Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T01:19:33.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Passive and Stative in Chichewa: Evidence for Modular Distinctions in Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Stanley Dubinsky  and
Silvester Ron Simango
Stanley Dubinsky*
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Silvester Ron Simango
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
*
Stanley Dubinsky, Linguistics Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 [dubinsky@scarolina.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines stative and passive constructions in Chichewa, finding that the syntax of the two constructions is best accommodated in a model that allows argument structure changing operations, such as stative, to be distinguished from operations, such as passive, that affect the mapping from argument structure to grammatical functions. The Chichewa facts recall observations made concerning the differences between English adjectival and verbal passives, first formalized in Wasow 1977, but provide more straightforward evidence for a distinction, due to the absence of surface homophony. The paper concludes by reconsidering English adjectival and verbal passive constructions, and showing them to be morphologically distinct.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 749 - 781
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackema, Peter, and Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1994. The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93. 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1992. On the structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 517–55.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex, and Mchombo, Samuel. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chichewa: Problems for a theta theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, Alex, and Mchombo, Samuel. 1993. Object asymmetries in the Chichewa applicative construction. Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. by Mchombo, Sam, 17–45. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 147–85.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Ergative adjectives and the lexicalist hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna. 1981. Object and absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. San Diego, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry, and Mchombo, Sam. 1992. Morphotactic constraints in the Chichewa verb stem. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18. 350–364.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Lexical and conceptual semantics, ed. by Pinker, Stephen and Levin, Beth, 9–45. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Keats, John. The complete poems, ed. by Barnard, John. 1977. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 623–62.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, T. R. 1897. History of the English language. New York: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Mchombo, Sam. 1993. A formal analysis of the stative construction in Bantu. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 14. 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phiri, Anaclet. 1980. A description of derivational forms in Tumbuka. Austin, TX: University of Texas dissertation.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Lexical and conceptual semantics, ed. by Pinker, Stephen and Levin, Beth, 47–81. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seigel, Dorothy. 1973. Nonsources of unpassives. Syntax and Semantics 2, ed. by Kimball, John, 301–17. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Simango, Silvester Ron. 1995. The syntax of Bantu double object constructions. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina dissertation.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter 327–60. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1980. Major and minor rules in lexical grammar. Lexical grammar, ed. by Hoekstra, T. et al. 285–312. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wyld, Henry Cecil. 1936. A history of modern colloquial English. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar