‘The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion* T. Given University of Oregon 1. Introduction 1.1, The functional domain of voice Voice is probably the most complex grammar-coded functional domain in language. On the functional side, it spans a range of clause-semantic tnd discourse-prapmatic functions, ones that interact in complex ways {crs the eft llenble boundary between semantics and pragmatics, On the sirvetural sie, voice is coded in any natural language By a large family of trammatical constuction (clause-types). And piven the relative petmes bility ofthe boundary between semantics and pragmatics, iis aot aways ayy to tll apart consiuctons that cade more semantic aspects of voice feom those that cde more pragmatic arpcts. In spite of this potential ver: lap, clear prototypical instances of "more seman and “more pragmatic” vive constructions are relatively easy to enti Ta this volume, we have limited ourselves to the study ofthe pragmatic aspects of voice, in particula o foar voice functions: (a) setivetirect, (©) inverse (9) passive (© amipasive The few comments Imake below about the semantics of voce will serve a8 ‘he bare semantic foundations necessary fr understanding the pragmatics of voize. These comments sum up biely what we shall largely take forLeen ‘ 7. Givin ano inthe various studies collected inthis volume. 1.2. The functional bass of grammatical typology ‘A crostiagastie grammatical typology nonsensical unless its bated on an independent functional definition of the domain to be “yped" (Ginda, 1981, 19830, 1984; Wierbicka, 199). This ought to be such an (ovious truism that one surprised how often its ignored, not nly by Hrocuralss but abo by many furctionaliss. A fundamental logical “vumption made by all eos lingusi typologsts shi (1) “In itferent languages we find diferent types of struc tures that somehow must be grouped together as members ofthe sane metatype But same metatype" of wha?! “The naive astumption, whether explicit or tacit, has Been that “the same metatype” ako reles #9 sructurs. Butt should take oaly a beet ‘Manination of the fats to concde that this taxonomic approach (0 typo Sao grouping stuctral sub-ypes ito ther structural meta-ypes — huld not posibly be right. Tiss Because in following such a procedure Soave no secure way of deciding by purely structural eriteria why Stu Tae A (in language a) and Strctore B (a language 8) should be grouped te subaypes of structural meteaype X, while trueture C (in language ©) fd Stroctre D (in language d) should be grouped as subtypes of struc tural metatypeY. ‘One einld ofcourse argue that purely structural riterion for such sat grouping i indeed svaable, namely structaralsniarity. Ove can pre Nunably obcene the structural siailantes Between A.B,C,D and then ‘oup them accordingly. This sounds feasible in principle, but one cxample ther done to home will demonsrate the total nonfat of such an Epproash in ral typological space ‘Conder the passive constsucons A quick typological survey of pa sives would evea the following major stroctural subtypes 'A. Adjctvakstative: In some languages (English) passive cause arose cally transitive event. The pragmatic definition ofthe four main voices we slfocus on here hasbeen given nly by Cooreman 1982, 1985, 187)" (2) Retaive topicality ofthe agent and patient fn the four Voice Relative topicality ‘asveldinest Ac > PAT inverse ar < rar pesive dar << rar spasive par >> rat “The trunsve aetvedieet yoce is thus defined pragmatielly as “he ‘oie contrition in which the agent is mote topical than the pent, but the patient retains considerable topicality". Relative to this unmarked norm? the thee pragmatic de-transtive voices are then defined ‘The pragmatics of detranstve voice 9 (©) Definition of main de-tansive voices: ‘a nverse: The patient is more topical chan the age, but the agent retains comsierab topicality 'b, Passve: The patient is mote topical than the agent, ‘andthe agent i extremely nontopcal (suppressed ‘demoted’ ‘& Antipassive: The agent is more topical than the lent, and the patient is extremely non‘opical (suppessed, “demoted In defining the main pragmatic vois 2s i (), (9), one must keepin ‘mind that those are but the most commonly attested prototypes. AS ‘Thompson (1989) has noted in his work on Navajo, many more-soble voice contrat canbe grammatializd ina particular language, and are infact ‘documented ina least some languages. “One functional dimension often neociated with the inverse is that of ‘obligatory semantic inversion. Since this turns out to be one of the main ‘ypologal dimensions along which diferent type of iverse-voice clases contra, wil be dcased further below (Section 8.3). Defining the pragmatics of voici terms of topicality ofthe agent and patient, and their promotion to or demotion from topicality, raises an ‘gent isue — the structureindependent definition and measurement of topicality. 4. The definition and measurement of topicality 4.1, Anaphortc and cataphori dimensions ‘Two important aspects ofthe topicality of nominal referents are both cognitively significant and methodologically measurable? (@) Ansphorie ccesibilty: Whether the current referent has prior xt antecedence, and if so how far back and how cognitively ‘secesle that aniccendence is () Cataphorie persistence: Whether the current referent recurs in the following text, and if 0 Bow frequently and thus presoma- by how thematically important or attnsionallyaelvated is “Two quantitative text-based measures for assessing the topicality ofw 1. Givin referents have been sed in the studies inthis volume, both adapted from ‘Given ed, 19830; 1991) and Wright and Given (1987). These methods are based on the assumption that more topical, (Whemadcll important) ree~ eats tend to be both more anaphorically accesible (ootinuous}) and nore eafaphorally persistent (veeurrent), Neither measure sess top ‘ality dry. Rather, they measure the referemal contin properties of referent, in two — opposite — textual dictions. Its asumed then that the two measutes shoul correlate with the two respesve cognitive dimen: sions of tpialy 442. Quantitative measores 42.1, Topicaity measures 4, Referental distance “The fist method measures the referential distance (RD) ofthe referent, or its anaphoric gap; thats the oumber of clauses separating its present ‘occurence from i last cecurtence inthe preceding ext, When the corefe- ent sotecedent i found inthe dtclly receding clause, the valve Ti ‘signed, When the antecedents found in dhe second or third cause from the present occurence, the value 23 is asigned. When no antecedent found inthe preceding 3 clauses, the value >3 is assigned, The ress are then expres as the frequen dstibution of these thee RD values in the total population of agents or patients. Mean values forthe whole popula- ton may also be computed. genera, highly copieal referents, such as pronouns or Ze anaphors, tend to have the HD vale of I. Emphatic and topcalized ws, or indepen: dent contrastive pronouns, tend 0 have the RD value of 23 clauses ‘Anaphoricallyless-uccesible referents tend to have the RD value of >3, ‘The diagnostic eutoff point between topical and non-Lopicalrferems is thus ether between the values 1 and 23, or 23 and >3. by. Topic persistence "The sesond measire, of eatephors continuity, i that of tople peris- fence (17), One counts the number of times the referent recurs within the ‘next 10 lauses following its present occurrence. Most commonly, values ‘petween 0 through 10 ate recorded. The results are again expresied a fre= ‘quency cstribution ofthe vasious persistence values the total population ‘of agents or patients. Median values forthe whole population may also be computed, ‘The pragmatics of devranstve voce n ‘The TP measure has proven tobe partially useflin assessing the topicality of referents regardless af anaphoric antecedence (Wright and Givén, 1987). In general, more topical (thematically important) referents tend to have To values above 2. Less topical referents tend to have 1 values of 4.2.2. Frequency dstibutom intext In het study of the four main pragmaticwoice constructions in ‘Chamorro, Cooreman (1982, 1985, 1987) aso established a benchomark for the likly frequency distribution ofthe four main voices i narative text. Her fequenc} counts are reproduced blow, (10) The feequeneydisrbatio of vole cnstrctions in ive lass im Chamorro narrative text (Cooreman, 1987) Voie construction N % active divet or no inverse (in) 14 io sive (me) 38 4 ipasive 6 7 Tost 3 1000 Wiile frequencies vary with text4ype, genre, author and more subtle subsfunetios, the distibitional pete established by Cooreman remarkably table erosslinguistiely, and has been repeatedly validated in ‘other studies (Rude, 1987; Thompson, 1989; Cooreman etal, 1984; Shiba tani 1985, 1988). This distributional profile ean be used asa partial — cor ‘oboratve — diagnostic for telling vice constructions apart. It has been ‘wed successfully to decid» whether a consruction is passive of active rgtive, in languages undergoing a diachronic shit to ergativity. (Coore- ‘man, 1982, 1988; Cooreman etal, 1984; Payne, 1982; Shibatani, 1985, 1958.1 can equally well be used asa parial diagnostic for telling apart a passive from an inverse construction. All oer things being equal, inverse onstruction tend tobe much more frequent intext than passive constr-2 1. Givin 42.3. Frequency of nonanaphorc agent or patent deletion “The thid quantitative diagnostic test for telling apart voice consrue- tions involves the text-requoncy of clauses with @ nonsetering, non- !napori absent (deleted) agent o patient. This diagnostic is particlaly Useful in dferenating the acive-itect fom dhe antpassive via the fre~ ‘quency of non-anaphore patient deletion, or the inverse from the pasive ‘a the frequency of non-anapocc gent defetion. Here again, Cooreman's (4982, 1987) reported frequencies for Chamorro will serve 3s a benchmark, (11) Frequency of nom-anaphori zero agents and patients fn the four voice constructions in Chamorro (Cooreman, 1987) ‘Voice construction __% of zero argument patient actve-ditet 0.0% ‘ntipasive aay agent: inverse (n-) 3.6% sive (me) 0.5% “While not by themselves conclusive, such diferent fequeacies ae very ‘usaful ata diagnostic, and have been validated repeatedly by lator studies {Gee ep, Cooreman etal, 1988; Rude, 1985; Cooreman, 1988; Thompson, 198; this volume). Not only are dey useful, but they are also somewhat redciale on general grounds. The zero expression of relerens curs in Taogusge under two distinct circumstances (@) igh anaphoric predictability () low topicality of non-efereniaiy “The antpassive andthe passive ae both topicality suppressing demotin’) constructions par excellence but they suppress the oppesite arguments — the pation in the antipasive, the agent in the passive. In tems of iconic cong prinsples, the “deletion of non-tpical,non-eferring arguments is the most natal expression of suppression or demotion (Givin, 1988) The pragmatic of desranstve voice 3 Syatacictypologeal correlates of de-transive voice 5.1. Preamble: Subjecthood and the active-direct voice In the unmarked active-dzet voice clause, the topical agent has the highest probability — of al voice contruction —of being the grammatical salpject ofthe clause, This Hs most conspicuous in nominative-accusative languages, where (a) the nominativesubject is 2 grammatically unified centtys and (6) a lage cluster of grammatical propertes are loaded on the ‘nominative NP. Chit among those are the three more overt subject prop ‘erties recognized by Keenan (175) (2) nominal subject ease-marking (8) contol of verb-subject (pronominal) agreement {@) characteristic worhorder postion But other behavioral syntactic properties must abo be recognized, such as (@) eltion under coreference While some subject properis,paticulrty nominal case-marking, are not quite as clearly ustered around a single subject in ergtive-absolutve Tanguages (Diton, 1972, Woodbury, 1975; Andeeion, 196), the excep- ‘ional nature of the ergative subject in so-called “deep egatve” languages had been vastly exaggerated (Cooreman ef al, 1984; Tsunoda, 1986; Cooreman, 198). 5.2. Grammatical relation nthe de-eansive cause 5.2.1. Syntactic demotion [Al other things being equal, one would expect arguments that are pragmatically appressed — the agen inthe pusive, the patient in the Lintpassive — to ako be syntactically demoted. That i, one would expect the agent of the passive tobe demoted from subjecthood, and the patient of ‘the antpasive to be demoted from dzctobjeethood. This indeed tends to be te cat in the vast majontyof passives and anipasives cross-language1 1. Givin 45.2.2. Syntactic promotion What is much less common cross inguitically, it seems, i the con verse case, the syntactic promotion of pragmatically promoted arguments Fist inthe ease ofthe promotion of topical indirect objects, some lan tapes (KinyaRwands, Nez Perce) make them the grammatical direct ‘objet, but others (Hebrew, Sherps, Spanish) donot. And thi is indeed 3 ‘major typological mension in the crowing description of direct objects and dative hfing (Givin, 19840) "Mone germane to our discussion are the two cases of pragmatic prom tion in de-transtive voice — the patient in the passive and inverse. In pas sivization, for example, the pragmatcally promote patint i syntactically promoted to subjecthood in some language (English, Nez Petes, Plains Cree, Koyukon, Chamorro) but notin others (Ute, Spanish se). Tn other languages (Chepang: Thompson, 1989; in this volume; Bella Coola: For res, inthis volume), one finds semi-promotion oft topical patient to su jecthood, along the hierarchic lines suggested by Keenan (1975). Whether the topical non-agent sot not made the grammatieal subject is indoed & major dimension in the cos inguiste typology of passive clauses thas been argued (Dahlstrom, 1986; Thompson, in ths volume) that promotion of the patient to subjecthood could serve as reliable cterion for distinguishing between passive and inverse constructions. This seems (0 te true in Algonquian (Dahlstrom, 1986)" and Athabaskan (Thompson, 1980). But i is cleanly fae for Chamorro (Cooreman, 1987) where the patient in both the passive (ma) and inverse (i) is equally the grammati- fal subject. Nori i tue sn the languages surveyed by Keoaan (1975), ‘where non-agents inthe detransitive cause — hei inverse or passive axe only semi-promoted to subjecthood. Further, an inverse clause can become apassive-voce cause overtime (Forest, this volume). What i more, the very stme dause-type can code box the inverse and passive voice functions (Squamish: Jacobs, in this vol ume; Cebuano: Payne, in this volume: Spanish: Hidalgo, inthis volume). ‘There is thus no reason to assume that universal relational distinction must exist between the pasive voice and the inverse voice, Both can be either promotional or non-promotional, For both, promotionality is a ppologica variable. ‘The pragma of de-transtve voce 1s 5.3. Toward crost-lingistc grammatical typology of averse voice com struction 53.1, Preamble Iti my firm conviction that an exhaustive cros-lingustic typology’ of liversesvoice cliuss i somewhat premature, and this volume does not tempt such an undertaking. Rather, one may consider our work asthe necesary preliminaries fr such atpology, preliminaries in two senses (2) Language independent functional defision [By defining the inverse voice fanetionaly, in 3 langusge-independent and stucture-independent fashion, we ae laying down the foundation fr ‘denfilyng, in say language, the elase-type that performs the invese-oice function. The éason of verse constructions has traditionally sutered {rom a great amount ofboth language speiie parochiaism and sueture- ‘oud cculrty. (©) Typologcal dimensions and range of variability ving defined the inverse voice fencionlly, we now open the door for the cate, in any language of claste-ypes that perform this function. AAS of now, this work is tits very infancy, so that the search for strctul typological variation among functional inverse constructions known to uss yet wide open. For his eason, his dscussioa of the typological dimensions ‘tinverseslauses should be regarded s tentative and exploratory. Twill proceed by ientyig what sem, fo the moment, tobe the Four mia gramimatial dimensions along which the alteady known inverse com structions vary. These ae: (2) Pronomina inverse vs. wordovder inverse (6) Cacesmarking of fll nr arguments a the inverse (6) Semantic (generic) vs. pragmatic contextual’ inverse (@) Promotional ys. non promotional inverse. 5.3.2, Pronomin word-order inverse (onomphotogcal) 53.2.1. Pronomt invesee Im the classical Algonguian voice sjstom described by Dahlstrom (1985), of the two 3rd-person arguments of the semanticaly-transive16 1. Givin louse, agent and patient, the mare topical one i case-marked 26 proxl- tate, andthe fxs topical as oblate. Tn the actvedirect clause, the sent {the proximate and patient the obviate Inthe inverse clause, the patient {the proximate and the agent the obviate. On fll-w arguments, the proxi- ‘mates unmarked! and the obviate morphologically marked In addition, Complex pronominal verbugreement pattern marks the contrast between the atvedrect andthe inverse clause. Thus compare (Dablsrom, 1986) (12) a Direct aysthcnin-ah isto echnipahant awa naypesis Bisckiootomy three kilom-vony this boyRox "The boy [PRox] killed theee Blackfoot (men) [08] b. Inverse ‘stim ersaikhikot —chtaywy-ah wa oskinikiw roch lovenwv/owv- hisatber-owy this young.man/eKox "(For hie father [ony] loved this young man [rRox] too such When the agent andioe patient are ero anaphors, the same ontrast is signalled by the verbol pronominsl-ageeemeat patter alone: (3) a iret say tlbww/s-08y “He [ono] sid to him [ons] Inverse say.tolewionys| “HR (ony said to him [oxy According to Dahlstrom (1986), the agen isthe grammatical subject in both the astiveditect and te inverse cause, ad the inverse verb remains sctive-transive, In contrast inthe passive Cause, which is agentes, the topical, proximate patient the grammatical subject. It controls proximate ‘ropominal agreement on the verb, and the verb itself is marked 3s Aerivedsintanstve: (14) Passive: fava nipesis cckwauw oskinikiw —— mawithkartarwak this boyox and) this young man/rwox mourniPass-/ PROX “This boyfeRos] and this young man [RON] ae being mourned The propmais of de-ransitve voice n ‘A more purely pronominal dretiverse system i son in Athabas lan, where the contrast occurs only when the paient-object is anaphoric. Inthe setivedirect clause, the proximate agent pronoun is zerosmarked fn the verb, and the obviate patient pronoun is ye. In the inverse clase, the proximate patient pronoun is be- and the pronominal agents then the obviate ye- With 3edipecion arguments in Koyukon, the contrast (Thompson, 1989) (15) a, Diest yen-an Sony rine ans see "He nox] is looking at her [oov Inverse Ddeye-nitan SIRROX-VoRV-THN-TRANSSee “He [ony] is looking at her [exoxT In both the active-noct and the inverse the same trasiiv petix marks the ver, Inthe passive clause in Koyokon, no overt 3d-person agreement on the verb é shown for either argument. One may acgve, however, that this the same nominative agreement pattern of 3ed-person subjects of both Intransitve clause and the actve-ditect clause (ee (18a) above). The pas sive veri coded by the intransitive prefix (16) Passive stk'an "She [NOM] was seen? 53.2.2, Word-order inverse (One clase-type that has hitherto never been considered an inverse i ‘istnguished from the active direst purely by word order. In such a clase, the more-topical non-agent argument is made ‘proximate’ by pacing it ina more fronted poston, thus preceding the lesstopcal agent. This hes the fect of post posing the lss-tpical gent, thus rendering it ‘obviate The wword-order contrast between the aciveditect and inverse is therefore rendered as: ctvediesti AGENT (..) PATIENT Inverse: PATIENT (:.) AGENT18 Givin ‘Wori-onder inverse clauses have been described traitionaly as com trastinetopi, Y-movement, or L-dslecation clauses (Givén, 1990, Ch. 16) From the perspective adopted her, itcan be shown that the functional characteris of these abject-topicalirng clauses are the same as those of Siother types of inverse clauses: They all topiealze on-agentaegumen's ‘They involve, equally, the sime broad range of topieshiting and switche reference in discourse. And they donot involve a drastic pragmatic dema- ton of the agent. There i ao principe d reason for not attaching to these ‘constuction thei righttl functional label. ‘Sever papers in this volume desrie word-order inverses, In all of them — Modem Greek, Korean, Chepang, Massa, Cebuano — the agent and paiet soem to retain the same grammatical ease roles — subject and fbjet, respectively — as in the active dzect clause. These word-order iaverses are, in other words, non promotional inverse’, and thus conform to the pattern described in both Algonquian (Dahistrom, 1986) and ‘Athahuskan (Thompson 1989, 1992). However they are not pronominal inverss, and in this sense are rather diffrent from the Algonquian! [Atbabsckan ype ‘We have sready noted that inverse clauses may'be either promotions oe non-promotional. Since the five word-orderiaverss described inthis tolume are all now-promational (and non-pronominal), one tempted to Penta one-way conditional association hetween wordordorinveres and promotional and pronominaliy: “If woré-order inverse, thea also non Promotional and aon-pronominal inverse”. However, as we shall ccc further below, neither association i necessary. [AS an eximple ofa typical word-order inverse construction, consider the objecttonting clause in Early Biblical Hebrew. in all other object- topicalzng lauses in the language, the subject inthis clause is pos posed, precipitating the characteristic Ovs order of the inverse. The variant word: order never oscrs in the unmarked preterit claus, the most common acctactve clause type in narrative. Word-order in preterit clauses is variably vo (for details see Givén, 199) (17) Activedirect (preter, v0) vayerarex ——‘elohim 'etnoah —ve-et-banaw andaso-blew/eer God ACC-Noah and Accson his ‘Sand God blesed Nosh and his sons.” (Genesis, 91) “The word-onde inverse in emt requires the perfect spec. This maybe ‘The progmais of detransve voce » ‘cen in the passage in (18) below, where in the preteitmarked (188) the Subject-agent topical proximate’), while inthe perfectmarked (186) fd (8) a non-agenabjest is topicalized (mae proximate’) (8) a. vayinmt “elohim ‘etha“adam sndsso uasc-reatener God accthem: be-talmo, indmage-his ‘rand God creatod the man in bis image, . bedselem “loki bara! “oto, vimage/Oe God ereale/RERY/SGMASC ACChim God's image he created him, ©. axat venoqeva bart ‘otam, ‘male ané-female ereate/rrny/ascMase Ace-tem sale and female he eeated them’. (Gen. 127) In the perfect marked active direct clase with a topical proximate’) sgensubjedt, the unmarked wordorder is s¥0. The ovs-ordered inverse now contrasts with that unmarked order (19) a Direct (perfect, 50): veha"edam yada” veottava andihe-man knew/erar/samase accEve “And Adam knew Eve" (Gea. 4.1) b. Inverse; fronted dcect-object (peetect, ov): Ihamesh "estey ‘ama givr-ucmayin five tence arm. rose-they the-watereL “te water rove fiteen arms fmeasure).”” (Gen. 7.20) Inverse; fronted indiect-objct (perfec, 0¥5) ‘etha-elohim hithalexNoab. withthe-God walked-he Nosh "Noah walked together with God. (Gen. 69) 4. Inverse; fronted adverb (perfect, 0¥9) bere'shit bars” ‘elohim “s-ha-shamayim Insdegianing created-he God Acc-thesheaven ‘inthe beginning God created the hesven..” (Gea. 1.1) ‘Characteristic, the svo-ordered acive-irec (18a) is paragraph inal, ‘while all the topic switching ov) inverses (198, , d) ze paragraph medial» T. Givin ‘The double word order adjustment — fronted non-agent, postposed agent is characteristic of Vo languages with exible abject position, such as Spanish, Casial Arabic, Modern Greek, and many Bante lnguages.* ‘5.3.3, FAlLNP case marking inthe inverse clause [As noted eatier above, the purely pronominal inverse clause in Ahubaskan involves no case-mathng of the proximate or obviate falls, (On the other hand, in Algonquisn full ebviate —in both the direct an inverse clause — 18 morphologically marked, The proximate se, on the other hand, i unmasked in both causes. Thus reall (Dahlstrom, 1986): (2) a Direet, ayaiciniwah nisto chnipaha.t awa napesis Blackfootonw three killioievoR’ this boyieRox “The boy [rRox] killed three Blackfoot (men) [o8y] Inverse ‘osime-sa.khikot obta.wiyah wa. o.kini. iw ‘och loveisvlony:shis/father-onv this young. manveRox ‘For) his father [on] loved this young man [P20x] 100 sucht (Other types of flr case-markng are also posible. Sshaptin, for ‘example, has two oblique obviat-agent suties, one for the semantic Cobligatory’) vere, the other forthe peagmatic (textual) inverse, asin (de, 198, 1991, in his volume; (20) a Activerect: win inshan-a yamash(na) ran VNowsce-iPev-rast mule deer-00)) "The man [PROX] saw athe mule-der [o9¥ Semantic inverse: alinushossh——dwinsh-ncim WNoWseesneey-1sc maN-OwW "The man 0a} sees me [PROX] © Pagmatl inverse wishin péq'ineshana— yéamast-na smanon¥ INV-sce-RFV-rASt mule.deer-on) “The man [Ons] sae the mulesdeer[rRox The pragmatis of detransitve voce a ‘The obviate sult «in ofthe pragmatic inverse (2) is the assoiaie sui “with, asin (Ruse, 1991) (@1) pe-viyénawi-ya —Ulaaki_miyénastin SrUNosecame-asr woman child-Ass0e "The woman cane with (her hid? “The obvite sufi um ofthe semantic inverse, on the other hand, appar cally comes from the so-called ‘hither’ (eis locate’, motion toward the Speaker) verb sufi, asin (228) below (Rude, 199): 22) a winsek goin “Val go (away from here)? b.winasmtk g0-cs-i “Yall come (this way) ‘One may aswell note that an oblique ease-marking of the non-‘opiea} (obviate) agent in he de-transiive clause, with the orignal meaning "fom, ‘with, “by, through, "because of oF even the genitive ‘of, i a ‘common marking pattem io both passive and inverse clauses, Thus, both “Jacobs (in this volume for Squamish) and Forres (inthis volume or Bella ‘Cools) note an oblique obviate prefix preceding the determiner onthe on- topical obviate agent in the de-tranitive clause, in two closely slated Sil languages. But the Squamish de-ranstive cause functionally an inverse, while Its etymological equivalent ia Bella Cota is functionally a prssive. Similarly, in the non-promotionl do-ansitve clause in Nepali, the non-topcal obviate agent if matked with the oblgue postpsitin be cause (Givin, 190: ch. 14)" (3) a Aetvesiee: Omide Mayetay: marin Omi-eRc Maya-ons killrastsse ret ‘Oni killed Mays? b. Detranstive: Omidvara Mayaay martyo Omicbecause Mayans kilbrass/i-rast 96 MASC “Mays was killed by Oni? Inthe direct active (232) the proximate agent controls verb agreement. In2 T. Givin the de-trastive (230) ver agreement acutralizes nto the 3r-person-mas- caine ‘53d, Semantic vs. pragmatic inverse Inthe clascal Algonquian inverse doseribed by Dabstom (1986), the irct vs, inverse variation described thus far was that of te ‘optional ‘pragmatic inverse, with Sréperson agents and patients. The choice ofthe Inverse a. rect clause inthis system s coatelled by the relative topicality ‘ofthe two participants in the discourse, When the ageat is more topical, it ‘hims the proximate casezle, the patent clams the obviate casero, and the clause fr marked as acivedtect. When the patient is more topical, the case-oles reverse and the clause i the inverse Tn Algonauian and other languages, the very sime inverse clause aso tas another, seemingly obligatory use, one that onthe surface oft ves to be controled ty semantic factor know asthe generic topic hirareies. The hierarchies are indeed familar, and in general cam be given as (24) The genel opi herarchis: a. Discourse partcpation: speaker > hearer > 3d-petson bAnimacy ‘human > animate > inanimate ©. Agent: agent > dative > patient Gender tale > female © Age! salt > child 1 Sie large > smal Possession: postesor > possesed b Defiiteness: Aefnte > indefinite ‘Anaphority: pronoun > fli “Those hlcrarchioe set up a preference, so that the higher an event partic pot i om the hierarchy, the more it ikely tobe the topic — and gram Iatcl subject — ofthe unmarked atve-ivect clause. This is statistically ‘ruc for all human languages (se discussion in Givén,{984a, Ch 4 5). ‘What i nigue to languages that have an obligatory semantic inverse (Cyrammaticlzed inverse’) that some sub-set ofthe generic topic hierar his (24) alo controls an obligatory we ofthe inverse. When the agent ‘vt-anks the patent oa the hierarchy, the active direct cause is used. But when the patient outranks the agent, the inverse clause is obligatonly tied." One can, of course, detect a fancéamental unity ip the use ofthe The pragmatics of de-transtiv voice 2 semantic and pragmatic inverse in a language tht wits both fuetions in the very same construction. What isa sue fs norm reversal vive the expected relative topicality of event participants. The pragmatic inverse Involves norm reversal inthe feature of agentvty (24). While the oblige tory semantic inverse involves norm reversal in the other features. This ‘nity maybe given as follows (25) Use ofthe inverse clause in contents of norm reves 8. Pragati inverse: "tthe agent is more topical than the patient (ct. norm (24), the direct-actve clause i wed. If norm (ie) reversed and the patent more topical, the inverse claus suse” b. Semantic inverse: “tf the agent outranks the patent on the selevant genetic top hierarchy (ef, norms (22a,b), the Airoetactive cause is twed, TE the relevant norm is reversed and the patient outrans the agent on the relevant hierarchy, the inverse dause I used” ‘The exact detals of which hicrarchy or hierarchies in (28) exerts control ‘over semantic inversion, and how conflicts betweon different hierarchies are resolved, ate highly language specific. n general the pragmatic nvr. sion rte (252) applies only whea both patcpants ae thd persons ‘A cursory suvey of even the few inverse consruction already known o.us makes i fanly clear that the existence of semantic gener inversion ‘ould not be criteria for determining whether a claus-ype sor is not an Inverse, but rather is a typological variable long which inverse clauses verge. Thus, for example, the Algonguian (Dahistiom, 1986) 2nd ‘Chamorro (Cooreman, 1985, 1987) inverses unite both pragmatic (25a) and semantic (250) inversion. In Maasai (Payne eral, in this volume) Sahapin (Rude, inthis volume), the tWo functions are caried out by Wo Separate constructions. Thus, compare the two consrtions in Sahapin (ude, 1999, 1991, inthis volume): 25) a, Semantic ebligatory’ inverse: ayinusha-ash dinshenim Yhowesee-DMFFvne ma-OBV “the man [oBv] sees me fox)A Givin Pragmatic contextual) inverse: kuvpa'ina peiimyam_plygpdn and tNv-telPast Wil.cat-ony elder. brother-o8y "Aa the elder other [o3v] tld the wild cat nox) In Bella Coola (Forest, inthis volume) an erstwhile inverse constras- tion, to judge by surviving vestiges of semantic inversion, is smchronicaly rin terms of pragmatic faetion —a passive voice constuction, Whi in Squamish (neds, inthis wohume) the cognate construction, with simile ‘estgcs of semantic inversion, functions a the inverse woe and perhaps tho asthe pssve voice. In the same vein, Gildea (inthis volume) shows that an erstwhile inverse cause may preserve the feature of semantic inverse inspite of having become fuptonaly neither an inverse no a pas: tive, but pethaps an active-iret clause. Finally, none of the pragmatic tword order inverse serveyed inthis volume — Modem Greek, Kore ‘Chepang, Maasai, Cebuano — show any trace of obligatory semanticinver- ‘one is thus justified in considering obligatory semantic inversion as ‘one — important but not citeral — typological dimension along which inverse clauses may vary, That the association between pragmatic and Semantic inversion i ot arbitrary goes without saying, given the topicality related nature ofthe hierarchies in 2). 5.35. Promotional vs. won promotional inverse Just ke the passive, a inverse else can he either promotional or ron-promational, Titi, st may oF may not involve profound changes in rammatical relations: (@) Promotion ofthe topical proximate-patient to subjecthood {0} emotion ofthe nos-topicalobviate-gent from subjethood ‘Asnoted calor above, the topical proximate patient of inverse clases in both Algonquian (Datlstrom, 1986) and Athabaskan (Thompson, 1989, in ths volume) is ot promoted to grtmmatcal subjecthood "On the other hand, the topical proximate patient inthe Chamorto inverse is 8 much {grammatical subject ai the topical patent ofthe maspassive (Coore- rman, 1988, 1987. ‘Of even more interest i the phenomenon of patil promotion, «al code primal via the two developmental processes of grammaticaliza- tion — language learning nd diachronic change. tn this section I wil out. line some of the more salient diachronic aspects of he inverse 6.2, From word-order inverse to promomsinal Inverse [A major typological contrast noted above was hetween wordorder invests (Bilial Hebrew, Chepang, Modem Greek, Korean, Massa, ‘Cebvano) and primarily pronominal (morphologca)inverses (Igor ‘quan, Athhaskan, Squamish/Bells Coola, Kuteal, Sahaptin). This dis- Tinton i aot absolute: The two features are often asecated. For exam le, the pronominal inverse of Squamish (Jacobs, in this volume) and pass ‘See of Bella Colla (Forest, inthis volume) both involve post-posing the ‘obviate, abligue-marked agent, thus the VOS word-onder. This contrasts ‘with the unmarked VSO order ofthe activeaieet clause. Further, given the largely pragmaticaly-determined wonk-order of Algonquian (see Rhodes and Tomlin, 1992), one suspeets that proximate Fllxr patients in the inverse more often then aot pocede obviate flln? agents» One is thus tempted to sugest that the cong of relative topiealiy of the agent tnd. patent by word-order i typologieily the more wide-spread (un- marked’ feature ofthe pragmatic fnverse-voice case, while pronominal% T. Givin ‘morphological marking is the more restricted (marked) one. ‘What I would lke to show here is tht there is a dhchronic pathway ‘hat links the two inverse types, so that —at least under some couitions — what hopin a an objest-opicalizing word.otder inverse can give nse to pronominal morphological inverse. To ilustate this potential, T ill cite the objectiopielicing causes of two Bante languages. I think there i ‘enough evidence sogscsting that this major grammaticaization path- wy. ‘Consider first the development of tho de-tansitve — either passive or inverse — clause in Kimbunds rom a blend of object L-isocaion with an impersonal-sjoct 25) a 1b. Amaphori o impersonal plural subject: femono Nau theysaw John (0) "They saw oh’ (anaphoric) (i) “ohn was sen’ (impersonal) Leditocation: Naas, John | “Jo, the eldren saw ha 4. Ledlsocation with anaphoric or impersonal subject: Naua, s-me-mone) John they him saw ) “lob, they saw him" (anaphoric) {) ‘ohn, he was sen’ (impersonal subject) fe Dectranstive: [Nawaseo-mono (ova meme) John they himsaw (by me) “Soh was seea (by meY" 1. Dectranstive: meme arghmono (ova News) 1 theyrmesaw (by Jot) “Twas sen (by Joho” The pragmatics of de-ransive voice a Strcturlly, the Kimbunds de-transtve clause resembles the Sahaptin pragmatic inverse (Rude in thi vous) 40 W39s: “@) a frozen rele ofthe impersonal they’ occupies the characteristic subject pronoun pretixal slot on te ver; (©) the lesetopical Cabviate) agent takes an oblique case. However, dus tothe L-dslocation origin of the Kimbundu construction, i fers fom the Sahaptin inverse io tha: {@)_the more topical (prorimate’) occupies the elase-inital subject position (Kimbunda i a igidsvo language); and (@) fhe more topical proximate’) patent controls 2 new set of pro- ‘nominal subject agreement — what used to be the object agree- rent se athe active-direct clase ‘We thus seein Kimband the rise ofa distinct pronominal agreement for ‘the subjewtopic ofthe de-trasive — peshaps inverse — clause. Pot nother way,» wond-order inverse hat given rise to a pronominal-mor- ologial inverse ‘Consider neXt the contrastve topic construction (Y-movement’) ia Deamba, another rigid-svo Bantu language. This object-topializing con- struction distin fom L-dsocation displays two word-orderadjostments reltive tothe diectactive so: (@) The mor topical (proximate) patenlohjct fronted () he les topical obviate’) ageasubjee is post posed In adition, the construction also displays two morphological adjustments relative othe direct active clause: (©) Subject agreement is climinated and {@) the proximate object now controls object agreement. ‘Thus (following Bokamba, 1971 1976) (25) a Activedieet: Pow stomaki — mukanda Dee Pose he-send-rasr letter “Poso sent later 1b Astive-irect,anaphort object pronoun: oPos9 aamncomaki DarPoso. hedtsend-rast “Pogo seni (i= the Letter)© Object topialzation (inverse 08): inmukanda me-tonaki 0 Poso Durletter Iesend-PAst DEF-Poso (@) ‘The Lewer Poso sent (a3) (Gi) “The leer was sent by Pos! 4. “imakands. asme-tom-akio-Poso Debletter hedtsend-rast DEr-Poso *hmukanda o-Poso —mu-tomaki DeFleter DePoso iesend-Past 1, Location (osv): mukandao-Poso s-me-ton-aki DeFletcr DEF-Poso he-t-send-rast "The ltr, Poso sem if (Once again, an object-topicalizing clause — a wordorde inverse — has yielded a d-transitive inverse clause in which the proximate patintobjcet contol pronominal agreement pater tha! is distinc from the agenlsuh- ject agreement ofthe active direct lao, ‘The implications of the change described above are profound: Word order iaveses are, to judge by all the evidence avallable to us thus far, purely pragmatic inverse clauses. On the other hand, all semantic inverses nov to us are pronominal-morphological It tarns out thatthe major ‘eave forthe dachronic se of pronominal morphological avers clause is ftom stile wordorderinverses, chen a strong inference is vitally bee is here — that semantic verses ten to arte fom pragmatic ones. 63. From progmatie to semantic verse ‘The distribution of iaverses known tous thus fr reveals the flowing sociation or distociation between pragmatic vs. semantic inversion and \word-oder vs. pronominal inversion inthe various languages in ou sample (@9) Typology of inverse cams: (A) Porely pragmatic inverse cause (Purely wort-order inverse (Chepang, Modern Greek, Korcen, Biblical Hebrew, (Cebuano, Maasai-1) (W) Mixed word-order and pronominal inverse (Kimbends, Dramba; probably Sahapin ‘The prog of desransve voce 2 (Gi), Purely pronominal morphological inverse (Koyukon) (B) Shared pragmatie-semantle inverse clause (ie) Purely wordorde inverse (none) (2) Mixed word-orderané pronominal inverse (Chamoro am, Squamish, Bella Cools, probably Pains Cree)> (i) Purely pronominal morphological averse (Kuteni?) (©) Parely semantle inverse clause (i) Purely word-oeder inverse (one) (vit) Mixed word-order and pronominal inverse (Sshaptin) (Gs). Porely pronomiaal-morphologica inverse (Maasai, Tup-Guarani) In the preseding section it was suggested that word-order inversion precedes — and gives rise to— pronominal morphological inversion, Since ll wort-orderinverss known © us are purely pragmatic, the inference i ‘Heong that pragmatic iverson i the dlachronically-cary, gener ‘marked') phenomenon, and that semantic jverson is the more special {marked sob-phenomenca within it. This is supported by the absence of logically-possble inverse types (Bi) and (Cri). However, if this hypothesis to prevail, the existence of the purey-semanti, purely pro- ‘nominal iverses of ype (Cx) in Mansa and varios Tupi-Guarant lan- {guages (D. Payne, 1990; se further below) most be nterpreted aka vest {al survival ofan erstwhile mixed semantic pragmatic inverse ‘The dtchronie pathways connecting the various inverse types in (29) is proposed a the following hypothesis:» I. Givon (30) Diachrone pathways connecting the mata inverse types: Pragmatic word-order inverse (A) 4 Pragmatic word-order and pronominsl inverse (Ai) t Pragmatic pronominal Mixed pragmatc-semantc inverse (Asi) \wotd-order and pronominal invere (B-») y t Mined praginaticsemantic _Purly-semanticword-order & pronominal averse (Bi) pronominal inverse (Covi) 4 v Purely-semantie pronominal inverse (Cin) “Three diachronic changes in aypotheis (3) requires more expt jus ication (@) The los of word-ordr flexi, ye inverse types (As) and (Ci). (©) The change fom apurely-pragimatic toa mixed pragmatieseman tie inverse, yeding types (¥) and (Bi), (©) The change from a mixed peagmaticsemantc inverse of types (B- ‘and (Bei) to the purely semantic inverses of spes (Covi) and (Cian), respectively 1 wil ake these three changes inorder. 1 puely-pronominal () Loss of word-order lexibilty ‘There ie nothing ere tht i unique to everson. Languages with The prosmatics of de-vanstve voce 31 ‘matcally-controle, fly or partly exible word-rder have been shown, to rigidity or regiily ther word-oeder (See Given, 1977, 1979 (Ch. 7), 1983, 1988). A language with an inverse type (Aci) may undergo word ‘order riidification, losing the word-order diference between the diect- five and inverse, but retaining the morphological difference, with a purely pronominal inverse type (Aci). And in the same vein (Ci) may eld (Cn), (©) The ise of obligatory semantic inversion A sory wellknown principle of grammatclizaton is here at play, the ‘one that may be gven as one ofthe following observations (sce Given, 1979, Ch. 5; Du Bows, 1985; Langacker, 1987: “A high frequency pragmatically controlled behavior can easily ‘be grammticalzed as a8 obligatory ‘Semantic’ rule™ Languages grammatialize most explicitly What speakers do most frequently” *Semanis i rammaticalid or frozen pragmatics" “The generic’ nature of the topic hierarchies in (24 is ea ina very se tine sense — they represent the frequency or elihood of topcalizaton in ‘scourse, When a language has a purely pragmatic inverse, coded either ‘word-order (Moder Greek) or by pronominal morphology (Koyukon the frequensy ofthe ranking member in hierarchies (24a) being the topical participant in the directactive clause — when they occur in such causes — 's very high. Speaker and hearer participants consientlyout-rank third ‘emon participants. Definite outank indefinite, anaphoric pronouns out- Tank ful St, posesorsoutrank possesed ws, ce. These fats of text fre ‘quency represents the monn, relive 10 Which inversion is used as coumter- orm. Semantic iversion is simply an extension — or rigdifiestion — of the general principle of norme-reveral already extant in pragmatic inv: ‘Son, Presumably, thi i slow process whereby the high fequency-assoce sion between the pragmatic featur of tpicaty and the various semantic features in (24) results in re-interpreting high lequency as an obligatory rule (©) Las (and re-emergence) of pragmatic inversion (Once « mixed fencion pragmatiesemantic inverse clause is in place, there are good reasons why ite communicative eflscy ab a pragmatic2 1 Givén inverse should dlnnish. The rules of obligatory semantic inversion apply sutomatialy — even incase that go agaist the pragmatics of discourse topicality ln such Greumstances, the rise of anew putely pragmatic inverse constriction rast a matter of time, asin evident in Maas (Payne etal, in this volume) and perhaps Sahapsin (Rude, inthis volume). In both lan- ‘ages, pronominal purely semantic inverse exists. What must have been ‘ded isa pucely-pagmaticiverse construction. In Maasai, hiss purely a ‘word-order inverse, no doubt representing the early stage of development (ype Ac). In Sahaptin this purey-pragmatie construction is « word-order ‘sm pronominal inverse, represeatng the dachronic stage of type (Ci, ‘Within the framework of hypothesis (30), the Tup-Guarant case — ‘ype (Cit with a single putely-pronominal,putly-semantic inverse clase ‘may represent 2 language just prior tothe re-emergence ofa new prag- smatc averse. More likely, I think, Typi-Guarant is simply another lan- {ruge soup where linguists have not yet come around to identify the word frder devise that performs the pragmatic inverse function, and cali by es righ name, (6, From inverse to exgative 1 hes boon taken for granted in many past studies (Chung, 1977; ‘Anderson, 1977; inter alia) that one way engative clauses aise is fom re- analysis of ertwle passive clauses. Given th fact that pasive clauses are ‘overwhelmingly agent suppresing ad agent deleting. this source for exgatvity Seems puzzling. Rather, it seems more likely that the de-rans five construction tat can give rise to an atve-rgative clause isan inverse, which is typiesly agent preserving —not ny old inverse, but probably an [averse clause with an obliquesmarked obviate agent. Sahaptin — and Safaptian —sindeed a ease in point. As Rode (1988, 160, 1991) has suggested, the Nez Perce ergtive enue comes from pre. citly such wouree: Tho Nez Perce ergatve-w suffix nim i cognate with the obviat-agent suit -nim of the semantic inverse ase of Sahaptin, ‘Thus compare the Nez Perce ergative clause with the Sahaptin semantic inverse (Rid, 1988, 1989) (G1) 8. Rgative dause (Nexperee): worikiyene pée-wiye Mamiam clon) ta/mRassshot min-axe “The man shot the ek” The pragma of detransitve voice 3 1b. Semantic inverse clause (Sahaptin) ieakinéna-ach osha spoxtsontasese man-oRY "The man [ony] shot me [xox] In the same vein, the ergative-transive verh prefix pée in Nez Perce (et. Gta) shove) is cognate with the pd prefix ofthe pragmatic — and some semantic inverse in Sahaptin (Rude, 1988, 1991) (2) Pragmatic averse (Sshaptin): kupeina peimyen piyspin and ev‘elbrasy Wild.ca-oR) elder Brother ASs0C ‘And the eer brother [os] told the wid eat fox) Semantic inverse(Sahaptin) pgm the-eam "You see me Probably the clinching argument forthe universality ofthe diachronic pathway inveretoerptive isthe existence of the very same obligetory Semantic restrictions om erative causes in many split-ergutive languages those found in semantic imeerse clauses (Section $3.41). This bas been eserined most succintly by Sivertcin (1976) and Dixon (1977) (03) Hlerarc of features in erative languages Participants: Ist person > 2nd person > Sed person Anaphoriiy: pronoun > fll NP Definiteness: definite > indice Individoation: singular > plural “The resection on the choie of an ergtive vs, nominative morphology for the semantially-transtive clause in Atstalan languages ae oughly 35 lowe the ageat i hgh on the hierarchies in (33), use nominative morphology. If the agent ilow onthe hierarchies — and thus futrankod by th patent use ergative morphology” [As noted chewhere (Givén, 198: 159-61), these restrictions make litle synchronic sense for an actvedecet ergatve cause in which the agent isthe more topical — proximate — argament. They make perfect ‘ens, however, fora de transitive inverse-woie clase in which the patient futranks the agent, Ifthe ergative clause in Australian languages arosePa 1 Givin ‘om the eachronic re-analysis of an inverse, we have ere the frozen ves: tige of obligatory semantic inversion, ‘A salar situation can be seen i Indonesian, where an jnverse-to- ruative sft i stil ongoing, The, Chung (1976) reports that the Indone Sinn dimarked “passive” — an agent preserving construction that performs bth the ergativeactive and inverse voice functions (see Rafferty, 184, ‘Versa, 19838, 1983b, 1955: Kaswant Purwo, 1988) — cannot be used if the agent sa 12nd person. In other words, an agent must be low-ranking Telative tothe patient on the semantic hierarchy (24a)/(33a) inorder forthe td-marked cause to be uted. This ie again a stange synchronic restriction for an ergative cause, but it perfectly good releetion of obligatory semantic inversion Finally, the 'goa-fous clause in Philippine languages, an activeergae tive and invers-voie functional mx (T. Payne, ia this volume: Brainard, in ehis volume), shows atleast one vestige of obligatory semantic iverson, ‘when the patient outranks the agent on the hierarchy of dfiniteness (3) ‘Semantially canst causes with an indefinite patent retain the “actor focus” form, Those with a defiaite patient must obligatory take the “poal> facus” conszuction, which sil pesforms the pragmatic fverse function, 65, Promotional vs. non-promotional inverses and the ise ‘of obviate agent marking Inverse clauses arse diachronically from other fonctionllyeated comiruetions. Some are erstwhile passes, either promotional or non- ‘promotional, And the grammatical featres othe passive may simply carry fver onto an inverse cause. Ths, for example, Jacobs (in his volume) has Sogpsted that the Squamish de-transive clause may perform both inverse land pasive voice Knctions, And a snilrSuggestion hasbeen made for the Spaish ne-passve, where the clause with an obigue-marked agent SF may fnction at an iaverse voice (Hidalgo, in this volume). Ian agen-presers: ing passive clause with an obiquesmarked agent alo assumes the function of inverse woe, the oblique case masking of the agentof passive now ‘Becomes the obviate-agent marking nthe inverse, ‘Rade (in this volume) suggests that the pa- prefix of the Sahapin inverse ver traces back tothe pleral pronoun po, which in the absence of ‘any other person marking functions asthe tid person plural the’, as in (de, n this volume): ‘The pragmatics of de tranve voice 35 (38) a. Intramstive: uk po-winana then SPL/NOM 90-7457 "Then they went” 1b, Semantic inverse: ‘v-nash pacysha qinwtyaw NEGISG SPLUNOME-WARE-INETY See-NOMEALL “Tey Now] don't want me [RON] to see” ‘The fact thatthe proximate patent ofthe Sahaptin inverse does ot control subject agreement, and tht it ako resin the drec-objec (topic object) case-marking, canbe interpreted asa dachrone eli of the gram- ‘mancal properties of an agent-deleting impersoaal pasive clause. When xed as pastive voice, such a cause fends 10 be non-promotenal But with some diachronic reshaping, an erstwhile agentes passive can function as fm agent preserving inverse clase. All date reguted ithe addition ofan ‘blque-marked — obviate — agent. In Sahaptin this oblique ease-marking ‘was the associate, asin (Rude, inthis volume): 5) ku paring pevimyem piggp-in and INV-iclLPAst wildcutony eldet-brother-assoc "And the elder brother [oo] told the wild eat [nox] (6.6, From nominalized clans to x pronominal D. Payne (1990), in her description of the Tupi-Guaran inverse, has suggested another potential dlachronic source for a pronominal mor: phological inverse. Briefly, in Tupi-Guarant languages two sets of pronom- inal verb:prefixes are used in semantcally-transitive clauses. Both types agree with the agent. Set I pronouns are used in the drect-active clase, Where the agent is more topical ado volatio ofthe semantic hieraechy "speaker > hearer > 3rd person” (ef, (24/328) occurs. Set I pronouns reused in the semantic inverse clase, which also marked with the pretix (D- Payne, 1990) 6) 4. Directranstive I pri) sesak ihe ISe/bsce ss0/N0M “Tpwox} sa him fowyyPa Givin b. Semantic inverse (Ht pets: heresak ae ISo/ILIN see SoM “He (0B saw me [rnox} In some Tup-Guarani languages, an active-stative distinction is aso ‘observed, and state intransitive predicates obligatoriy require set — inverse — pronouns, asin (Guaajara; D. Payne, 1990) (31) 8. nteanstiveative prefs): wa enoUong re20 ae wi ‘oh Migather zezu ISOM PL “Oh, the Zezu gathered” 1. Iatransivestative (pref) herurywete ihe A86/Mlae-happy !sGlNoM Tam bapoy" Tn auton tothe intriguing and perhaps ciachronically significant con- section with an aetivesttive contrast.” Payne also notes thatthe very Same semanterinverse morphology i wed in many Tupi-Guaran tan- [ages fo mark the posses prowoua on the posesed noun. The fllow- Ing Waytmpi clause exemplifies both uses (Payne, 19) 68) enaty-pe ekepe eruwy Isolln-cover coum, 186/Mslepin Is6/Ib- blood ‘My blood [ey] completely covered me (rnox] in my seep” _As noted eater above, #nominalized clase ean give rise toa de-transtive psive clase. The Tui-Guaran distibution suggests that a pronominally- Inarked semantic inverse may have arisen ffom a nominalied elause. tn Sch clauses, ypically, the agent is coded a the possessor ofthe verb. tn this way, a srce of erewhle possessor pronouns may have given rte Jveree pronominal series (6.1. Brom inverse to pusive and from passive to inverse ‘Two papers inthis wolume (Forrest for BeUia Coola and Hidalgo for Spanish) suggest that both directions of change are possible. In the case of Bella Coola, the presence of residual semantic inversion as well a the The pragmatics of deans voce a comparative Sash evidence (ce Jacobs’ papet oa Squamish) storey Segget thatthe detrarive clause now functioning a passe in Bella Cola was cara semantiumpragmati inverse las. nthe case of Span te promotional serpasve can he uot with a oblique agen, although the frequency of uch unige is low. However, the functional die {nbn ofthe agetnetuding serpusive cause resem thal of rae tnatcinverse, The exitnce of diachronic fanconl stn bth directions ‘inlores one's view tht dein ihe psi” overs’ by tutu tea isnot a ery bell procedure 7. tm this volume “The 11 studies assembled inthis volume are divide, long typological fines, nto those that deal with primanily morphological pronominal fnverses and those that deal with primarily word-order inverse ‘Chad Thompson's lea pape i typoloyclly the broadest. It covers two nor-promodional pronominal inverse —~ Koyukon (Athabaskan) and Pains Cree (Algonguizn) andthe now promotional wordorder inverse of ‘Cheung (and othe Tibeto-Burman languages), sugzestng some grammt- {eal porters that may distinguish inverse fem passive clauses. ‘Matthew Dryers study of the Kult jverse follows with detailed ‘unctionat analysis his ear grammatical descriptions (Dryer 1991, 1992. Katena has a pronominsl-morphological,semantie-peagmaie inverse, with ‘oth verb afination snd marked fll-wr cbvite agent. Dryer’ std 50 ‘aces the use ofthe inverse in narative topic chai and swatch reference, 'fenctona letmotif ofboth pronominal and word-order inverse. Teter Jacob’ study of Squamsh, 2 morphologicaly-ergave ¥50 lan age, entities the Squamish de-transiive clause a8 tunetionally @ pro- rominalcum-word-order pragmatic inverse, with a residue of semantic aversion, The possiblity raised thatthe same de-transve construction also covers the passive voce function. Linda Forrest investigates the sime de-tansiive clause in a elated Salish Tenguage, Bella Cools, and identifies @ as fanctionally an agent sdemoting passive, inspite ofa clear residue of semantic inversion. "Noel Rude descbes the morphological-pronomina inverse and vice ‘of Sahaptin,« Sahapcian language wih itiguing diachronic com ot38 T.Givin rnceton to Nez Perce, Klanath, an perhaps even Coos and Salish. Three Parialy distinc morphologial-pronominal inverse constructions are ‘esrb, two semantic, the third pragmatic. Raquel Hialgo desribes tho functional distribution of several de- ransitve voice constructions in Modern Spanish. One of those, a promo- tional passive with an oblique agen, Iuens out To functionally resemble a pragmatic inverse ‘Spike Gildea deals with diachronic aspects of the Surinam Carib invers-like construction. In spite ofa residue of semantic inversion, the onstruction is shown to be synchronialy, functionally, a voice of kogther diferent feathers. “Turning now tothe four studies of word-order inverse, Katy Roland eseries the functional dsribution ofthe objectopialzing ov) clause in Modern Greek. « vo langvage with flexible subject postion similar to ‘hat of Bibial Hebrew. In contrasting the Ovs cause withthe passive, she ‘Memes the former as» pragmatic inverse nhee Lee describes the fonction distibution ofthe object-tpicalz~ ing oe cause in Korea at sO¥ language. In functional comparison with the pase, the a clause i idemied as an inverse, essentially along the Tins showa by Tompson for Chepang. ‘Doris Payne, Mitsuyo Hamaya and Peter Jacobs describe the rihly- morphological voice system of Masi (Nilot). This is apparently the first tine an inverse voice contruction has been identified in an Aftican lan= tzuage. In this arc ¥S0Innguage, tho VOS order turns out to function ssa pragmatic inverse, It contrasts with another, perhaps diachronialy older, ‘pronominally-marked semantic inverse. "Tom Payne's study takes us through the ever-tantalizing voice system ‘of a Philippine language, Cebusno. The familar ergativesiti-mid-way isideniied, But the asignment of prapmati voice fenction to the various ‘cause types is determined with considerably more precision than has bees ‘done Before. The functionally heterogenous socalled ‘goalfocu’ clause shown to harbor thre distinct pragmatic voice populations — the active: transitive, the invert, and the pasive. Two are distinguished by word boner only — viagra forthe drect-active and v.24 AGT forthe inverse, ‘The pasive, being funeonally an agentdeleting voice, turns ou 10 be & sub population ofthe inves. "The last paper in the volume, by Sheri Brainard, dals with another Phitippine language, Karao. fn this language the inverse-to-ergative shift The progmais of de-ranstive voice 2» ‘has apparently advanced much mote towards completion than ia any previ ‘ustyeseribed Philippine language. No word-order is used to distinguish ‘various voice functions of the "gal focus clause, which now functions unambiguously a8 the acive-ditect exgutive claus. In parallel, the olf active direct agent-focus) clase is now used almost nambiguowsy asthe ntiassive woe ts only proper to acknowledge our indebtedness 10 silent if wbigui- tous partner, Ana Cooremun, whose pioneering quantified study of the ‘Chamorro voice system (Cooreman, 1982, 1955, 1987, 188) lad down the fousations for this volume NOTES + nd an ire Soe Gia, or Pe Neel Rade oe 1. tne ine way Men, smart mys te alg fern toc tes he ane apg os 2. Hee How inten Hopper nd Teams (9 3. Tat netting prota age type pent anda pt “ate Th se tng coe pee eh ‘atte er Sch net tert ces uence fet, show pnpmic a (Le topat ite taeda th eo Stetson Neo pomina oter no spl owe ge ese bah ‘nu nda (Gon el) cea, eer a may ange at Sr oreo 4. Inert of Cry es contrasts, Casement he mesons hase she pre Tne vseetsin owt nl ee ‘aac Stun, 4ST ate fo gig the acetate ami a een ds ste ne a a i ng ‘son regione dann en ced tbr of tte aga: ‘Somos brwentuy we ncn sano carom. (6 Te con hrf th in of oa an cone Gn Toss, Wr a ien(90) 2 na (SB 8,19). Lethe doionbomeen pomaton and sonpromatonsl pases Givin (8 tee,T. Givin oe (19) samy shleged Datos eas, okt een ibe tnone Aion prone thon, we dncsin fe ggespecteparcshins omwes ‘ahrgo80) an Roan (2) “Tomy hoc a0 word ive nae itr seman inersin. Bot ‘erin us el exer ening eevee athe Ect wat seg dase ywchen mo Sec dain of he Dabs nd Rimmed etn es ater Bel Secon in Gin (8). We il en 6 ee gigs (Dem) ett ‘hort aks en (952) lea yet oe cede whether he pal Ssranie cea ee of sie. sn) eh ey i coon an ‘ovr Sead cme pene Si ey Son pe See eskimon snd yn, a (97), Timber (197 era. To ‘reat’ al cur npndt eo oe eh nt cae temanc rene tngh colo the pags ee i Rode (90 snub) gs wh ahr) aaa ais Coe {np ta be pote tg tine Alogi sco the ame SSE ee tpg fannie eee In Stop, he vere wl pc po nye (somite) pl po to tbs rnd fern aris hs pen mrp he ‘tpn hy (eden eal omen Pac gprs ot pee {Rij cunromsnal auc psi cntacton my ene a ‘ees er ofthe Sap ee Pn a etry, sa may one mere cuss aly {Novis song eden soar scare more lpm Bl ‘8 Sec ote ae atom (186) ps oe gun cm wer he tt "Tx moedam ipsa monn Kena (07 Norah nna ‘Sains poor pe ner seth Ge (P48). Sez Grn 16; th 19) yu con hte Kn ane Inhabit ase sees Ba Het eae {Bintan che More heh tn nvtee) Saint od Stn ea a ne — poms mated — wo ode {a a, nwt he moe po pote ptt he ene me The prognatis of desransive voze a ne rein st on 25. Fem (8D) be he ton fe yao pce ee The Sei {ee tho a ann Sua 26, Lhe Supa, ras Cie (nd Alpin nel ee Hs ad Ton 9) he prem svaes worse The ote tpl prose pa of it toe Sehr ey be ote 12. Chen he ny of mine tere acon chg nde sun@on ‘homastetnne (a1 he tong wos deepen may Be ‘ake opr Ta ep eae rence ps pci 2% Mhmasn minor ig cn mh ie refit cnt shen sc te arem une cm en, 1D) REFERENCES, Andenon, SR. 1076 “On the ton of subject ese languags.” In CL 178 Andere, R197, "On charms by when pues come erga." INC. UL oii ‘ani E.G, 171, “Specs and deinen in Drab Sauer Afi in ‘pues 13 ‘olan £.G 196, Quction Formation in Some Rona Laneoge, PAD dverton, ‘Univer Indian, looming (22) ‘cag, 56 “On the bjt of wo panies in Indonesia" IC. 156 {Ghung, 1977, "On the radu auc of ste tage’ in C- Lise 17 (Corea, A. RE. “Tp, erp nd any nana dso: Ev ‘ne tom Chane" Sen Lanaae, 63. Coren, ARS. Tray en Done Conta Chamorr Naat, PD ders, Unita of Orepn, Eup. (Cosma, A987. Trait ond Dau Cony Chana Narain. Bes im Meatoa Se Gre eve CCooreman ASR "Eryn dco.” Linguini, 26 CCoreman, A. efor & 7 Give 1984 "The doce fiton 0 xt.” Ss bs Lae Dadian, A Te Phos Cree Morpannte. PAD deri "Calor Besley (a) Dinon, RMIW. 172 The Dt Language of North Quen, Corie: Cu Twigs Unverty Pes Doa, RALW. e177 Grammatical Caron nAusralion Languages. Casters: “Atanas ot Atorgial Stes, Dia, FEMLW. 197. "Te yi devslpment of Assan angiags.” I. 1,2 1. Givin Diner M: 191 Subject and inves in Kaen” In J, Ren, , Paper fom he "Duran Ian Langer Confrnc, UC Sana Crus, Osan Papers in Li ‘pln Canin, Unmet of 8. thao pe 2 "A comprion othe obvition sates of Kena ol Algongui." Taw. Cima, ob Papers fam se 2rd aa gous Confer ut 168, “Compog motions fe Harman ey 18S ore. "Dearie cassia Bela Coo: Pas nese” (a his au). (Gdn: "Somatic ad pagan ove vere agent tnd nvene Ye’ Gath of Sram” nth came) ‘ates § 1992 Comporat Caan Morphsyeat: On the Gees of Era “nde Chats PRD serann, Uae of Oregon. Hage (es). Ginée F 1996. Topi roo spd uma." C1 ey 176. ‘Gnas T1977-The dif vam tv fn ii Hebrew The pragmatics me ‘psn. Lie 7 ivan F180. On UnarsningGranmur. NY: Ace Ps Gina, Teh “Typo sd fetal Soman Sees argue, 53 (Gnea, Tks. Lange uncton sed ply" Ins Han Inoue, et Towed ofthe RUN Isrnotonl Congr of Lingus, Toyo, 152. The Hue CP, Ciné 9, Tope Contnty Dour: A Quand Tea Based Sud "ISL, Ameria) Benjani ‘ivi, Toke “Tope eoatnity and word oe papi in Ute." IT: Gin, i198 iT ta, Syma: A Funcom Typolgical nous. oI, Amsterdam: 3 ives foe Dirt Objet nd Date Siting The remem and pragma of “Sse InF Plank, ed, One NY. Academic Fes Cova, TRS. eon, mer snd noma coding asta a3 inne, 198. ive, aBk “The pegmatis of word ore: petabiy, importance a an Vion" Uh Hannan, E. Moret 1 With, et, Seder i Sma Typo fy TSLi, Arwen Bens Cis, T1590 Sms Finca Typo reduction va. I. Amster: 3 ‘Besjan Ginte T ML. “The pags of word in Ral Bie! Hebrew: Retreat thematic obrece Unies Of e809 (8). ‘int, F192. Th amma of relent cabrones went poesng inc ‘in Linguitr,50 aia Jo WES omy Syne TSL 9, Aster. Benji Harn Aik. Dioctronc Syn The Koren Cae, Vaart Ue wba, A and Hyamn 1974 “Hltrcles fara Shons Sues te arco inns, 31 aig R190 "The prosaic of ice in Spe: From pave to ers? (i ‘hs oe) ogg. 8 Thon 190. Tena in ranma nd dso” Language, ‘The pragmatics of detranstve vole 8 “nob, BT nvr in Squamish” (i ome). eweat Puro, BES "Voke nIndnenn A Soeur ty Un M, SHA, emma 8 193, The Mile Voie, TSL. 423, Amster Benjani. eon #199. "Seme anneal fps este gama" CLS #1, Ui ‘ery of Cheapo, Chaps Linguists Sos. anger NE Foundation of Conte Gramma, af. Stnfor: Stanford Us ‘en Pies. 1, Cred. 916. Subj and Tole. NY: Acad Pres. 6 e177 Mechanar of te Change Austin: Unies of Tees Pres. Fyne, DL, 1990. "The Tape Guru ive” IB. Fox P. Hopper, ik Vice Forman PanconTSL 427, Amster I. Benji nes) Payne itso 109, he Praga of Word Order Fleiy TSL 422, Aer Payper DM. Hays & PBs. “Activ, vere ad pain Mansa” in this volume) Payne 68, "Role and celerence rated utjet popes and ean in Yui sno an Tse" Sud in Langage, 61 Pay,“ prapnatis ef oie Pipe laggage: Actor locas and goes Im emano marae (as aan) aflry Ft Topsy an tatty Indonesian an Malay et.” Univesity ‘Micon, Mion (3). Rey 12, upubis mai pote Sibu on FUNKNET, December, 182 Rhnder| R&R Tomlin 192 lormaton dcbeten im Ojibwa” D. Payee, ey io olan, K. “The pragma of Modern Grek oe: Ate, vere ad panne” i “hs volun). ‘Rade N Sais bs Nes Pec Grammar an Discourse, PD dseraton Unie ‘ty of Orepon, Base ‘Rade BAP opel, vans, ante est objet Ne Pee." 2A La ‘S so, N. 198, “Poel sores of he Saban aves et pa ‘5 Fugen). ue 15 ese mig nd pty some Oregon aga", Uaiesy “ot Oreon, Eugene) ule, Wi “Gugino he Ner Poss Expat Sofie” A. 157.1 Role, ¥ "Dirac ntens and pase Norwest Sain” ifs volume. Rode, W192 "Word ocr and tops inNex Pre” In Py 92 Shs, ML 98S “Posie ind teed comsrucane A peoteaype onl” La sue lt Sot, M98, "oie Pprine angus.” IM, Shite a. Shaun Med tt, Pau and Vee TSL#18, Asserdans J Bears. ‘Siveri M- 176 "Hirareny of etc ad exgvig In MLW. Done, 578 “Thompton, C18. Voeeand Obvatonn Aas and Oter Languages PAD i= era, Unversy of Oregon, Fagen Universo Ore“ 7 Givin ‘Toompon, “Pasi a ives omsteecton Gi h wotome) ‘mbit, A198 terres he gee of Raton "iropean Fura 18 ‘Twn 186, Topi in Erte and Accaave Languages, Nagoya Working apes Linguists, vo 2, Nagoya: Nagoya Unversity Pres Vern. J. 195. Two specs of pragmades Topol and kal” Ia. Hatt “EK. Inoue, eds. Proce! of the 10 Inematonal Congo of Lingus, Toko, 12 The Hague: CPL Verhat.1980, "Egat, secs an each” Soph Linn, 1 erase 3.1985. “Oe eat and ech "Sein Laue, 91 Watcha, A 1092 "A seat bso gmt ping Ia W. Aba, T ‘Ginon& 8 Thompson els, Dioure Onar and Typos. Paper bona of Jeb WAL Ver: Aida Benj Pes Woodminy, ALIS. Ext of Grommateal Pacese: A Say of Gremlnde "ako, MS thse, Unies of Cage oe). ‘Weigand Ge. 16. "The rags oat erence "Sed Lan- Il, MORPHOLOGICAL INVERSES.