Passive agents: prototypical vs' canonical passives

1
Passive agents prototypical vs. canonical
passives

• Anna Siewierska Dik Bakker
• Lancaster University

2
Prototypes the passive

• Prototypes
• Have a cognitive status
• Are either frequency or exemplar based
• Are variable (culturally and also for
  individuals)
• Passive constructions are not universal unless
  perceived very broadly
• Any passive prototype must be language specific
• Not always fully appreciated
• Differences between explicitly posited prototypes
• Possibility of agent expression frequency vs.
  exemplar based

3
The passive prototype 1 agentless

• Shibatani (1985837)
• i) Primary pragmatic function agent defocusing
• ii) Semantic properties
• (a) Semantic valence predicate (agent, patient)
• (b) Subject is affected
• iii) Syntactic properties
• (c ) Encoding agent ? Ø (not encoded)
• patient ? subject
• (d) Valence of predicate Active P/n
• Passive P/n - 1
  
• iv) Morphological properties
• Active P
• Passive P passive

4
The passive prototype 2 agentive

• Givon (1979), Siewierska (1984, 2005), Dixon
  Aikhenvald (20004) criteria for prototypical
  passive
• applies to an underlying transitive derives
  intransitive
• underlying O becomes S
• underlying A goes into peripheral function being
  marked by a non-core case, adposition, etc,
  argument can be omitted but there is always the
  option of including it
• there is some explicit formal marking generally
  by verbal affix or periphrastic verbal
  construction

5
A canon Corbett (2005)

• A canonical instance of a phenomenon is viewed as
  a convergence of properties, an ideal or
  theoretical point from which actual
  manifestations of a given phenomenon can be
  calibrated
• A logical construct
• An analytical tool vs. an actual language
  category
• Not exemplar based, though the indisputable
  does provide the starting point
• Not frequency based

6
A canonical passive is agentive

• Agent its properties distinguish the passive
  from
• Active impersonal
• Anticausative
• Inverse
• A productive, pragmatically marked, but
  semantically neutral, detransitivized patient
  subject and agent defocused construction used for
  purposes of referent tracking

7
Convergence of features

• The possibility of agent expression coincides
  with other features of the passive canon

8
The passive canon

• Subject
• i) overt subject gt no overt subject
• ii) patient subject gt non-patient subject
• iii) patient not responsible gt patient
  partially responsible
• Verb
• iv) formal verbal marking gt no formal verbal
  marking
• v) synthetic verbal marking gt periphrastic
  verbal marking
• vi) basic transitive verb gt basic intransitive
  verb
• vii dynamic verb gt non-dynamic verb

9
Features of passive agents

• Some types of passive agents are more canonical
  than others
• Which?
• Semantic and referential properties
• Agentivity, humanness, specificity, pronominality
• Encoding properties
• Oblique encoding

10
Convergence of features

• ?Passives with more canonical agents tend to have
  other more canonical features

11
Agent overtly expressible gt not overtly
expressible

• Frequency of agent expression
• Agent expression and the passive subject
• Agent expression and the passive verb

12
A Passives agent expression

• 152/234 languages 65

13
A Areal distribution
14
A Agents within languages
15
A Taking genre into account

• Granger (1983275)Spoken English Overt Agent
  N
• Conversation 8 6 121
• Discussion 30 16 158
• Oration 63 20 248
• Interview 9 25 27
• Commentary26 35 48

16
B The passive subject impersonal vs. personal
passives

• Personal passives (with a lexical subject) are
  more likely to be agentive than impersonal ones
  (without a lexical subject)
• In languages with personal and impersonal
  passives, if one is agentless it is the
  impersonal, e.g. Amharic, Evenki, Swedish,
  Kanada, Turkish, Mojave
• In languages with personal and impersonal
  passives, if the expression of the agent is
  highly restricted it is in the impersonal

17
B No agent in Imp pass Swedish

• Det sjöng-s I ladorna (av ungdomarna)
• It sang-pass in barns by young people
• There was singing (by young people) in the
  barns.
• Det drick-s mycket öl (av studenterna)
• It drink-pass much beer by students
• There is a lot of beer drinking by students.

18
B Restricted agent in Imp pass Polish

• Only nonspecific, generic agent Slon (2003)
• Dzisiaj bylo juz sprzatane przez
• today was already cleaned by
• sprzataczki (Pania Kowalska)
• cleaners Mrs Kowalska
• Theres been some cleaning done today by the
  cleaners/Mrs Kowalska.

19
B Languages with only IMP passives

• In the vast majority of languages which have only
  an impersonal passive, the passive is agentless
• Our sample 12/16 75 agentless
• No agent in
• Creek, Eyak, Finnish, Konso, Luo, Maa, Mojave,
  Slave, Seminola, Takelma, Tukang-Besi, and Ute
• An agent in
• Coptic, Itelmen, Nuer, and Tanacross

20
B Semantic role of passive subject

• patient gt other
• typical patient gt responsible patient

21
B Recipient vs. Theme subjects give

• Passive clauses with patient subjects are more
  likely to be agentive than those with non-patient
  subjects
• Passives with give in the BNC
• Recipient subjects agentive passives 29/346 8
• Patient subjects agentive passives 29/145 20

22
B Responsible patient

• Passives in which the subject has no
  responsibility for the event are more likely to
  be agentive
• English be vs. get passive
• Conversation agentive
• be 6 vs. get1.4
• No agent in the Buru get-passive as opposed to
  the ek-passive

23
B Buru (Grimes 1991)

• Sira dapa-k eflali (ringe)
• they get-acp beat (him)
• They got beaten up.
• Subu di ek-fuka-k ringe
• door dist pass-open-acp 3sg
• The door was opened by him.

24
C The passive verb

• transitive verb gt intransitive verb
• passives formed from transitive verbs are more
  often agentive than those formed from
  intransitive verbs
• agentive impersonal passives of intransitive
  verbs rare e.g. German, Dutch, Hindi, Latin

25
C The passive verb

• overt marking gt no marking
• no verbal marking obligatory agent expression
• Maanyan two passives(?)
• Manggarai
• Liangshan Nuosu (Tibeto-Burman)
• Kanuri (Nilo-Saharan)

26
Maanyan (Gudai 1985)

• Sapidaq yeruq na-widi (daya ambah)
• Bicycle the pass-buy am father
• The bicycle was bought by father.
• Punsi yeruq Ø-alap (wawey yeruq)
• Banana the pass-take girl the
• The bananas were taken away by the girl.

27
Manggarai (Arka Kosmas 2002)

• Aku cero latungk
• I fry corn1sg
• I fry/am frying corn.
• Latung hitu cero l-akui
• corn that fry by-1sg3sg
• The corn is being fried by me.

28
Kanuri (Hutchinson 1981215)

• Ali shia cezo
• Ali him killpast
• Ali killed him.
• Shia Ali-ye cezo
• Him Ali-by killed
• He was killed by Ali. Him, Ali killed.

29
C type of verbal marking

• Periphrastic vs. synthetic marking
• In sample 59 periph vs. 194 synth
• No obvious relation between the two types of
  marking and expressibility of the agent
• Languages with both types of passives
• Buru periphrastic agentless, synthetic agentive
• Punjabi synthetic agentless, periphrastic
  agentive

30
C Agentive periphrastic vs. synthetic
31
C obligatory agent

• ?Obligatory agents are found in periphrastic
  passives but not synthetic ones (?)
• Sinitic languages
• Hmong, Nung etc.
• ?Philippine focus system
• ?Form of verbal marking not part of the canon

32
C obligatory agents

• Dynamic verb gt non dynamic verb
• Obligatory agents are more likely to be found
  with non-dynamic than dynamic verbs
• The coffee was followed (by a culinary
  surprise).
• I was possessed (by an irresistible urge to slap
  his face).
• On her death she was succeeded (by the Duke of
  York).

33
More canonical agents gt less canonical agents

• i) lexical gt pronominal
• ii) not semantically restricted gt semantically
  restricted
• iii) non-core-marking gt core marking

34
Pronominal agents

• Prohibited in some passives
• Lunda, Coptic
• No SAP agents in Indonesian di-passive, Maanyann
  na- passive,Tzotzil, Quiche (?-passive),
  Kakchiquel ki-passive, Metzontla Popoloc
  -passive, Huehuetla Tepehua Vn-passive,
  Halkomelem passive, Ostyak passive, Russian,
  Czech and Slovak reflexive passive
• Extremely rare in canonical passives in, e.g.
  English, Polish, Ndonga, Tariana
• Common in otherwise non-canonical passives
• No verbal marking passives
• Obligatory agent passives

35
Manggarai (Arka Kosmas 2002)

• Aku cero latungk
• I fry corn1sg
• I fry/am frying corn.
• Latung hitu cero l-akui
• corn that fry by-1sg3sg
• The corn is being fried by me.

36
Maanyan (Gudai 1985)

• 1st 2nd person agents occur only with zero
  marked verbs while third person agents can occur
  with either na-marked verbs or zero-marked verbs
• anak yeruq Ø-pupukku huniqen
• boy the pass-hit-I just now
• The boy was hit by me just now.
• Kawaweq yeruq Ø-jalak-ni
• deer the pass-spear-he
• The deer was speared by him.
• Kawaweq yeruq na-jalak daya-ni
• deer the pass-spear by he
• The deer was speared by him.

37
Pronominal agents in Sinitic

• Shanghai Wu (Xiaonong Zhu 2006164)
• Geq liangstaq jyqtsir peq (ngu)chitheq leq
• this two-cl oranges pass me eat-perf p
• These oranges have been eaten by me.
• Jieyang (Matthews and Yip 2005)
• Ua tiam ke? (i) me
• 1sg always pass 3sg scold
• I keep being scolded by him.

38
Semantic properties

• Semantically restricted passive agents tend to
  coincide with
• Impersonal passives (human)
• Germanic, Slavic
• Personal passives recently developed from
  impersonal
• Kaqchikel agent of ki-passive
• Limbudu 3pl-passive

39
??Agent encoding

• Agent encoding not stable
• non-core gt core
• overt marking gt no marking
• oblique marking gt argument marking

40
Overt marking vs. no marking

• No overt marking of the agent is characteristic
  of otherwise non-canonical passives
• Adversative passive in Thai
• Adversative passive in Sinitic if markers treated
  as verbs (fine for other than bei in Patongua)
• Exception
• Imbabura Quechua (Cole 1982 133)
• Haya (Duranti Byarushengo 197747)

41
Thai (Praisithrathsint 2006118)

• Lùuk thùk m?? tii
• child pass mother beat
• The child was beaten by his/her mother.
• Rook chánit níi thùuk7 khón- phóp
• disease kind this pass discover
• dooy nák-wittayaasàat chaaw-ciin
• by scientist Chinese
• This kind of disease was discovered by a
  Chinese scientist.

42
Argument marking

• Argument marking of the agent is characteristic
  of otherwise non-canonical passives
• Dative marking of the agent of adversative
  passives, e.g. Tungusic, Japanese ni vs. niyotte
  in the more neutral passive (Kinsui 1997), Korean
• Same marking of passive agent and object in
  disposal construction in Sinitic (Chappell 2007)

43
Japanese

• Kyoko ga Syotta ni/niyotte izime-rare-ta
• Kyoko subj Syotta
  bully-pass-past
• Kyoko was bullied by Syota.
• 1813-nen Uentowaasu-ra niyotte/ni tairiku naibu
  e mukau michi ga
• 1813-year Wentworth-etc by by continent
  inside to go road nom
• hakkens-are-ta no de aru
• discover-pass-past-comp cop
• In 1813, a road to the interior of the
  continent was discovered by Wentworth etc.

44
Changning (Wu 2006200)

• Same marker for passive agent and object
• No44 te33 ki44 ma24 i33 tue24
• I prt 3sg to score one cl
• I gave him a scolding./I was scolded by him.

45
Argument marking

• Argument marking of the agent is characteristic
  of non-canonical agents
• Dative marking of the passive agent in Ancient
  Greek (George 2005) mainly of pronominal agents
• Argument marking of pronominal agents in
  Indonesian, Maanyan, Manggarai, Nias, Kayardild

46
Maanyan (Gudai 1985)

• 1st 2nd person agents are cliticised to the
  verb which is a feature of argument marking,
  while third person agents occur with
  prepositional marking
• anak yeruq Ø-pupukku huniqen
• boy the pass-hit-I just now
• The boy was hit by me just now.
• Kawaweq yeruq Ø-jalak-ni
• deer the pass-spear-he
• The deer was speared by him.
• Kawaweq yeruq na-jalak daya-ni
• deer the pass-spear by he
• The deer was speared by him.

47
Nias (Brown 2001 421)

• The agent is indicated as mutated if a noun
  (associated with non-core marking) and as a poss
  suffix on the verb if a pronoun
• Nukha ni-sasai nakhi-gu
• clothes pass-wash younger siblingmut-1sgposs
• The clothes which were washed by my little
  sister.
• Nukha ni-sasai-nia
• clothes pass-wash-3sg
• The clothes which were washed by her.

48
Kayardild (Evans 1995)

• Nominal agents- ablative or verbal allative
• Pronominal agents only in nominalized clauses and
  prefixed to the verb
• Waldarr-a ra-yii-ju yuujband
• moon-nom spear-m-pot long.ago
• ngakuluwan-kurri-i-jarri
• 1inclposs-see-m-act
• Moon was speared long ago, (it) wasnt seen by
  us.

49
Conclusions
50
Passives

• Which are canonical with respect to the
  properties of the subject and verb do indeed tend
  to coincide with
• agentive as opposed to agentless passives,
• non-obligatoriness of the agent if expressed
• May coincide with
• agents which are semantically agentive and
  lexical
• oblique encoding of the agent
• Still not clear whether semantic and/or encoding
  properties should be viewed as apart of the canon
• The canonical approach does not constrain the
  degree of granularity of the canon
• Perhaps yes for semantic, no for encoding

51
References

• Arka I Wayan and Jeladu Kosmas. 2002. Passive
  without passive morphology? Evidence from
  Manggarai. Paper read at 9 ICAL, Canberra
• Brown, Lea. 2001. A Grammar of Nias Selatan. Ph.D
  Dissertation, University of Sydney.
• Chappell Hilary (2007). Grammaticalization zones
  for the identical marking of agents and patients
  in Sinitic languages. Paper presented at the
  Fifth Conference of the European Association of
  Chinese Linguistics, 5-7 September 2007, Leipzig,
  Germany.
• Corbett, Greville. 2005. The canonical approach
  in typology. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges
  and David S. Rood eds., Linguistic Diversity and
  Language Theories. Amsterdam John Benjamins.
  25-49.
• Dixon, R. M. W A. Y. Aikhnevald. 2000. Changing
  Valency. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
• Evans, Nicholas.1995. A Grammar of Kayardild.
  Berlin Mouton de Gruyter.

52
References

• George, Coulter H. (2005). Expressions of Agency
  in Ancient Greek. Cambridge CUP
• Givon, Talmy. 1979. Understanding Grammar. New
  York Academic Press.
• Granger, Sylviane 1983. The Be Past Participle
  Construction in Spoken English. Amsterdam North
  Holland
• Grimes, Charles E. 1991. The Buru Language of
  Eastern Indonesia. Ph. D. Dissertation, The
  Australian National University.
• Gudai, Darmansyah, H. 1985. A Grammar of
  Maanyan, A Language of Central Kalimantan. Ph.D.
  Dissertation. Australian National University.
• Kinsui, Satishi 1997. The influence of
  translation on the historical development of the
  Japanese passive construction. Journal of
  Pragmatics 28 759-779.

53
References

• Prasithrathsint, Amara. 2006. Development of the
  thùuk passive marker in Thai. In. Werner Abraham
  Larisa Leisiö eds, Passivization and Typology.
  Amsterdam John Benjamins, 115-131.
• Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and related
  constructions a prototype approach. Language 61,
  821848.
• Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive A
  Contrastive Linguistic Analysis. London Croom
  Helm
• Siewierska, Anna. 2005. Passive constructions,
  In M. Haspelmath, M.S. Dryer, D. Gil B. Comrie
  eds, World Atlas of Language Structure. Oxford
  University Press, chapter 107 434-437.
• Slon, Anna. 2003. Impersonal Constructions in
  English and Polish. A Cognitive Grammar Approach.
  Ph.D. Dissertation, Maria Curie-Sklodowska
  University in Lublin