Project Case Cross-linguistically Leipzig, May 20-22, 2005 Typology of stative/active languages Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-)establishing the connection Andrej Malchukov

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Introduction: Sapir’s proposal Sapir’s proposal: ‘inactive’ (object inflecting) intransitive verbs in Amerindian languages should be better analysed as transitives: “Thus, forms like ‘I sleep’ or ‘I think’ could be understood as meaning properly ‘it sleeps me’, ‘It seems to me’” (Sapir 1917: 85). That is an So pattern is analysed as “transimpersonal” (indefinite A) construction with experiencer object

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Some problems Some obvious functional similarities: Both So constructions and transimpersonal experiencer O constructions involve experiential predicates But also some problems (cf. Merlan 1985) Structural in the former Experiencer is O, in the latter S former intransitive, the latter transitive Functional ‘it sleeps me’ ??? Heterogeneity of split-S languages: agent/patient vs. active/stative (Mithun 1991) accusative based (So is a minor pattern) vs. ergative based (Sa is a minor pattern) (Nichols 1992). Experiencer object constructions are transitive while split-intransitivity pertains in the first place to intransitives

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May However: The distinctions between So constructions, on the one hand, and transimpersonal constructions (TIC) and object experiencer constructions (OEC), on the other hand, are not always clear-cut Cf. Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi 2001 (eds.) on oblique experiencers as non-canonical subjects. In spite of heterogeneity of split S languages most split-S languages are agent/patient rather than active/stative (Mithun 1991) most split-S languages are accusative based in the sense that So pattern is a minor class as compared to the open Sa class (Nichols 1992).

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Outline of the talk Provide evidence that Sapir’s analysis can be upheld, if Restricted to Split-S language where the patientive subject pattern is a minor pattern A connection between So pattern and transitive patterns (TIC and EOC) is understood in diachronic terms Present evidence from languages where Split-S pattern arose from reanalysis of transimpersonal and Object-experiencer constructions where object experiencers can be analysed as non- canonical subjects

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Slave: TIC without Split-S A construction with unspecified human subject pronoun in Slave: Slave (Rice 1989: 1020) ts’e-jI ‘someone is singing’ k’ínase-ts’e-reyo ‘someone chased him/her; s/he is chased’ NB clearly distinct from split-S (note the overt AGR/A marker –ts’e- ), but not the quasi-passive interpretation of TIC.

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Extension of TIC: Eskimo In West Greenlandic transimpersonal construction (TIC) restricted to weather verbs West Greenlandic (Fortescue 1984: 59-61) Anurliup-patigut storm-3A->1pO.IND ‘When we were caught by storm (lit. it stormed us)’

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Extension of TIC: Eskimo In (Siberian) Yupik TIC is extended to other verb types to indicate lack of control: Yupik (Emeljanova 1967; cf. Vaxtin 1995) Tagnygak axwasag-taa child.ABS crawl-3->3 ‘The child crawled’ NB similar to So pattern functionally (indicates lack of control), but different structurally (AGR clearly transitive). Therefore rather extended use of TIC than Split-S.

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May TIC reanalysed as split-S: Tunica In Tunica (Haas 1941) So intransitives in inchoative forms are constructed as transimpersonals it-sickens-me ‘I become sick’ Haas’ conclusion: ‘involuntary action verbs developed from transimpersonals’ (Haas 1941: 59)

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Split-S originating from EOC: Koasati Koasati is considered split intransitive on the basis of its agreement system (cf. Mithun 1999: 237-8). the case system is accusative though An So verb: (Anó-k) ca-libatli-t (I-NOM) 1sg.obj-burn-past ‘I got burned’

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Split-S originating from EOC: Koasati Morphologically, however, So verbs look like plain transitives (Kimball 1991: 251). Cf.: ca-libatli-t 1sg.obj-burn-past ‘I got burned’ Nihahci ikba-k ca-libatli-t Grease hot-NOM 1sg.obj-burn-past ‘The hot grease burned me’

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Conclusion on Koasati Kimball’s conclusion: the So pattern originated from reanalysis of impersonal 3 sg forms Note what features facilitated reanalysis: So is marked by AGRo 3pA marker is zero But the same pattern attested in many other Split-S languages

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Other Split-S languages: Ika Other Split-S languages with zero 3rd p. zero A markers: Dakota (Boas & Deloria 1941, 76), Guarani (Gregores & Suárez 1967: 131), Ika (Frank 1985: 11) Ika (Frank 1985: 11) So pattern Na-’tikuma-na 1sgO-forget-DIST ‘I forgot’ A transitive pattern Na-tsua-na 1sgO-see-DIST ‘He saw me’

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Other Split-S languages: Haida Haida (Enrico 2003, 93) Split-S in free/clitical pronoun marking There are no overt inanimate (‘low potency’) agentive pronouns

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Other Split-S languages: Kiowa Kiowa: restricted suppression of A agreement with experiential verbs: yą-tây (Watkins 1980: 137) (2,3sg.A+)1sg.P+pl.O-awake.pf ‘I awoke/smth woke me’ Watkins considers them as intransitives (thus, Split- S), although clearly modelled on transitives (or even di-transitives, with a dummy O marker)

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Conclusions on reanalysis: Thus reanalysis is facilitated, if So is marked by AGRo 3pA marker (one of the markers, often inanimate if a language has one) is zero. NB then a transitive pattern is formally indistinguishable from intransitive

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May TICs as semitransitives: Navaho Even if transitive/intransitive distinction is marked otherwise, does not necessary prevent reanalysis, as TIC can reveal transitivity decrease Navaho allows an intransitive marker (“classifier”) in the Indefinite A construction: (Kibrik 1996: 291) Né-í-ø-ł-zho? Md-3/ACC-3/NOM-TRANS-hunt.IT ‘He repeatedly hunts it’ Ná-ø-?á-l-zho? Md-3/ACC-IND/NOM-DETRANS-hunt.IT ‘Someone repeatedly hunts it’ Kibrik (1996) A indefinitensess as another transitivity parameter (in the sense of Hopper & Thompson 1980)

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May From Experiencer Object constructions to Split-S: Papuan languages In Papuan languages objects in EOC tend to be reanalysed as non-canonical subjects Usan (Reesink 1987: 139) Munon isig toar wA-r-a in-Ab igo man old sickness him-shoot-3s.DS lie-SS be.3sg.pres ‘The old man is sick and lying down’ NB. Experiential verbs similar to ordinary transitives, but differ in that Experiencer/Goal unlike other objects always in the first topic position

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Reanalysis in Papuan languages: Amele EOC in Amele similar to Usan: Amele (Roberts 1987, 315). Ija wen ø–te-na 1sg hunger (AUX-)1sg-3sg-PRES ‘I am hungry’ But note that V is grammaticalized (phonetically zero). Apart from (topic) position, the experiencer reveals (most) other subject properties: intraclausal (reflexivization, etc) interclausal (control of switch-reference, etc)

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Conclusion on Papuan languages In Papuan languages EOC tend to develop into a construction with subject experiencers (cf. Roberts 2001 on non-canonical experiencer subjects in Amele) The Amele pattern where the subject experiencer cross-referenced through object AGR is similar to an So pattern in a typical split-S language

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May EOC reanalysis: beyond split intransitivity I Evidence for diachronic instability of the EOC constructions A-absorption in EOC in Iwadjan. Different degrees of grammaticalization/reanalysis (Evans 2004). Pattern I. ‘Subcategorized nominal subject’ Nga-ni-ma-ny wunyarru 1O-3mA-get-P sickness ‘I got sick (lit. ‘sickness got me’) Here the transitive EOC construction similar to the Papuan pattern

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Experiencer O absorption in Iwadjan II Pattern II: ‘frozen nominal subject’ Nga-ni-mi-ny ngok 1O-3mA-get-P ? ‘I am full’ NB the formal subject ngok is not attested outside this construction

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Experiencer O incorporation in Iwadjan III Pattern III: “dummy subject construction”: I-ni-marruku-n 3mO-3mA-make.wet-NP ‘He is sweating’ This construction is clearly (trans)impersonal NB a diachronic instability of the EOC. Motivation: downgrading/omission of non-prominent A.

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May EOC beyond split intransitivity II: Covert reanalysis of EOC in Germanic English please -> like reanalysis (Jesperson 1927; Lightfoot 1979, Faarlund 1990) ðam cynge licodon peran -> the king liked pears Swedish and German (Seefranz-Montag 1983): Det lyckades honom -> han lyckades ‘I manage’ Mich hungert -> ich hungere ‘I am hungry’ Motivation for reanalysis: upgrading of a prominent (animate) O.

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May EOC beyond split intransitivity III Reanalysis of EOC/TIC in Himalayan Tibetan languages: a frequent pattern with Goal/Object-experiencers (Cf. Bickel 2003) Transimpersonals in Limbu: default AGR with non-referential A. Limbu (van Driem 1987: 75): Khengha? Moyusi They inebriate.3P.3s->3ns ‘they are drunk ‘(lit. it inebriates them)

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Reanalysis in Himalayan II: Yamphu Yamphu (Rutgers 1998: 109) If experiencer is 3rd p. pattern as EOC (experiencer cross-referenced by a transitive AGR): Wai?m-æ? si-s-w-e? thirst-ERG attach-3 ->3.FCT ‘Is he thirsty?’ If experiencer is 1st/2nd p. takes an intransitive AGR: Sag-æ? sis-iŋ-ma hunger-ERG attach-EXPS-1PL ‘We were hungry’ NB a split-S system, complicated by a person split. Motivation for reanalysis: upgrading of a prominent (1,2 person) experiencers.

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May EOC beyond split-S IV: from indefinite A to (impersonal) passive From indefinite A to (impersonal) passive (Greenberg 1959; Shibatani 1985 ): Ainu (Tamura 2000: 71; cf. Shibatani 1985 ) Itak-an Speak-1pl ‘One speaks’ a-e-kóyki na In/S2sg/O-scold MOD ‘you will be scolded/one will scold you’ NB construction impersonal: O is still cross- referenced by AGRo.

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May From indefinite A to impersonal passive: Ainu If an agentive phrase is used, it is clear that the indefinite A construction is reanalysed as a passive: Ainu (Tamura 2000: 72): Unuhu oro wa an-kóyki Mother place from Ind/S-scold ‘He was scolded by (his) mother’ NB looks like a personal passive, but O has few subject properties apart from positional (Shibatani 1985: 824)

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Further reanalysis to personal passive: Iraqw In Iraqw indefinite A construction is used as impersonal: Iraqw (Mous 1992: 137, 138) ta-na haníis tsat’i IMPS-PAST give.3SM.PAST knives ‘They gave knives’ or ‘Knives were given’ NB also possible with an agent phrase Under O topicalization as a personal passive: ‘ameena ta-n nahhaat women(F) IMPS-EXPEC hide-PRES ‘Women were hidden/hid themselves’

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May From indefinite A to impersonal passive: other languages Indefinite (impersonal) passives Greenberg (1959): on Maasai, Givon (1979): Kimbundu Shibatani (1985): on indefinite passives: Ainu, Trukic, Indonesian Motivation for reanalysis: downgrading of indefinite A (cf. Shibatani on A-defocussing), promotes reanalysis to an impersonal structure; (under O topicalization can develop further to personal)

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Conclusion: EOC and TIC in a broader context Universal functional pressure for reanalysis of EOC and TIC, due to syntactic downgrading of non-prominent (indefinite, inanimate, cognate) A of TIC syntactic upgrading of a prominent (animate) O of EOC

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Functional factours and structural outcome: Split-S But these universal functional factors will yield a split-S system only under particular structural conditions: AGRo marking if AGRo unmarked, more likely covert reanalysis (please-> like). AGRs is zero marked if AGRs over then rather as extended transimpersonal constructions (cf. Eskimo, Yamphu), or else reanalysed as a Passive (Ainu, Iraqw)

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May Role of the structural factors: an illustration A consistently ergative language cannot develop a split-S structure: rather experiencer O upgrading will lead to formation of (S/O) labile verbs (NP/erg) NP/abs V-agr/abs Note that this grammatically ambiguous structure, allows for covert reanalysis of the ABS-marked object- experiencers as subject-experiencers

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May General conclusion Unlike the approaches which motivate Split-S pattern through role-domination (direct mapping from semantic functions to case- marking), I regard it as a secondary phenomena which may arise through a conspiracy of universal functional tendencies language particular structural properties

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May A final qualification This scenario for the rise of Split-S pattern from reanalysis of transitives (transimpersonals, experiencer object verbs) applies only for languages where So is a minor pattern (i.e. Sa-based) the split has an agent/patient than active/stative basis For Split-S languages which are So based (with Sa as a deviant pattern) another explanations. The latter pattern may also be secondary: result from reanalysis of a transitive construction with a cognate O (cf. Basque, Georgian, etc.)