\documentclass[9pt,twocolumn,a4paper]{extarticle} \usepackage[top=2cm]{geometry} \usepackage[british]{babel} \usepackage{stfloats} \usepackage{handouts} \usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref} \usepackage{tikz} \newcommand{\situationtransition}[7]{% \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=4em,scale=0.9,every node/.style={scale=0.9}] \node[ label={below:$x_{-3}$},label={above:#1}] (xm3) {}; \node[right of=xm3,label={below:$x_{-2}$},label={above:#2}] (xm2) {}; \node[right of=xm2,label={below:$x_{-1}$},label={above:#3}] (xm1) {}; \node[right of=xm1,label={below:$x_0$}, label={above:#4}, circle,draw,fill=black,inner sep=2pt] (x0) {}; \node[right of=x0, label={below:$x_1$}, label={above:#5}] (x1) {}; \node[right of=x1, label={below:$x_2$}, label={above:#6}] (x2) {}; \node[right of=x2, label={below:$x_3$}, label={above:#7}] (x3) {}; \node[left of=xm3, label={left:$\dots$}] (start) {}; \node[right of=x3, label={right:$\dots$}] (end) {}; \path[draw,<->] (start) -- (end); \end{tikzpicture} } \title{\Large Handout of ``Aspect and the Biblical Hebrew Niphal and Hitpael''\footnote{Richard Charles Benton, Jr. 2009. University of Wisonsin-Madison.}} \author{Camil Staps} \begin{document} \maketitle \summary{ The problem with the Niphal and Hitpael stems is both (a) \term{internal overlap}, that each stem covers more than one functional area (passive, middle and reflexive), and (b) \term{external overlap}, that the functions of the two stems overlap with each other\pagenr{102}. } \summary{ \subsubsection*{Aspect} Benton takes from Keenan (1985) the idea that when a language has multiple passives, they are distinguished by \term{aspect}\pagenr{102}. \criticism{ he then takes from later linguists new views on aspect\pagenr{104--5}, and applies Keenan's theory using those ideas about aspect. It is unclear if Keenan's theory applies to those new ideas. } Linguists distinguish different kinds of aspect: \term{viewpoint aspect}, where a full or partial view of a situation is presented; \term{situation aspect}, which presents features of a situation. Different kinds of situation aspect can be categorised by the features static--dynamic, durative--instantaneous and telic--atelic. Based on Smith and Pustejovsky, different types of events can be depicted in diagrams\pagenr{108--9}% \note{see \autoref{fig:situation-transitions}}. Different aspects may be communicated lexically, contextually and morphologically, depending on the language\pagenr{112}. \plainnote{ \begin{figure*}[b] \centering \color{black} \situationtransition{$\dots$}{$\lnot$built}{$\lnot$built}{built}{built}{built}{$\dots$} \vspace*{1em} \situationtransition{}{}{}{reached}{reached}{reached}{$\dots$} \vspace*{1em} \situationtransition{}{}{}{tapped}{}{}{} \caption{Different types of events: accomplishment, achievement and semelfactive.\label{fig:situation-transitions}} \end{figure*} } } \summary{ \subsubsection*{Passive} Benton distinguishes the semantical \term{Agent} (A)\note{volitionally performs an action, typically affecting another entity}, \term{Patient} (O)\note{undergoes the action of the Agent} and \term{Subject} (S)\note{of a one-place predicate}\pagenr{116}. In the passive, the A-role is demoted and often the O-role is promoted to S. However, an S does not always correspond to an O-role% \note{consider ``The man went into the building,'' where `man' is an S, and ``The man entered the building,'' where `man' is an A: the \emph{syntactical} roles differ, while the \emph{semantical} roles are identical}. An A is logical, psychological, semantic and grammatical subject\pagenr{118}. All these aspects can be demoted, but demotion can be restricted to some types of subject, depending on the language. } \summary{ \subsubsection*{Middle} The middle voice presents a large formal and functional variety between languages\pagenr{128}. In cognitive linguistics, scholars look for the middle's prototype\pagenr{131}. According to Manney, passive and middle are used in similar situations, the use of either one only reflects the point of view the speaker wants to take\pagenr{133}. Kemmer claims that the middle distinguishes itself by its level of distinguishability of the participants\pagenr{135}% \note{see \autoref{fig:middle-transitivity-line}}. \plainnote{ \begin{figure*}[b] \centering \color{black} \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=8em,scale=0.9] \node (a) {Two-participant}; \node[right of=a] (b) {Reflexive}; \node[right of=b] (c) {Middle}; \node[right of=c] (d) {One-participant}; \node[xshift=-5em,yshift=-1em] at (a) (plus) {+}; \node[xshift=5em, yshift=-1em] at (d) (min) {-}; \draw[<->] (plus) -- (min) node[below,midway] {Degree of distinguishability of participants}; \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Distinguishability of participants (Kemmer 1993)\label{fig:middle-transitivity-line}} \end{figure*} } Like the passive, the middle demotes the A, but unlike the passive, an A can be a middle-S. When the A is S, A is demoted by reducing its agency and volition\pagenr{139}. Semiticists focus on the S/O relationship in the middle\pagenr{151}. Creason stresses that the participant acts upon itself or in its own interest, therefore having two roles. This makes reflexive a subclass to middle. This is a too narrow definition% \note{several examples are mentioned, e.g. ``This book reads easily''}. } \summary{ \subsubsection*{Summary of passive and middle voice} Both middle and passive demote A. Active focuses on energy from A, while passive and middle focus on the trajectory towards S. The S has reduced agentivity and volition compared to A. Hence, both voices may promote O to S (if it exists). This functional and syntactic overlap explains external overlap\pagenr{156}. \note{Characteristics are summarised in \autoref{tab:passive-middle-characteristics}.} That passive and middle are defined by the same argument relationships explains internal overlap\pagenr{157}. \criticism{It is unclear if there is a difference between the reasons for internal and external overlap.} \plainnote{ \begin{table*}[b] \centering \begin{tabular}{p{14em} p{14em}} \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Passive}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Middle}} \\\hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Event trajectory towards S} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{A-demotion definitive} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{O-promotion common} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{Reduced agency and volition of S} \\ Possible with 1-participant verb, A$\neq$S & Possible with 1-participant verb, A$\neq$S or A$=$S \\ Overlap with reflexive rare & Overlap with reflexive common \end{tabular} \caption{Passive and middle characteristics\pagenr{157}\label{tab:passive-middle-characteristics}} \end{table*} } } \note{% \autoref{fig:voice-hierarchy} shows the voice hierarchy as proposed by Benton\pagenr{158}, which shows that passive \emph{function} can be performed by both middle and passive \emph{voice}.} \plainnote{ \begin{figure}[h] \centering \color{black} \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=3em,scale=0.9,every node/.style={rectangle,draw}] \node (event) {Event}; \node[below left of=event] (active) {Active}; \node[below right of=event] (passive) {Passive}; \node[below left of=passive,xshift=-1.2em] (middle) {Middle form}; \node[below right of=passive,xshift=1.2em] (passivef) {Passive form}; \draw (event) -> (active); \draw (event) -> (passive); \draw (passive) -> (middle); \draw (passive) -> (passivef); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Voice hierarchy\label{fig:voice-hierarchy}} \end{figure} } \summary{ Besides demoting A, aspect is another defining feature of the passive voice in Hebrew. A passive can often represent both a state and an action, depending on the context\pagenr{159}. The passive seems to relate to the resultative aspect% \note{% ``The letter was weighed by John'' vs. ``Two oz. was weighed by the letter''}% \pagenr{162}. The middle describes a \emph{property} unfolded on the S% \note{% Compare ``The book was read easily'' (passive) and ``The book reads easily'' (middle)}\pagenr{165}, or the property of a process unfolding on the S\pagenr{167}. In some languages, the middle can be both eventive and stative. } \end{document}