Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:4 (2021) ► pp.968–1023

Typology of coding patterns and frequency effects of antipassives

ORCID logo | Leipzig University
ORCID logo | Leipzig University
| Leipzig University
| Leipzig University | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Frequency asymmetries within a minimal grammatical domain create offline associations that languages tend to exploit for a more efficient encoding. We explore cross-linguistic coding patterns of antipassives. We first argue that antipassive markers tend to have properties of derivational markers. Secondly, we show that antipassives are considerably rarer than the basic transitive constructions. The lower frequency correlates with the length of coding: antipassives tend to be coded with longer forms than basic transitive verbs. Thirdly, we explore frequency associations of different lexical input types and find that it is the rare input types that tend to select the antipassive, if the marking is differential, while the frequent ones correlate with the unmarked verb (A-lability). We, furthermore, show that the rarer argument types and argument scenarios correlate stronger with antipassives than the more frequent argument types and scenarios.
Keywords: antipassive, frequency asymmetry, efficiency, P-backgrounding
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining antipassives
    • 2.1The (marked) antipassive
    • 2.2A-related (marked) antipassives
    • 2.3P-related (marked) antipassives
    • 2.4Other P-backgrounding constructions
      • 2.4.1Monovalent A-lability
      • 2.4.2Bivalent A-lability
      • 2.4.3Partitive constructions
      • 2.4.4P-incorporation
      • 2.4.5Cliticization of an indefinite/generic pronoun
      • 2.4.6Summing up
  • 3.Our sample and corpus data
  • 4.Cross-linguistic properties of antipassive markers
    • 4.1Antipassive markers are rather derivational than inflectional
    • 4.2Frequency-based explanation for marking the antipassive
    • 4.3Differential marking of P-backgrounding
      • 4.3.1Form-frequency asymmetries conditioned by lexical verbs
      • 4.3.2Form-frequency asymmetries conditioned by the argument input
    • 4.4Other generalizations
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

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

Published online: 6 January 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20049.ser
References (146)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Typological distinctions in word-formation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 1–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Agent Focus and Inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75(3). 451–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aiton, Grant. 2016. Grammatical relations and information structure in Eibela: A typological perspective. Townsville: James Cook University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. 1988. Ergativity in Pari, a Nilotic OVS language. Lingua 751. 289–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter & Alexander Letuchiy. 2008. Derivacii antipassivnoj zony v adygejskom jazyke. In Vladimir A. Plungjan & Sergej G. Tatevosov (eds.), Issledovanija po otglagol’noj derivacii, 77–102. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
. 2021. Indirect antipassives in Circassian. In Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Antipassive: Typology, diachrony, and related constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Downloaded from [URL] on 23 November 2017. DOI logo
Austin, Peter K. 2013. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. 2nd edn, version 2.5. London: SOAS, University of London. (Originally published by Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Authier, Gilles & Katharina Haude. 2012. Introduction. In Gilles Authier & Katharina Haude (eds.), Ergativity, valency and voice (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 48), 1–14. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, Matthew. 2012. Studies in Inuktitut grammar. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause-hierarchy and clause-linking: the syntax and pragmatics interface, 51–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Multivariate typology and field linguistics: a case study on detransitivization in Kiranti (Sino-Tibetan). In Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, David Nathan & Lutz Marten (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 31, 3–13. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Sabine Stoll, Martin Gaenszle, Novel Kishor Rai, Elena Lieven, Goma Banjade, Toya Nath Bhatta, Netra Prasad Paudyal, Judith Pettigrew, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai, Taras Zakharko & Robert Schikowski. 2016. Audiovisual corpus of the Chintang language, including a longitudinal corpus of language acquisition by six children, paradigm sets, grammar sketches, ethnographic descriptions, and photographs.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1987. On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 53(2). 1–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blight, Robert. 2004. Head movement, passive, and antipassive in English. Austin: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2007. Morpholexical transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics 18(2). 153–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budd, Peter. 2014. Partitives in Oceanic languages. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 54), 523–562. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil language of El Salvador. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Julien. 2017. The ergative-antipassive alternation in Inuktitut: Analyzed in a case of new-dialect formation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique. 62(4). 661–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charney, Jean Ormsbee. 1993. A grammar of Comanche. (Studies in the Anthropology of North American Indians). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Some general properties of Reference-tracking Systems. In Doug Arnold, Martin Atkinson, Jacques Durand, Claire Grover & Louisa Sadler (eds.), Essays on Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar, 37–51. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Madzhid Khalilov & Zaira Khalilova. 2015. Valency and valency classes in Bezhta. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol.11. (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 1/1), 541–570. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2013. Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at [URL] (last access 8 December 2017).
Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam, & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.). 2017. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, Ann. 1987. Transitivity and discourse continuity in Chamorro narratives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. A functional typology of antipassives. In Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds), Voice: Form and function, 49–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 71. 33–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 1181, 141–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Reuse, Willem. 1994. Noun incorporation. In Ron Asher (ed.). Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, 2842–2847. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1987. Studies in ergativity. Amsterdam: North-Holland. (Reissue of Lingua 71). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 1997. A typology of argument-determined constructions. In John Haiman, Sandra A. Thompson, Talmy Givón & Joan Bybee (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 71–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 1999. Warembori. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius A. 2009. A grammar of Bantawa: grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. On the six-way word order typology, Studies in Language 21(1). 69–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 631. 805–852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael J. 1999. A Grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 1988. Mam Voice. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and Voice, 525–545. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983. A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan language (Texas Linguistics Series). Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
England, Nora C. & Laura Martin. 2003. Issues in the comparative argument structure analysis in Mayan narratives. In William J. Ashby, Lorraine Edith Kumpf & John W. Du Bois (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 131–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estigarribia, Bruno. 2017. A grammar s etch o Paraguayan Guaraní. In Bruno Estigarribia and Justin Pinta (eds.), Guarani linguistics in the 21st century, 7–85. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, Caleb. 2009. A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure. Studies in Language 33(1). 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Series 121. 95–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleck, David W. 2003. A grammar of Matses. Houston: Rice University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2006. Antipassive in Matses. Studies in language 30(3). 541–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 2007. A typology of information packaging in the clause. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edn, vol. 1: Clause structure, 362–446. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1995. The Category S in English conversation. In Werner Abraham, Talmy Givón & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Grammar and Typology, 153–178. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15(1). 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax, vol 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Grinevald-Craig, Colette. 1977. The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1979. The antipassive and Jacaltec. In Laura Martin (ed.), Papers in Mayan linguistics 11, 139–164. Columbia, Miss.: Lucas Brothers.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan, under review. Noun (phrase) incorporation? A preliminary cross-linguistic survey.
. 2018. From suffix to prefix to interposition via Differential Object Marking in Egyptian-Coptic. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 129–151. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A grammar of Cavineña (Mouton Grammar Library 44). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 591. 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Transitivity prominence. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 1: Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 1/1), 131–147. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2020a+. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2008a. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. Creating economical patterns in language change. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 185–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008c. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1). 40–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 151. 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b+. Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondencies and predictability. Journal of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Iren Hartmann. 2015. Comparing verbal valency across languages. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 1: Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 1/1) 41–71. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A grammar of Movima. Zetten: Manta.Google Scholar
. 2018. A topic-marking cleft? Analyzing clause-initial pronouns in Movima. In Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds), Information structure in lesser-described languages: Studies in prosody and syntax (Studies in Language Accompanying Series 199), 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.. 2004. Efficiency & complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1976. Antipassivization: A functional typology. In Henry Thompson, Kenneth Whistler et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society, 202–211. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Heaton, Raina. 2017. A typology of antipassives, with special reference to Mayan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa? PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561. 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2012. From denominal derivation to incorporation. Lingua 122(11). 1207–1231. 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian & Harry Tily. 2011. On language “utility”: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2(3). 323–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna. 2013. The Slavonic languages and the development of the antipassive marker. In Irina Kor-Chahine (ed.), Current studies in Slavic languages, 61–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. On the reflexive-antipassive polysemy: Typological convergence from unrelated languages. The Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 361. 158–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives (GRAMM-R. Études de Linguistique Française 29). Brussels: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2006. Ergativity and change in Inuktitut. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvénal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 239–311. Springer. Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 1994. On the lexical distribution of agent-preserving and object-preserving transitivity alternations. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17(2). 141–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keen, Sandra. 1983. Yukulta. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages 31, 191–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive Case and Aspect. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The Projection of arguments. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kozinsky, Isaac, Vladimir Nedjalkov & Maria Polinskaja. 1988. Antipassive in Chukchee. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 651–706. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2011. Voice typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 368–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 127–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander B. 2012. Ergativity in the Adyghe system of valency-changing derivations. In Gilles Authier & Katharina Haude (eds.), Ergativity, valency and voice, 323–354. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2015. Valency classes and alternations: parameters of variation. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 1: Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 1/1), 73–130. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2010. A short grammar of East Circassian (Kabardian). Manuscript. Zagreb.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4). 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. On the nature of noun incorporation. Language 62(1). 32–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY), vol. 21. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar (Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning 85). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1994. Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patz, Elisabeth. 2002. A grammar of the Kuku Yalanji language of North Queensland (Pacific Linguistics 527). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir P. 2000. Obščaja morfologija. Moscow: URSS. (General morphology)Google Scholar
Polian, Gilles. 2013. Gramática del tseltal de Oxchuc. México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2005. Antipassive constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 438–441. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Antipassive constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at [URL] (last access 8 December 2017.)
. 2017. Antipassive. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa Travis (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 308–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. 1987. Contrasting the absolutive in Chukchee: Syntax, semantics, pragmatics. Lingua 711. 239–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustet, Regina & David S. Rood. 2008. Argument dereferentialization in Lakota. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.). The typology of semantic alignment, 334–356. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, Richard & Rand Valentine. 2015. Transitivity in Ojibwe. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 2: Case studies from Austronesia and the Pacific, the Americas, and theoretical outlook (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 1/2), 1205–1264. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Rude, Noel. 1988. Ergative, passive, and antipassive in Nez Perce: A discourse perspective. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Passive and voice, 547–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 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. Lang Linguist Compass. 121:e12277. Available at DOI logo (last access 8 December 2020).Google Scholar
Say, Sergey. 2005. Antipassive sja-verbs in Russian: between inflection and derivation. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & Franz Rainer (eds), Morphology and its demarcations (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 264), 253–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. K tipologii antipassivnyx konstrukcij: Semantika, pragmatika, sintaksis [Towards a typology of anti-passive constructions: Semantics, pragmatics, syntax]. St. Petersburg: Institute of Linguistic Studies PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2021. Antipassive and the lexical meaning of verbs. In Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Antipassive constructions in the languages of the world (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 7). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schikowski, Robert. 2013. Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. Zurich: University of Zurich PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Schneider, Cynthia. 2010. A grammar of Abma: A language of Pentecost island, Vanuatu. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schröder, Helga. 2015. Alignment systems and passive-antipassive distribution in Nilotic languages. The University of Nairobi Journal of Language and Linguistics 41. 42–81.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 2011. The Lak language. Nová filologická revue 31. 11–36.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2014a. The independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian. In Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.), Grammatical relations and their non-canonical encoding in Baltic (Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1), 257–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b. The independent partitive genitive in North Russian. In Ilja A. Seržant & Björn Wiemer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to dialectology: The area of North, Northwest Russian and Belarusian vernaculars (Slavica Bergensia 13), 270–329. Bergen: John Grieg AS.Google Scholar
2015. Independent partitive as a Circum-Baltic isogloss. Journal of Language Contact 81. 341–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. Typology of partitive expressions.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics 44(2). 217–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A contrastive linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1972. Chinook Jargon: Language contact and the problem of multi-level generative systems, I. Language 481. 378–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thom. 1978. The Mayan antipassive: Some facts and fictions. Papers in Mayan linguistics 21. 169–187.Google Scholar
Spreng, Bettina. 2001. Little v in Inuktitut: Antipassive revisited. Linguistica Atlantica 231, 155–190.Google Scholar
. 2005. Third-person arguments in Inuktitut. In Solveiga Armoskaite & James J. Thompson (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas 101 (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 17), 215–225. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, N. R., Ju. A. Lander & M. X. Mamaev. 2014. Darginskij govor selenija Tanty. Grammatičeskij očerk. Voprosy sintaksisa (Pri učastii Magomeda Mameva). Moskva: JSK.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina & Rasul Mutalov. 2003. A grammar of Icari Dargwa. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2011. Detelicization and argument suppression: Evidence from Godoberi, Linguistics 491. 135–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Testelets, Yakov G. 2001. Russian works on linguistic typology in the 1960–1990s. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 306–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1988. Antipassive in Warrungu and other Australian Languages. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 595–649. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1981. Grammatical relations and ergative languages. Studies in Language 5(3). 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigus, M. 2018. Antipassive constructions: Correlations of form and function across languages. Linguistic Typology 22(3). 339–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Honoré. 2003. A morphological description of Sliammon, Mainland Comox Salish with a sketch of syntax (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim A 040). Osaka: ELPR.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren. 2016. Quantitative tests of implicational verb hierarchies. In Taro Kageyama & Wesley M. Jacobsen (eds.), Transitivity and valency alternations: Studies on Japanese and beyond (Trends in Linguistics 297), 423–444. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zavala, Roberto. 1997. Functional analysis of Akatek voice constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 63(4). 439–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three 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
Janic, Katarzyna & Charlotte Hemmings
2021. Alignment shift as functional markedness reversal. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
Janic, Katarzyna & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2021. Chapter 1. The multifaceted nature of the antipassive construction. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.