Article in:
Studies in Language: Online-First Articles

Typology of coding patterns and frequency effects of antipassives

| Leipzig University
| 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
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 06 January 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20049.ser

Full-text

Typology of coding patterns and frequency effects of antipassives
References

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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith
1999 Agent Focus and Inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75(3). 451–485. CrossrefGoogle 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 75. 289–324. CrossrefGoogle 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 academia​.edu on 23 November 2017. Crossref
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 3, 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2001 Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
1985 The Pipil language of El Salvador. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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.1. (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 http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/98 (last access 8 December 2017).
Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam, & Lisa Demena Travis
(eds.) 2017 The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, Ann
1987 Transitivity and discourse continuity in Chamorro narratives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 A functional typology of antipassives. In Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds), Voice: Form and function, 49–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2012 Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2000 Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 7. 33–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 118, 141–150. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1980 The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1987 Studies in ergativity. Amsterdam: North-Holland. (Reissue of Lingua 71). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–852. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983 A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan language (Texas Linguistics Series). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Caleb
2009 A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure. Studies in Language 33(1). 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1986 Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Series 12. 95–107.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1991 Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15(1). 85–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Syntax, vol 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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 1, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
1983 Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59. 781–819. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008b Creating economical patterns in language change. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 185–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008c A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1). 40–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15. 535–567. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
2004 Efficiency & complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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 56. 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume
2012 From denominal derivation to incorporation. Lingua 122(11). 1207–1231. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian & Harry Tily
2011 On language “utility”: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2(3). 323–335.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016a On the reflexive-antipassive polysemy: Typological convergence from unrelated languages. The Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 36. 158–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016b L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives (GRAMM-R. Études de Linguistique Française 29). Brussels: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johns, Alana
2006 Ergativity and change in Inuktitut. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvénal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 239–311. Springer. Dordrecht. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keen, Sandra
1983 Yukulta. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages 3, 191–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena
2003 A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986 On the nature of noun incorporation. Language 62(1). 32–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito
2012  A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY), vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
1994 Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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 http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/108 (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 71. 239–270. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sansò, Andrea
2017 Where do antipassive constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica 34(2). 175–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Explaining the diversity of antipassives: Formal grammar vs. (diachronic) typology. Lang Linguist Compass. 12:e12277. Available at Crossref (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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schackow, Diana
2015 A grammar of Yakkha (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 7). Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle 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 4. 42–81.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang
2011 The Lak language. Nová filologická revue 3. 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 8. 341–418. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. Typology of partitive expressions.
Shibatani, Masayoshi
2006 On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics 44(2). 217–269. CrossrefGoogle 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 48. 378–406. CrossrefGoogle 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 2. 169–187.Google Scholar
Spreng, Bettina
2001 Little v in Inuktitut: Antipassive revisited. Linguistica Atlantica 23, 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 10 (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 49. 135–174. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D.
1981 Grammatical relations and ergative languages. Studies in Language 5(3). 361–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vigus, M.
2018 Antipassive constructions: Correlations of form and function across languages. Linguistic Typology 22(3). 339–384. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zavala, Roberto
1997 Functional analysis of Akatek voice constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 63(4). 439–474. CrossrefGoogle 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

Cited by 1 other publications

Janic, Katarzyna & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2021.  In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. 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.