| Voice marking | Proper marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Lookalike marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Synthetic marker | n/a | |
| Voice marking | Analytic marker | n/a | |
| Flagging | S-argument flagging | no | The subject of an intransitive verb is unmarked (Rude 1988: 547).
Antipassive: There is no ergative case marked with -n(i)m and no direct object case marker with -ne, both agent and patient NPs being unmarked (Rude 1986: 129).
In the Nez Perce antipassive, all morphological markers of transitivity are removed. There is no ergative case marked with -nim and no direct object case marked with -ne ,both agent and patient NPsbeing unmarked (Rude, 1985: 160).
The case system of Nez Perce shows a three-way patterning: intransitive subjects are unmarked for the case, while both subjects and objects of transitive clauses are case-marked (Deal 2010: 74).
NPs are morphologically unmarked in the antipassive construction (Rude 1988: 559).
FYI: The language has a split ergative systems: it is only 3rd person NPs (pronoun) that are case marked ergative. Regardless of the transitivity of the verb, the form of the 1 and 2 person pronoun stays the same, (hence it is nominative) (Rude 1988: 548). |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging | no | FYI: Rude (1988: 558) claims, based on textual analysis, that the ‘antipassive’ functions to mark patients low in topicality and/or animacy. There is no oblique marker, as one might expect in an antipassive construction, but rather only the absence of an object marker, as is characteristic of DOM (Heaton 2017: 15). |
| Flagging | P-oblique unflagging | yes | NPs are morphologically unmarked in the antipassive construction (Rude 1988: 559).
There is no ergative case marked with -n(i)m and no direct object case marker with -ne, both agent and patient NPs being unmarked (Rude 1986: 129).
In the antipassive construction neither agent nor patient are ever case marked (Rude 1985: 86). |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging variation | n/a | NPs are morphologically unmarked in the antipassive construction (Rude 1988: 559).
There is no ergative case marked with -n(i)m and no direct object case marker with -ne, both
agent and patient NPs being unmarked (Rude 1986: 129). |
| Indexation | S-argument indexed | yes | Subject-verb agreement for a person is accomplished by two sets of prefixes: one for intransitive and one for transitive verbs (Rude 1988: 548-549).
In ex. (31), the antipassive, the verbal prefix hi- is the same 3rd person nominative agreement prefix as found in the intransitive sentence (32) ('The man came.') (Rude 1988: 552).
Nez Percé (Rude 1988: 549)
Subject-verb agreement for a person:
NOMINATIVE
1st, 2nd person: 0
3rd person: hi-
|
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | yes | FYI: Only 3rd person S is indexed on the verb.
See Table 1: Subject-verb agreement for person (Rude 1988: 549):
NOMINATIVE
1st, 2nd person 0-
3rd person hi- |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Referential | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Generic (non-specific) | yes | The Nez Percé antipassive also seems to serve the function of coding a non—specific or generic direct object (Rude 1982: 478).
Intransitive sentences (those without the implication of possession) seem to be related to the indefiniteness or *generic nature of an activity. Mass nouns are more likely to be the objects of verbs that are morphologically intransitive than count nouns (Crook 1999: 238-239).
Nez Percé (Deal 2010a: 83, cited in Crook 1999: 238)
1a.
̓ ip-ním pée-qn’i-se qeqíi-ne.
3sg-ERG 3/3-dig-IMPERF edible.root-OBJ
‘He digs qeqíit roots.’
1b.
̓ ipí hi-qn ̓ íi-se qeqíit.
3SG 3SBJ-dig-IMPERF edible.root
‘He digs qeqíit roots.’ |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Indefinite (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Referential | yes | One of the functions of the ANTIP is to encode a possessor of the direct object that is coreferential with the subject (Rude 1988: 552).
The antipassive itself (in the proper context) encodes a coreferential possessor (Rude 1986: 130).
What we see in these data overall is that caseless clauses bifurcate in the range of interpretations available to the object: Antipassive objects must be indefinite, whereas extended reflexive objects can be definite. In this way the extended reflexive patterns with the transitive and not with the antipassive, although it is caseless (Deal 2010a: 86).
Nez Percé (Crook 1999: 237-238)
1a. ̕
e-hek-cee picpic-ne
3OBJ-see-INC cat-OBJ
‘I see the cat.’
1b.
hek-cee picpic
see-INC cat
‘I see my cat.’
Nez Percé (Deal 2010a: 85)
2a.
Cáan-nim páa-’yaˆx-na ’iníi-ne.
John-erg 3/3-find-pfv house-obj
‘John found the house.’
2b.
Caan hi-’yáaˆx-na ’iníit.
John 3sbj-find-pfv house
‘John found a house.’
The objects of antipassives (...) can only be indefinite. ANTIP not felicitous where the object is discourse-old. This can be seen in above, where the context gives us a discourse-old referent, a particular house in Lewiston (Deal 2010a: 85). |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Referential | n/a | |
| P-oblique affectedness | Less affected P-oblique | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constraints on P-oblique demotion | yes | The antipassive functions to mark a patient of low topicality/animacy, just the opposite of the high topicality/animacy of the ergative construction (Rude 1985: 170).
In this study, in only 41% of cases, the patient of the antipassive was definite, and in only 6% of cases, it was animate. See Rude (1985: 170) or Rude (1988: 558). |
| P-constraining properties | Person constraints on P-oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Number constraints on P-oblique demotion | no | |