On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena : Linguistics Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 0.763
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.872
Rank 78 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.496
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.099
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.689

99,00 € / $149.00 / £75.00*

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
Select Volume and Issue
Loading journal volume and issue information...

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena

1Department of Linguistics — MS23, Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, U.S.A.

Citation Information: Linguistics. Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 217–269, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: 10.1515/LING.2006.009, May 2006

Publication History

Received:
2004-01-20
Revised:
2005-09-11
Published Online:
2006-05-10

Abstract

This article attempts to lay the conceptual foundations of voice phenomena, ranging from the familiar active/passive contrast to the ergative/antipassive opposition, as well as voice functions of split case-marking in both transitive and intransitive constructions. We advance the claim that major voice phenomena have conceptual bases rooted in the human cognition of actions, which have evolutionary properties pertaining to their origin, development, and termination. The notion of transitivity is integral to the study of voice as evident from the fact that the so-called transitivity parameters identified by Hopper and Thompson (1980) and others are in the main concerned with these evolutionary properties of an action, and also from the fact that the phenomena dealt with in these studies are mostly voice phenomena. A number of claims made in past studies of voice and in some widely-received definitions of voice are shown to be false. In particular, voice oppositions are typically based on conceptual — as opposed to pragmatic — meanings, may not alter argument alignment patterns, may not change verbal valency, and may not even trigger verbal marking. There are also voice oppositions more basic and wide-spread than the active/passive system, upon which popular definitions of voice are typically based.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Neng Chai, Anchalee Wannaruk, and Andrew Lian
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2015, Volume 5, Number 9, Page 1778
[2]
Koen Bostoen, Sebastian Dom, and Guillaume Segerer
Linguistics, 2015, Volume 53, Number 4
[3]
Guillaume Jacques and Anton Antonov
Language and Linguistics Compass, 2014, Volume 8, Number 7, Page 301
[4]
ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU and EDIT DORON
Journal of Linguistics, 2012, Volume 48, Number 01, Page 1
[5]
Heiko Narrog
Morphology, 2010, Volume 20, Number 1, Page 205

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.