| Voice marking | Proper marker | yes | Antipassives markers: ine=/ena=, =tku=/=tko , =et=/=at= (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 659).
|
| Voice marking | Lookalike marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Synthetic marker | yes | Antipassives markers: ine=/ena=, =tku=/=tko , =et=/=at= (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 659). |
| Voice marking | Analytical marker | no | |
| Flagging | S-argument flagging | no | FYI: Nouns are distinguished by number in the absolutive only (citation form), marked by 0, by reduplication, by =(ә)n/=nә/=lgәn, etc. The nominal plural marker, as well as the verbal index, usually contains =t (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 657).
FYI: Creissels (2021: 64) I do not analyze the ‘nominative’ form of the Latin noun domin-us ‘master’ as flagged since the ending -us is obligatorily present in the quotation form of this noun.
|
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging | yes | The oblique surface object can be in the dative, locative, or instrumental (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 665).
|
| Flagging | P-oblique unflagging | no | |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging variation | yes | The oblique surface object can be in the dative, locative, or instrumental (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 665).
|
| Indexation | S-argument indexed | yes | Intransitive verbs agree with S, and transitive verbs agree with subject and object; the same distinction holds for intransitive / transitive AP's, (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 657). |
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is generic (non-specific) | yes | A non-specific noun being incorporated: ex. 006, p. 225 in Dunn (1988).
Example 007 shows Incorporation motivated solely by the fact that the underlying 0BJ Is non-specific and uninteresting (Dunn 1999: 225).
FYI: Koryak and Chukchi (...) exhibit NI of Types I-III. Lexical compounds (Type I) denote unitary, nameable concepts. The use of compounding can be seen in the Chukchi text below. Fuel-gathering, wood-cutting, and tent-breaking (breaking camp) are unitary, name-worthy activities, expressed by compounds. Brushwood-pluckingb, oat-loading,a nd tentloading are not, so they are expressed by separate V's and N's (Mithun 1984: 861).
FYI: See the discussion on the generic P interpretation in the unitary activity in Dunn (1999), and Mithun (1984). The P described by the verb is individuated but has a generic interpretation (ex. 001, 002, 005) (Dunn 1999: 222-225).
@Something similar is observed in Mapudungun (Baker et al. 2005: 144-145). |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is indefinite (non-specific) | yes | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P can be referential | yes | Incorporated objects can be individuated and non-individuated (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 665).
FYI: Based on Hopper & Thompson (1980: 253), individuated means definite, referential, whereas non-individuated means non-referential (KJ).
FYI: Based on ANTIP Incorporation and the corresponding transitive construction from Table 1, the incorporated P has a referential interpretation. See Kozinsky et at. (1988: 667).
FYI: Koryak and Chukchi (...) exhibit NI of Types I-III. TYPE III is used for the manipulation of discourse structure. NI is used in this type to background established entities in discourse. See Mithun (1984: 859, 861-862).
|
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is indefinite (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique can be referential | yes | FYI: The adjunct may be definite or indefinite based on Table 1, ex. (1) in Kozinsky et al. (1988: 652, 667).
Although (16a) and (17a), which are transitive sentences, and (16b) and (17b), which are antipassive sentences with INE- are similar in meaning, there are a few pragmatic differences: the most obvious difference is that the transitive has a definite meaning, and the antipassive has an indefinite meaning (Kurebito 2012: 184). |
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is generic (non-specific) | yes | FYI: ""Similarly in Chukchee, a Chukotko-Kamchatkan language, antipassive sentences without overt os are most often interpreted as containing an implied non-referential, generic object (Kozinsky, Nedjalkov and Polinskaya 1988: 668ff.)"" See Cooreman (1994: 53).
When the antipassive with unexpressed P is negated, the authors consider the interpretation of the omitted P as such: 'Under some unclear conditions the existential zero takes on a generalization meaning providing the English example: ""I do not smoke"" (ex. 26c, Kozinsky et al. 1988: 668).
(Kozinsky et al. 1988: 671)
Әtlon qonpә n=ena=rer=qen Ø∃x
‘He is constantly engaged in searches.’ Ø∃x
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is indefinite (non-specific) | yes | Existential zero: Employing this type of zero is identical to stating that the given proposition contains a semantic valency to a certain semantic role, cf. the English: She sings (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 668). @The authors discuss the existential zero in the context of the absolute antipassive (KJ).
(Dunn 1999: 200)
a.
ʔaatcek-a piri-nin roolqəl
youth-erg take-3sg.a.3sg.o food.3sg.abs
‘The youth took the food.’
b.
ʔaatcek ine-piri-ɣʔi
youth.3sg.abs antip-take-th.3sg.sbj
‘The youth took (something}, the youth won the prize.’
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P can be referential | yes | In the Chukchee TRANS zero surface DO can be interpreted as Øref only (which is supported largely by the agreement system). Zero DO's occur in about 60% of textual TRANS'es, their reference being easily recovered contextually. The derived oblique in ANTI (corresponding to DO in TRANS) can also be absent (...). This absence or surface NP is interpreted as Ø existential rather than Øref (Kozinsky et al. 1088: 669).
BUT:
0BJ interpreted as Øref: tight contexts - Thus the contexts are termed that prove most favourable for reference tracking, i.e. the contexts that set all the conditions quite rigidly and unambiguously. These make it possible to understand the ZERO existential object anaphorically (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 671).
The observed capacity of ""tight contexts"" to endow absolute ANTI with a sort of reference monitoring function makes it possible for ANTI to participate in coherence maintaining. Another instance of ANTI contributing to the organization and reference tracking of the ongoing discourse, due to pragmatic factors, is the anaphoric employment of transitive ANTI's (Kozinsky 1988: 673).
ANTI anaphorically employed proves to be a well-operating device in coherence maintenance, i.e. in the differentiation of the participants already mentioned in the previous discourse and introduced for the first time (Kozinsky et al. 1988: 673).
FYI: Kozinsky et al. (1988: 671) use the ""existential"" term to define the reading of an omitted P in the antipassive. Such a clause is systematically translated with 'constantly', e.g., 'They are constantly eating.', 'They are constantly frightening.' This corresponds to the non-referential interpretation (KJ).
|
| Oblique affectedness | Less affected oblique | yes/no | FYI: A few examples show a less affected P in the P demotion oblique pattern. However, most examples do not illustrate this contrast (KJ).
(Kozinsky et al. 1988: 652)
a.
Әtlәg=e keyŋ=әn penrә=nen
father=erg bear=abs attack=3sg:3sg/aor
‘The father attacked the bear.’
b.
Әtlәg=әn penrә=tko=gʔe kayŋ-etә
father=abs attack=antip=3sg/aor bear=dat
‘The father rushed at the bear.’
(Baker and Bobalijk 2017: 152)
a.
Ətləg-e qərir-ə-rkən-en ekək.
father-erg seek-prs-3sg>3sg son.abs
‘The father is seeking the son.’
b.
Ətləg-en ine-lqərir-ə-rkən (akka-gtə).
father-abs antip-seek-prs.3sg son-dat
‘The father is searching (for the son).’
|
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constrains oblique demotion | no | 1979b. ""The Animacy hierarchy in Chukchee"". In: Clyne P., W.
Hanks, C. Hofbauer (Eds.), pp.322-329. |
| P-constraining properties | Person constrains oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Number constrains oblique demotion | no | |