The Limits of Deponency: A Chukotko-centric Perspective*

Bobaljik, Jonathan David

doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264102.003.0008

Cited by 50 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, semi‐deponent verbs in Latin like gaudēre (‘rejoice’), which have passive forms for active contexts only in the perfect, can be accounted for by assuming a FCR for the stems involved . As with most other approaches to deponency (e.g., Embick (), Kiparsky (), Bobaljik (), Hippisley (), etc. ), defectivity does not yet automatically follow.…”

Section: An Optimality‐theoretic Approach To Deponencymentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Approaches to Deponency

Müller

2013

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to give an overview of theoretical approaches to (generalized) deponency, i.e., morpho-syntactic phenomena in the world's languages that resemble deponent verbs in Latin (where passive morphology accompanies active syntax) in that a 'wrong form' is apparently used. The paper has three parts. First, the concept of deponency is introduced. Second, a new taxonomy of approaches is developed that extends Stump's original classification by adding two further groups: (i) form deponency, (ii) property deponency, (iii) spurious morphosyntactic deponency, and (iv) spurious morphomic deponency. The discussion yields interesting results concerning preferred choices among (i)-(iv) in the literature (with (i) emerging as surprisingly rare and (iv) as surprisingly widespread), and concerning potential correlations between analysis type and overall grammatical framework (there aren't any). In the third part, I sketch a version of what is arguably a fairly straightforward approach to deponency (even though an actual instantiation so far appears to be outstanding): an optimality-theoretic analysis that takes the hypothesis that deponency involves 'wrong forms' literally. Table 3. Partial paradigm of deponent nouns with plural markers in singular contexts.Table 4. Partial paradigm of deponent ' ' with singular markers in plural contexts. Approaches to Deponency 353

show abstract

Section: An Optimality‐theoretic Approach To Deponencymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Bobaljik's () analysis of the so‐called spurious antipassive in Chukchi is a prime example. Chukchi has an ergative argument encoding pattern, and antipassive morphology normally signals a detransitivization of the verb, with absolutive rather than ergative showing up on the external argument.…”

Section: Approaches To Deponencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to Deponency

Müller

2013

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Deponency

Grestenberger

2023

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The terms ‘deponency’ and ‘deponents’ originally referred to a particular class of Latin verbs, which take passive (‘non‐active’) morphology but are syntactically active. The term has been extended to verbs in other languages with seemingly aberrant voice morphology, and eventually to other kinds of perceived mismatches between morphology and syntax. Deponency has therefore become a useful tool for testing assumptions regarding the lexicon–(morpho)syntax interface. This entry uses deponency in Latin as a case study for various issues and discusses the behaviour of Latin deponents in finite and non‐finite contexts, in primary and secondary verbs, and from various theoretical perspectives.

show abstract

The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As any quick survey of the syntactic literature will show, there are almost as many different views of ergativity as there are so-called ergative languages (languages whose basic clause structure instantiates an ergative case-marking or agreement pattern). While ergativity is sometimes referred to as a typological characteristic of languages, research on the phenomenon has made it more and more clear that (a) languages do not fall clearly into one or the other of the ergative/absolutive vs. nominative/accusative categories and (b) ergative characteristics are not consistent from language to language. This volume contributes to both the theoretical and descriptive literature on ergativity and adds results from experimental investigations of ergativity. The chapters cover overview approaches within generative, typological, and functional paradigms, as well as approaches to the core morpho-syntactic building blocks of an ergative construction (absolutive case and licensing, and ergative case and licensing); common related constructions (anti-passive); common related properties (split-ergativity, syntactic vs. morphological ergativity, word order, the interaction of agreement patterns and ergativity); and extensions and permutations of ergativity (nominalizations, voice systems). While the editors all work within the generative framework and investigate the syntactic properties of ergativity through fieldwork, and many of the chapters represent similar research, there are also chapters representing different frameworks (functional, typological) and different approaches (experimental, diachronic). The theoretical chapters touch on many different languages representing a wide range of language families, and there are sixteen case studies that are more descriptive in nature, attesting to both the pervasiveness and diversity of ergative patterns.

show abstract

The Limits of Deponency: A Chukotko-centric Perspective*

Cited by 50 publications

References 20 publications

Approaches to Deponency

Approaches to Deponency

Deponency

The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About