\'Antiapplicative\' as a comparative concept: a cross-linguistic perspective

‘Antiapplicative’ as a comparative concept: a cross-linguistic perspective

  Languages are often described in terms of language-specific categories, e.g., the English Conative Alternation or the Shilluk Antipassive. However, linguists often worry about whether a given language-specific category is ‘really’ an antipassive or a case-affix (or something else). The distinction between descriptive categories and comparative concepts, elucidated by Haspelmath (2010), gives descriptive linguists and typologists a way to cut this Gordian knot, by admitting that languages should be described in their own terms, and using comparative concepts, defined by linguists for the sake of comparing language structures, in order to test hypotheses and generalizations. This paper proposes that the notion ‘antiapplicative’ is useful as a comparative concept for typologists who want to distinguish between argument-removing and argument-demoting constructions, or, in other words, between valency- and transitivity-reducing constructions. The term ‘antiapplicative’ (or its alternative, ‘deobjective’), which is not used much today in linguistics, either as a comparative concept or as a label for descriptive categories, has been defined as a ‘type of object-removing category [in which] the patient is not removed entirely, it only loses its direct object status and is expressed as an oblique phrase’ (Haspelmath and Müller-Bardey 2001), following Geniušenė (1987: 94) [see exx. 1-2]. It can also be represented schematically as follows: Transitive Ai Pj Antiapplicative Si Oblj The rationale behind the term is clear enough: broadly speaking, applicatives are usually said to ‘promote’ a peripheral or oblique participant to the status of core argument, so an antiapplicative would naturally be a construction that ‘demotes’ a core argument to peripheral or oblique status. Antiapplicatives are considered to be rare cross-linguistically. However, given the above definition, this view should probably be revised. The main claims of this paper, based on a cross-linguistic sample, are: • The comparative concept ‘antiapplicative’ is a useful one for cross-linguistic research, as it allows structurally and functionally similar – but not identical – constructions to be compared and testable hypotheses to be formulated; • Antiapplicatives are transitivity-reducing but valency-preserving constructions. Many constructions described as (patientive) antipassives (e.g., in Jakaltek Popti’), as well as some other kinds of transitivity alternations (such as the English Conative Alternation), can be considered antiapplicatives; • Antiapplicatives are found in many areas of the world, including Eurasia, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. As such, it is probably Eurocentric to call antiapplicatives ‘antipassives’ in ‘exotic’ languages, and ‘verb alternations’ in better-described European languages. A more fine-grained perspective, looking at lexical productivity, constructional meaning, and syntactic function, is needed in order to identify crosslinguistic patterns of variation. • The definition proposed for the comparative concept allows a testable prediction to be made, namely, that there is a universal hierarchy of locus of marking in antiapplicative constructions: marking strategies associated with verbs, e.g., verb valency markers (exx. 1-3), argument indexing (ex. 5), and stem alternations (ex. 4), presuppose argument flagging (‘dependent marking’). Linear order and other behavioral properties, e.g., auxiliary selection, participate in encoding antiapplicative constructions (Bambara and Danish, exx. 6-7), but they seem to presuppose the existence of argument flagging as well. This generalization turns out to be robust, since a potentially significant type of counter-example, involving differential argument indexing, is inconclusive at best. References Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663-687 Geniušienė, E. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin. Haspelmath, Martin & Thomas Müller-Bardey. 2004. Valence Change. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C., & Mugdan, J. (Eds.), Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Vol. 2. Berlin. 1130-1145.

‘Antiapplicative’ as a comparative concept: a cross-linguistic perspective

  Figures

Examples (1) Hungarian (Uralic; Haspelmath & Mueller-Bardey 2001, citing (Károly 1982:187)) (a) Az orvos szán-ja a beteg-et. the doctor pity-3SG the patient-ACC ‘The doctor pities the patient.’ (b) Az orvos szán-akoz-ik a beteg-en. the doctor pity-ANTIAP-3SG the patient-SUPERESS ‘The doctor feels pity for the patient.’ (2) Lithuanian (Indo-European; Geniušenė 1987: 94-96) (a) Petr-as svaido akmen-is Peter-NOM throws stone-AC.PL ‘Peter is throwing stones’ (b) Petr-as svaido-si akmen-imis Peter-NOM throws-ANTIAP stone-INS.PL ‘Peter is throwing stones.’ (3) Spanish (Indo-European; Masullo 1992) (a) Juan lamenta su fracaso Juan regrets his failure (b) Juan lamenta de su fracaso Juan regrets obl his failure ‘Juan regrets his failure’ (b implies that Juan is at fault). (4) Päri (West Nilotic, Nilo-Saharan; Andersen 1988) (a) rìŋó ŋôl ùbúrr-ì ŋɔ́l-ɔ̀ meat cut Ubur-ERG cut-SUF ‘Ubur will cut the meat.’ (b) ùbúr ŋùt-ò kí rìŋó Ubur cut.CF.AP-SUF OBL meat ‘Ubur will cut the meat.’ (5) Jakaltek Popti’ (Mayan; Craig 1977) (a) xk-ach s-kol naj ASP-2ABS 3ERG-help CL/he ‘He helped you’ (b) xk-ach-kol-wa y-inh naj ASP-2ABS-help-AP 3-OBL CL/he 'You helped him' ('You gave him a hand')

‘Antiapplicative’ as a comparative concept: a cross-linguistic perspective

  (6)

(7)

Bambara (Mande; Creissels 2005) (a) mǎdù bɛ́nà dúmúní ↓bán Madou pm food finish 'Madou will finish the food.' (b) mǎdù bɛ́nà bán dúmúní ↓ná Madou PM finish food OBL 'Madou will finish the food.' Danish (Indo-European; Durst-Andersen and Herslund 1996: 79-80) (a) Han har/*er begyndt sine studier He has/*is begun his studies (b) Han er/*har begyndt på sine studier He is/*has begun OBL his studies ‘He has begun his studies.’