.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1982. “From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization.” In Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, 245–271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “(Inter)Subjectivity and (Inter)Subjectification: A Reassessment.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–74. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring The Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigus, Meagan. 2018. “Antipassive constructions: Correlations of form and function across languages.” Linguistic Typology 22 (3): 339–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2015. “Ambiguity Avoidance is Overrated.” In Ambiguity: Language and Communication, ed. by Susanne Winkler, 29–47. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waters, Bruce E. 1989. Djinang and Djinba: A Grammatical and Historical Perspective. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando, and Seppo Kittilä. 2019. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold, and Jerrold Sadock 1975. “Ambiguity Tests and How to Fail Them.” In Syntax and Semantics 4, ed. by John P. Kimball, 1–36. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar