Adversative passive from motion verbs in Kazym Khanty
Passive voice in Northern Khanty is a productive inflectional verbal category which marks re-arrangement in communicative roles of core event participants. A special feature of Khanty passive is its compatibility not only with transitive but also with intransitive verbs and, in particular, with verbs of motion. This study examines the passive voice construction with intransitive motion verbs in the Kazym dialect of Northern Khanty, with the data source being a survey of the speakers living in Kazym village, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Russian Federation (20192020). The aim was to describe the mechanism of motion passivization and to explain the properties underlying the motion and its participants compared with the standard passive construction. It has been revealed that the passive construction of motion verbs is compatible only with goal-oriented motion verbs, i.e. verbs with the meaning of ‘arrival’, ‘coming in’, ‘coming out’ and ‘falling’ and not with other path verbs denoting ‘going’, ‘coming down’ or manner verbs meaning ‘flying’, ‘running’. Syntactically, this construction promotes the goal participant to subject position. Semantically, it raises the animate possessor of the goal which is affected by the motion event and demotes the subject of motion, which is an overtly expressed indefinite or non-referential entity and the source of the effect produced on the possessor of the goal. Typologically Khanty motion passive is similar to adversative passive constructions in Even and Japanese. However, it is less grammaticalized and more lexically restricted and, thus, might be regarded as an intermediate stage of development of such categories.
Keywords
passive voice,
motion verbs,
possessor,
adversative,
Finno-Ugric languages,
KhantyAuthors
| Muravyev Nikita A. | National Research University “Higher School of Economics” | nmuravev@hse.ru |
Всего: 1
References
Каксин А. Д. Казымский диалект хантыйского языка. 2-е изд., доп. Ханты-Мансийск: Обско-угорский институт прикладных исследований и разработок, 2010. 176 с.
Кошкарева Н. Б. Коммуникативная парадигма хантыйского предложения // Языки коренных народов Сибири: Сб. ст. / Под ред. Н. Б. Кошкаревой, И. В. Октябрьской. Новосибирск, 2002. С. 29-44.
Кошкарева Н. Б., Соловар В. Н. Увты муй ўвты: курс практической фонетики хантыйского языка (казымский диалект). Новосибирск: Гео, 2007. 178 с.
Михайлов С. К. Почему хантыйские имена нуждаются в определенном артикле? // Тез. XV Конференции по типологии и грамматике для молодых исследователей (Санкт-Петербург, 22-24 ноября 2018 г.) / Под ред. Д. Ф. Мищенко. СПб.: ИЛИ РАН, 2018. С. 79-81.
Мымрина Д. Ф. Активная и пассивная конструкции в хантыйском языке // Вестник Том. гос. пед. ун-та. 2005. № 4. С. 95-98.
Соловар В. Н. Статальные элементарные простые предложения с пассивными формами глагольного сказуемого в казымском диалекте хантыйского языка // Вестник НГУ. Серия: История, филология. 2010. Т. 9, № 2. С. 91-98.
Черемисина М. И., Соловар В. Н. Залоговость, переходность, прямой объект в языках разных систем // Языки народов Сибири: грамматические исследования: Сб. ст. / Отв. ред. Е. И. Убрятова, М. И. Черемисина. Новосибирск: Наука, 1991. С. 66-84.
Daniel M. Towards a typology of personal locatives. Problem setting // Talk at The Fifth International Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (ALT V). Cagliari, September 15-18, 2003.
Filchenko A. Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty // Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. A crosslinguistic typology / Eds. P. Suihkonen, B.Comrie, V. Solovyev. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012. P. 115-131.
Filchenko A. Non-canonical agent-marking in Eastern Khanty: A functional-pragmatic perspective // University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 2005. Vol. 11, no. 1. P. 29-40.
Honti L. Chrestomathia ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1986. 285 p.
Kortlandt F. On the meaning of the Japanese passive // Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 1992. Vol. 24, no. 1. P. 97-108.
Kulonen U. M. The Passive in Ob-Ugrian. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 1989. 332 p.
Malchukov A. L. The syntax and semantics of adversative constructions in Even // GENGO KENKYU (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan). 1993. Vol. 103. P. 1-36.
Mithun M. The evolution of noun incorporation // Language. 1984. Vol. 60, no. 4. P. 847-894.
Rakhilina E. V. There and Back: The Case of Russian ‘go’ // GLOSSOS. 2004. Vol. 5. P. 1-33.
Shibatani M. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives // Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 1994. Vol. 20, no. 1. P. 461-486.
Shibatani M. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena // Linguistics. 2006. Vol. 44, no. 2. P. 217-269.
Talmy L. Semantic Structures in English and Atsugewi. PhD Diss. Berkeley: University of California, 1972.
Talmy L. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms // Language Typology and Syntactic Description / Ed. by T. Shopen. Cambridge Uni. Press, 1985. Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. P. 57-149.
Traugott E. C. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization // Diachronic construction grammar / Eds. J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, S. Gildea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ., 2015. Vol. 18. P. 51-79.
Virtanen S. Transitivity in Eastern Mansi: An information structural approach. PhD Diss. University of Helsinki, 2015.
