\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{
	\subsection*{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\pagenrs{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\pagenrs{108--9}%
		\note{see \autoref{fig:situation-transitions}}.
	Different aspects may be communicated lexically, contextually and morphologically, depending on the language\pagenr{112}.

	\parnote{
		\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{
	\subsection*{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{
	\subsection*{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}}.

	\parnote{
		\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{
	\subsection*{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.}

	\parnote{
		\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}.}
\parnote{
	\begin{figure}[h]
		\centering
		\color{black}
		\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=3em,scale=0.9,every node/.style={rectangle,draw,minimum height=1.6em}]
			\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.

	Since some languages do not let all transitive verbs appear in the middle,
	Fagan claims that situation aspect plays a more important role than agentivity%
		\note{E.g. \emph{reach}, \emph{hit} and \emph{kick} don't appear in the middle}\pagenr{169}.
	Most verbs in the middle indicate a process (accomplishments).
	When an achievement or semelfactive verb appears in the middle,
		this can be to focus on the process leading to the event.
}

\summary{
	While passive and middle voice have a close functional relationship
		(sharing event schemas and A-demotion),
		they distinguish from each other.
	The passive corresponds to anterior states,
		leading to a possibly stative reading.
	The middle, on the other hand,
		corresponds to activities, usually before they reach a final state.
	This leads to the \note{revised} voice hierarchy in \autoref{fig:voice-hierarchy-revised}\pagenr{172}.

	\begin{figure}[h]
		\centering
		\color{black}
		\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=3em,scale=0.9,every node/.style={rectangle,draw,minimum height=1.6em}]
			\node (event) {Event};
			\node[below left of=event] (active) {Active};
			\node[below right of=event] (passive) {Passive};
			\node[below left of=passive] (activity) {Activity};
			\node[below right of=passive] (stative) {Stative};

			\draw (event) -> (active);
			\draw (event) -> (passive);
			\draw (passive) -> (activity);
			\draw (passive) -> (stative);
		\end{tikzpicture}
		\ifshownotes
			\caption{Voice hierarchy (revised)\label{fig:voice-hierarchy-revised}}
		\else
			\caption{Voice hierarchy\label{fig:voice-hierarchy-revised}}
		\fi
	\end{figure}
}

\summary{
	\subsection*{Application on Biblical Hebrew}
	The claim is that the Niphal is stative, while the Hitpael corresponds to an activity\pagenr{178}.
	A speaker first chooses between active and passive, depending on how much he wants to highlight the A.
	Both middle and passive demote A and may promote O, hence the apparent internal overlap of these forms.
	If the speaker wants to focus on the transition point and/or the resulting state, he uses a passive form (Niphal).
	If he wants to focus on the process of the event, he uses a middle form (Hitpael)\pagenr{179}.
	The external overlap is explained by the shared function of Niphal and Hitpael.
}

\parnote{
	\subsection*{Approach}
	Benton takes pairs of sentences, one with a Niphal and one with a Hitpael ---
		most helpfully with the same root and in the same context,
		but most often with the same root and a different context.
	These pairs are called \term{minimal pairs}.
}

\summary{
	\subsection*{Hebrew evidence}

	\subsubsection*{Basic transitive}
	The distinction between state (Niphal) and activity (Hitpael) can be found in minimal pairs%
		\note{\emph{pour out} in Lam.~2:11--12},
	also when there is no contrast in agentivity%
		\note{Josh.~10:116 vs. 1~Sam.~13:6; Dt.~15:12 vs. Dt.~28:68}\pagenrs{185--198}.
	Some Niphal forms are undoubtedly processes%
		\note{1~Kgs.~6:7; Lv.~26:36},
		and can only be translated according to the suggested theory in a rather forced way.
		That these cases contradict the theory suggests that these verbs do not allow Hitpaels.
		\criticism{Benton seems to be assuming what he wants to show correct.}
		Why that would be is unclear\pagenr{202}.

	This state--activity distinction extends to a distinction between one-time (Niphal) and iterative (Hitpael) actions%
		\note{2.~Sam.~17:9 vs. 1~Sam.~23:23}\pagenr{207},
		and to a distinction between inceptive (Hitpael) and non-inceptive (Niphal) actions%
		\note{Lv.~5:3 vs. Dt.~22:1}\pagenr{209}.

	Verbs with high degrees of affectedness%
		\note{e.g. \emph{kill}, where the Patient is affected to a high degree}
		prefer the Niphal over the Hitpael.
	This suggests that the use of a Hitpael for these verbs shows reduced affectedness\pagenrs{204--7}.

	\criticism{by adding iterativity, inceptivity and affectedness as defining features,
		internal overlap is recreated,
		even though these features somehow relate to situation aspect.}

	\parnote{Also in cases of a semantic middle, the theory stands.
		None of the stems considered express passive, middle or reflexive consistently.
		The Niphal functions as passive, middle and reflexive, the Hitpael, as middle and maybe reflexive\pagenrs{210--25}.}

	% pp. 225 - 235 not considered.

	\parnote{In rare t-stems (Nitpael, Hitpolel, Hitpalpel) situation aspect seems to play a role,
		but nothing can be said really due to lack of evidence\pagenrs{235--7}.}

	\parnote{Benton makes claims about how different stems can be used to literary effect\pagenrs{241 ff.},
		but I don't see why the given examples cannot be explained using the base theory.}

	\subsubsection*{Experiencer transitive}
	Experiencer verbs passivize in a similar way to agentive verbs\pagenr{252}.
	They usually occur in Niphal,
		which indicates that Biblical Hebrew focuses mostly on the final state of themes, not on the process of approaching this state.
	The distinction between Niphal and Hitpael seems less rigorous for these verbs%
	\note{examples 63 and 64}, but different stems may be used to express nuances\pagenr{257}.

	Some examples suggest that the Hitpael may have a reciprocal aspect%
		\note{the verb \emph{see}, Ex.~23:15 vs. 2~Kgs.~14:8},
		which seems logical because it makes the Niphal more passive\pagenr{262}.
	\parnote{The verb \emph{hear} occurs only in the Niphal,
		and can only have inanimate Themes, which supports this theory.}

	\parnote{The activity aspect seems to correlate with the perfective aspect,
		and the stative aspect, with the imperfective\pagenr{269}.}

	\subsubsection*{Basic stative}
	Benton's theory allows for the passivization of stative verbs,
		whereas this is difficult in other models due to their single semantic role.

	Passive stative verbs indicate that the subject undergoes a transition.
	With a Niphal, the writer shows that the transition has finished,
		with a Hitpael, that it is still taking place\pagenr{274}.
	\parnote{Lam.~2:11-12 (\emph{faint}) is an example of how the distinction may be used to indicate a flashback.}
	A Niphal may follow a Hitpael of the same verb\note{e.g. Lv.~11:43}
		to stress both the process and the final state\pagenrs{276 ff.}.

	A number of verbs occur only in the Niphal or, more commonly, only in the Hitpael.
	This may be due to historical accident, or due to an idiosyncratic feature of the verb.
	There are some closely related replacements for the Niphal (stative Qal, adjective, or Pual)
		which may explain why the Hitpael without Niphal contrast is more frequent.
	The preference for a certain stem does not seem predictable and is thus likely lexical.
	Hence, the distribution gives us information about the meaning of the verb%
		\note{e.g. \emph{angry} occurs often in the Hitpael, showing that it is conceived as an activity,
			while \emph{worried} occurs often in the Niphal, showing that it is conceived as stative}\pagenr{291}.
	\parnote{For example, \emph{holy}
		appears in the Niphal almost only when it refers to Yahweh,
		and in the Hitpael almost never when it refers to Yahweh ---
		perhaps indicating that Yahweh is in a constant state of holiness\pagenr{293}.
		When the holy state of a person needs to be expressed, the Pual is used, to avoid ambiguity.}

	\parnote{There are several other nuances, e.g. the ``act as X'' and denominative Hitpaels.}

	Since a Qal does not indicate whether a state has been achieved or not,
		the problem of external overlap between Qal and Hitpael arises\pagenr{296}%
		\note{the solution is unclear to me}.

	\subsubsection*{Basic intransitive}
	Here, Patient, Theme and Mover verbs are considered.
	These verbs have usually one argument, and thus passivization is difficult,
		since it usually reduces the number of arguments.
	Nevertheless, Niphael and Hitpael forms are not uncommon for these verbs.
	In these cases, an implicit Agent appears, in others, situation aspect is transformed\pagenr{303}.
	\parnote{%
		Examples of situation aspect distinction:
		Ex.~34:2,5: \emph{stand} and \emph{going to stand};
		Gn.~8:12 \emph{wait until a moment} and Ps.~37:7 \emph{the activity of waiting}.}
	
	\parnote{%
		The verb \emph{go, walk} appears almost exclusively in the Hitpael when passive.
		It is then a \emph{wandering around}\pagenr{313}.
		\idea{does this have to do with the nomadic origins of the Hebrew people?}
		This supports the situation aspectual distinction,
			since walking cannot really be conceived statively.
		\emph{Flee}, however, appears mostly in the Niphal, hence it focuses on the resulting state\pagenr{314}.
	}

	Niphal yiqtol forms (e.g. Qoh.~7:26) present a problem:
		how to combine the resultative and imperfective aspect\pagenr{318}?
	The yiqtol expresses an iterative sense, here:
		this is a general rule that applies to every individual.
	Every individual ends in the same state, hence the Niphal.
}

\end{document}
