Cover not available
Part of
Antipassive: Typology, diachrony, and related constructions
Edited by Katarzyna Janic and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
[Typological Studies in Language 130] 2021
► pp. 1–40

Chapter 1
The multifaceted nature of the antipassive construction

| University of Leipzig
| Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The present chapter opens the volume by proving an overview of the antipassive construction from the typological perspective. After setting the scene by introducing the major theoretical concepts used in this volume, we consider various aspects of the formal and functional variation of the antipassive construction. First, we show how the antipassive construction varies among languages with respect to the realization of the P argument. We then discuss various aspects of the antipassive marker, including its dedicatedness and obligatoriness, as well as its syncretism with other functions. This chapter also zooms in on various functions performed by the antipassive. In addition to semantic, discourse-pragmatic and syntactic functions commonly recognized in the literature, we also address a less typical stylistic function. Another parameter of variation discussed is the productivity of the antipassive. Finally, this chapter addresses the question of various constructions which formally or functionally overlap with antipassive constructions.
Keywords: antipassive construction, P argument, antipassive marker, antipassive functions, productivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some terminological prerequisites
  • 3.Realization of the P argument
  • 4.The antipassive marker
    • 4.1Variation of the antipassive marker
    • 4.2Dedicatedness of the antipassive marker
    • 4.3Syncretism of the antipassive marker
    • 4.4(Non)-obligatoriness of the antipassive marker
  • 5.Functions of the antipassive construction
    • 5.1Semantic and discourse-pragmatic functions
    • 5.2Syntactic functions
    • 5.3Stylistic functions
    • 5.4General remarks on antipassive functions
  • 6.Productivity
  • 7.Related constructions
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.130.01jan
References (150)
References
Adamou, Evangelia. 2014. L’antipassif en ixcatèque. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 109(1): 373–396.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2011. Antipassive in Austronesian alignment change. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds), 331–345. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122(3): 192–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter & Letuchiy, Alexander. 2008. Derivacii antipassivnoj zony v adygejskom jazyke. In Issledovanija po otglagol’noj derivacii, Vladmir Plungian & Sergey Tatevosov (eds), 77–102. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
. 2021. Indirect antipassive in Circassian. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auderset, Sandra. The antipassive and its relationship to person markers. 2021. Polyfunctional vanka- in Nivaĉle and the antipassive category. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume).Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, Matthew. 2011. Studies in Inuktitut Grammar. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Beaudoin-Lietz, Christa. 1982. Aspects of Certain Intransitivizing Postbases of a Transitivizing Postbase in Labrador Inuttut. MA dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Gaenszle, Martin. 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
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
Bokarev, Evgenij A. 1949. Sintaksis avarskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1982. Der präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburtstag, Otto Winkelmann & Maria Braisch (eds), 579–599. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brainard, Sherri. 1994. Voice and ergativity in Karao. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Talmy Givón (ed.), 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bricker, Victoria. 1978. Antipassives constructions in Yucatec Maya. In Papers in Mayan Linguistics, Nora C. England (ed.), 3–24. New York NY: Museum of Anthropology, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Budd, Peter. 2014. Partitives in Oceanic languages. In Partitive Cases and Related Categories, Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds), 523–562. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bugaeva, Anna. 2021. Unspecified participant: A case of antipassive in Ainu. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2000. Valency-changing derivations in K’iche’. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 236–281. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charney, Jean Ormsbee. 1993. A Grammar of Comanche. Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1998. The Design of Agreement. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1993. Argument structure. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 905–914. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Khalilov, Madzhid & Khalilova, Zaira. 2015. Valency and valency classes in Bezhta. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 541–570. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Forker, Diana, Khalilova, Zaira & van den Berg, Helma. 2021. Antipassives in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages: Exploring the margins of a construction. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume).. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, Ann. 1988. The antipassive in Chamorro: Variations on the theme of transitivity. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 561–593. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. A functional typology of antipassives. In Voice: Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 27], Barbara A. Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 49–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, Ann, Fox, Barbara A. & Talmy Givón. 1984. The discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8(1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale: une introduction typologique. Vol. 2, La phrase. Paris: Hermès ScienceGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Transitivity, valency and voice. Manuscript presented at the European Summer School in Linguistic Typology, Porquerolles. <[URL]> (5 August 2020).
. 2021. Antipassive derivation in Soninke (West Mande). In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. To appear. A sketch of Mandinka. In The Oxford Guide to the Atlantic Languages of West Africa, Friederike Lüpke (ed.). Oxford: OUP.
Creissels, Denis & Biaye, Séckou. 2016. Le balant ganja. Dakar: IFAN Cheikh Anta Diop.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayley, Jon P. 1985. Tzutujil Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Denniss, Jessica. 2021. Aspect and modality in Pama-Nyungan antipassives. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2006. Case markedness. In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Andrej L. Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 249–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. London: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977. A Grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1): 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Introduction. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, 1–29. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael J. 1999. A Grammar of Chukchi. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 1983. A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan Language. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1988. Mam voice. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 525–545. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 1992. Semantic relations vs. abstract syntactic relations: Evidence from Halkomelem. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Laura A. Buszard-Welcher, Jonathan Evans, David Peterson, Lionel Wee & William Weigel (eds), 76–87. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 2005. Grammatical Relations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fleck, David W. 2006. Antipassive in Matses. Studies in Language 30: 541–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 2007. A typology of information packaging in the clause. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 362–446. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2012. The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46(1): 75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael D. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, Annie, Goncalves, Michael, Polinsky, Maria & Radkevich, Nina. 2014. The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez. Lingua 150: 137–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 295–321. Athens OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. & Hukari, Thomas E. 2005. Multiple antipassives in Halkomelem Salish. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Andrew K. Simpson (ed.), 51–62. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
2006. The Halkomelem middle: A complex network of constructions. Anthropological Linguistics 48: 44–81.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed.), 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Talmy Givón (ed.), 3–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Mester, Armin. 1985. Complex verb formation in Eskimo. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1981. Sk’op Sotz’leb: El Tzotzil de San Lorenzo Zinacantan. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Arguments and adjuncts as language-particular syntactic categories and as comparative concepts. Linguistic Discovery 12(2): 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Müller-Bardey, Thomas. 2004. Valence change. In Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung [Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft = Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 17.2], Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), 1130–1145. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Sims, Andrea D. 2010. Understanding Morphology, 2nd edn. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Hartmann, Iren. 2015. Comparing verbal valency across languages. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 41–72. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1976. Antipassivization: A functional typology. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Henry Thompson, Kenneth Whistler, Vicki Edge, Jeri J. Jaeger, Ronya Javkin, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Smeall & Robert D. Van ValinJr. (eds), 202–211. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Heaton, Raina. 2017. A Typology of Antipassives, with Special Reference to Mayan. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Hemmings, Charlotte. 2021. When an antipassive isn’t an antipassive anymore: The Actor Voice construction in Kelabit. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2018. The partitive A: On uses of the Finnish partitive subject in transitive clauses. In Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds), 423–453. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2012. From denominal derivation to incorporation. Lingua 122(11): 1207–1231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Denominal affixes as sources of antipassive markers in Japhug Rgyalrong. Lingua 138: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Antipassive derivations in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan and their sources. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna. 2013. The Slavonic languages and the development of the antipassive marker. In Current Studies in Slavic Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series 146], Irina Kor Chahine (ed.), 61–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives. Brussels: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. On the reflexive-antipassive polysemy: Typological convergence from unrelated languages. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Nicholas Rolle, Jeremy Steffman & John Sylak-Glassman (eds), 158–173. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 2021. The coding of antipassive constructions. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1987. Transitivity and Grammatical Relations in Inuktitut. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
. 1999. The decline of ergativity in Labrador Inuttut. In Papers from the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages, Leora Bar-El, Rose-Marie Déchaine & Charlotte Reinholtz (eds). MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: 73–90.Google Scholar
. 2001. Ergative to accusative comparing evidence from Inuktitut. In Grammatical Relations in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 56], Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), 205–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Ergativity and change in Inuktitut. In Ergativity: Emerging Issues, Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvénal Ndayiragije (eds), 293–311. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juárez, Cristian & Álvarez González, Albert. 2017. The antipassive marking in Mocoví: Forms and functions. In Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 120], Albert Álvarez González & Ia Navarro (eds), 228–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Explaining the antipassive-causative syncretism in Mocoví (Guaycuruan). In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozinsky, Isaac, Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Polinskaja, Maria S. 1988. Antipassive in Chukchee: Oblique object, object incorporation, zero object. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 651–706. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2011. Voice typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae J. Song (ed.), 368–398. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1946. Ergativnost’ i stadial’nost’ v jazyke. Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR. Serija Literatury i Jazyka 5: 387–393.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1949. La construction ergative et le développement stadial du langage. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 18: 84–92.Google Scholar
Lanz, Linda A. 2010. A Grammar of Inupiaq Morphosyntax. PhD dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1983. Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen [AUU: Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 15]. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Launey, Michel. 1980. Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36(3–4): 141–190.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2009. Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2015. Valency classes and alternations: Parameters of variation. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 73–130. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Markedness effects in applicative formation: Theoretical and typological perspectives. In Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 120], Albert Álvarez González & Ia Navarro (eds), 1–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meira, Sérgio. 2000. The accidental intransitive split in the Cariban family. In Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 43], Spike Gildea (ed.), 201–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 2006. Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In Voice: Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 27], Barbara A. Fox & Paul Hopper (eds), 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Valency-changing derivation in Central Alaskan Yup’ik. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 84–114. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Antipassive propensities and alignment. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2015. Valency classes in Central Alaskan Yupik, an Eskimoan language. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 2, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 1165–1204. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 2021. Antipassive constructions in Oceanic languages. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mroczyńska, Katarzyna. 2018. Realizations of Antipassive-Like Structures in Polish and English. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagai, Tadataka. 2006. Agentive and Patientive Verb Bases in North Alaskan Inupiaq. PhD dissertation, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.Google Scholar
Nouguier Voisin, Sylvie. 2002. Relations entre fonctions syntaxiques et fonctions sémantiques en Wolof. PhD dissertation, Lumière University Lyon 2.Google Scholar
. 2005. Antipassif et langues accusatives. In Linguistique Typologique, Gilbert Lazard & Claire Moyse-Faurie (eds), 193–206. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patz, Elizabeth. 2002. A Grammar of the Kuku Yulanji Language of North Queensland. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 2021. The profile and development of the Maa (Eastern Nilotic) antipassive. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1994. The pragmatics of voice in a Philippine language: Actor-focus and goal-focus in Cebuano narrative. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Talmy Givón (ed.), 317–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2005. Antipassive constructions. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 438–439. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2017a. Antipassive. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa de Mena Travis (eds), 308–331. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Syntactic ergativity. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustet, Regina & Rood, David S. 2008. Argument dereferentialization in Lakota. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 334–356. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Queixalós, Francisco. 2010. Grammatical relations in Katukina-Kanamari. In Ergativity in Amazonia [Typological Studies in Language 89], Spike Gildea & Francisco Queixalós (eds), 235–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renaudier, Marie. 2012. Dérivation et valence en sereer, variété de Mar Lodj (Atlantique, Sénégal). PhD dissertation, Lumière University Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Rude, Noel. 1988. Ergative, passive, and antipassive in Nez Perce: A discourse perspective. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 547–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2017. Where do antipassive constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica 34: 175–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapién, Racquel-María, Cáceres Arandia, Natalia, Gildea, Spike & Meira, Sérgio. 2021. Antipassive in the Cariban family. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Say, Sergey. 2005. Antipassive sja-verbs in Russian: Between inflection and derivation. In Morphology and its Demarcations [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 264], Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & Franz Rainer (eds), 253–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Antipassive and the lexical meaning of verbs. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schikowski, Robert, Paudyal, Netra P. & Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Flexible valency in Chintang. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 669–707. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A., Janic, Katarzyna, Ben Dror, Oneg & Dermaku-Appelganz, Darja. 2021. Typology of coding patterns and frequency effects of antipassives. Studies in Language. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics 44: 217–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1972. Chinook Jargon: Language contact and the problem of multilevel generative systems, Part I. Language 48(2): 378–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies; Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Spreng, Bettina. 2005. Third person arguments in Inuktitut. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas 10, Vol. 17, Solveiga Armoskaite & James J. Thompson (eds), 215–225. Vancouver BC: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2010. On the conditions for antipassives. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(7): 556–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24: 501–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2006. Jiarongyu dongci de paisheng xingtai (Derivational morphology in the Rgyalrong verb). Minzu Yuwen 4: 3–14.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2004. Antipassiv kak aktionsal’nyj modificator: Dannye Godoberinskogo Jazyka. Presented at the International Symposium on Typology of Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations in Languages spoken in Europe, North and Central Asia, Kazan.
Tchekhoff, Claude. 1987. ‘Antipassif’: Aspect imperfectif et autonomie du sujet. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 82: 43–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2006. Reflexive and middle constructions of Warrungu (Australia). In Voice and Grammatical Relations: In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani [Typological Studies in Language 65], Tasaku Tsunoda & Tarō Kageyama (eds), 299–333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, Pilar. 2016. “Simple” and “double” applicatives in Shiwilu (Kawapanan). Studies in Language 40(3): 513–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van ValinJr., Robert D. 1980. On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50: 303–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vidal, Alejandra & Payne, Doris L. 2021. Polyfunctional vanka- in Nivaĉle and the antipassive category. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigus, Meagan. 2018. Antipassive constructions: Correlations of form and function across languages. Linguistic Typology 22(3): 339–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Honore. 2015. Valency classes in Sliammon Salish. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 1293–1338. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
. 2019. Argument selectors. A new perspective on grammatical relations: An introduction. In Argument Selectors. A new Perspective on Grammatical Relations [Typological Studies in Language 123], Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Balthasar Bickel (eds), 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Seržant, Ilja A. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In The Diachronic Typology of Differential Argument Marking, Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds), 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony & Sadock, Jerrold. 1986. Affixial verbs in syntax: A reply to Grimshaw and Mester. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 229–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando, & Fernández, Beatriz. 2021. Antipassivization in Basque revisited. In Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130], Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando & Kittilä, Seppo. 2019. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Giomi, Riccardo & Guglielmo Inglese
2024. Chapter 6. Underspecification and ambiguity of voice markers. In Vagueness, Ambiguity, and All the Rest [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 347], ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Comrie, Bernard, Diana Forker, Zaira Khalilova & Helma van den Berg
2021. Chapter 16. Antipassives in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo
Janic, Katarzyna
2021. Chapter 8. Variation in the verbal marking of antipassive constructions. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 249 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
Juárez, Cristian & Albert Álvarez González
2021. Chapter 10. Explaining the antipassive-causative syncretism in Mocoví (Guaycuruan). In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Payne, Doris L.
2021. Chapter 14. The profile and development of the Maa (Eastern Nilotic) antipassive. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 447 ff. DOI logo
Sapién, Racquel-María, Natalia Cáceres Arandia, Spike Gildea & Sérgio Meira
2021. Chapter 3. Antipassive in the Cariban family. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 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.