10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14224
The (anti)causative alternation, that is, the alternation whereby languages contrast intransitive verbs expressing spontaneous events with transitive ones expressing externally caused events, has been the object of extensive language-specific and cross-linguistic studies. Within this type of alternation, marking on the intransitive member goes under the name of anticausative marking, while marking on the transitive member is causative marking. Historical research has mostly focused on causatives, while the diachrony of anticausative markers has largely been neglected. In the literature, only two possible cross-linguistic sources of anticausatives are mentioned: reflexives and passives. By looking at a sample of 97 languages, in this paper I show that sources of anticausativization are much more varied than what currently reported in the literature. Taking this richer diachronic evidence into account also sheds light on some yet controversial aspects concerning the relationship between anticausativization and reflexivity.
application/pdf
2785-0943
14224
2
en
Guglielmo Inglese
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
grammaticalization
Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
2
Research articles
2022-12-22
2022-01-13
2022-12-22
2022-12-22
127-186
LTC
Guglielmo Inglese
2022/12/22
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14224
127
Università di Torino
2785-0943
2
grammaticalization
en
186
<p>Z&uacute;&ntilde;iga, Fernando &amp; Seppo Kittil&auml;. 2019. <em>Grammatical Voice</em>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p>
Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/14224/15264
2
              Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-186     ISSN 2785-0943



           Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers

                                        GUGLIELMO INGLESE
                                          UNIVERSITÀ DI TORINO


                        Submitted: 13/01/2022       Revised version: 11/10/2022
                          Accepted: 11/10/2022          Published: 22/12/2022




                                                 Abstract
The (anti)causative alternation, that is, the alternation whereby languages contrast
intransitive verbs expressing spontaneous events with transitive ones expressing externally
caused events, has been the object of extensive language-specific and cross-linguistic studies.
Within this type of alternation, marking on the intransitive member goes under the name of
anticausative marking, while marking on the transitive member is causative marking.
Historical research has mostly focused on causatives, while the diachrony of anticausative
markers has largely been neglected. In the literature, only two possible cross-linguistic
sources of anticausatives are mentioned: reflexive and passive markers. In this paper, I
explore the sources of anticausative markers in a sample of 98 languages and show that they
are much more varied than what is currently reported in the literature. Taking this richer
diachronic evidence into account also sheds light on some yet controversial aspects
concerning the relationship between anticausativization and reflexivity.


Keywords: diachronic typology, anticausative marking, reflexive, grammaticalization




1. Introduction


With the term anticausative alternation linguists refer to the way in which languages
express events that are construed as coming about spontaneously as opposed to those
that are construed as caused by an external entity.1 In this paper, I follow’
Haspelmath’s (2016: 37) proposal and refer to the two members of this alternation as
NONCAUSAL       vs. CAUSAL verb forms, respectively. Decades of research on this topic have
shown that languages resorts to a wide array of morphosyntactic strategies to express


1
    By alternation, I refer to the possibility of individual verbs to occur in multiple argument structure
constructions or valency frames (see Levin 1993; Malchukov 2015).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14224                                                          127
Inglese                                          Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


this alternation. Overt marking on the causal member of the alternation (e.g. Hittite
ze- ‘cook (intr.)’ vs. zai-nu- ‘cook (tr.)’) goes under the name of causative marking,
whereas overt marking on the noncausal verb (e.g. Russian serdit’ ‘make angry’ vs.
serdit’-sja ‘be/get angry’) is referred to as anticausative marking (Nedjalkov & Silnitsky
1973: 2).
   Diachronic studies have mostly focused on causative markers, both in terms of their
possible (lexical) sources (Song 1996: Chap. 3; Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 220–221) and
in their connections to other valency operations, such as passives and applicatives
(Bahrt 2021: Chap. 7). Less attention has been paid to the diachronic typology of
anticausative markers (henceforth, AMs), perhaps also due to the well-known fact
that anticausatives are cross-linguistically less frequent than causatives (Nichols et al.
2004: 162; Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 53; Bahrt 2021: 147). In reference works such as
Zúñiga & Kittilä (2019: 233) and Kuteva et al. (2019: 363) only two possible sources
of AMs are mentioned: reflexive and passive markers. In fact, while extensive work
has been carried out on the REFLEXIVE > ANTICAUSATIVE development, the lexical
sources of AMs remain largely underexplored. Moreover, even with respect to the
relationship between AMs and other voice markers there is evidence for developments
that go against the directionalities commonly discussed in the literature (Bahrt 2021:
Chap. 7).
   Taking stock of these premises, this paper aims to fill this gap and offer an overview
of the diachrony of AMs in the languages of the world. The work is couched in the
framework of diachronic typology, understood here as the sub-field of linguistic
typology where cross-linguistic research on linguistic phenomena meets historical
linguistics and grammaticalization studies (e.g. Sansò 2017, 2020; Cristofaro 2021).
While cross-linguistic data indeed points towards a robust connection between
reflexives and anticausatives, working with a convenience sample of 98 languages I
show that reflexives are by no means the only available source of AMs. This richer
diachronic evidence can also contribute to clarifying long-lasting debates on the
relationship between anticausatives and reflexives.
   The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, I briefly review the typological
literature on the anticausative alternation and illustrate its morphosyntactic
realizations. Section 3 illustrates the diachronic development of reflexives into
anticausatives. Section 4 is devoted to non-reflexive sources of AMs. After a
presentation of the sample (Section 4.1), I turn to discussing each type of source in
some detail in Sections 4.2 to 4.7. Section 5 discusses the findings of the previous



                                                                                             128
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


section and offers an overview of how AMs come about (5.1-5.2) and their
relationship to reflexives (5.3). Section 6 features the conclusions of this work.


2. The (anti)causative alternation


A decades-long body of research on the (anti)causative alternation has unveiled much
of the morphosyntactic and semantic variation that exists in this domain within and
across languages (see Tubino-Blanco 2020 for an overview), both in formal (e.g.
Schäfer        2008,     2009;      Alexiadou       2010;      Alexiadou       et    al.   2015)      and     in
functional/typological frameworks (e.g. Nedjalkov & Silnitsky 1973; Haspelmath
1987, 1993b, 2016; Levin 1993; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995; Nichols et al. 2004).
As Schäfer (2009: 641) puts it:


         the causative alternation is characterized by verbs that have an intransitive as well
         as a transitive use, where the intransitive use typically denotes a change-of-state
         event undergone by some entity and the transitive use denotes that this change-
         of-state event has been brought about or caused by some different entity.


Syntactically, this alternation involves a transitivity shift, as noncausal verbs are
typically intransitive whereas causal ones are transitive (see also Alexiadou et al.
2015).
      Cross-linguistic research has shown that languages display a variety of formal
strategies to encode this alternation. These can be subsumed under a few general
types based on the locus of marking (Nedjalkov & Silnitsky 1973; Nichols et al. 2004).
The main types are the anticausative pattern, the causative pattern and the equipollent
pattern.2 In the anticausative pattern, an unmarked causal verb is opposed to a marked
noncausal counterpart, as in (1).3 By contrast, in the causative pattern the causal verb
form carries overt marking while the noncausal verb is morphologically simple, as in
(2). Finally, in the equipollent pattern both the causal and the noncausal verb forms
are equally marked, as in (3).

2
    Other patterns include lability, as in the case of English break (tr./intr.), and suppletion, as e.g. English
kill vs. die (see Nichols et al. 2004). Since neither of these offers evidence for overt AMs, I will exclude
them from this study.
3
    Glosses and translations generally reproduce those of the sources, with a few adjustments. In all
examples, the AM is in bold and is consistently glossed as ANTC, irrespective of the original glossing in
the source.


                                                                                                            129
Inglese                                          Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


(1)     ANTICAUSATIVE: Kammu (Austroasiatic; Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 49)


a. ʔòʔ pɨr         tóʔ       CAUSAL

   I       shake   table
   ‘I shake the table.’
b. tóʔ       hm-pɨr          NONCAUSAL

   table     ANTC-shake

   ‘The table shakes.’


(2)     CAUSATIVE: Turkish (Turkic; Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 16)


a. Hasan       öl-dü
   H.(NOM)     die-PST
   ‘Hasan died.’
b. Ali         Hasan-i       öl-dür-dü
   A.(NOM)     H.-ACC        die-CAUS-PST
   ‘Ali killed Hasan.’


(3)     EQUIPOLLENT: Yaqui (Uto-Aztecan; Tubino-Blanco 2020: 19)


a. U           kari             bee-te
   DET.NOM     house.NOM        burn-ANTC
   ‘The house is burning.’
b. Joan kari-ta            bee-ta
   J.      house-ACC       burn-CAUS
   ‘Juan is burning the house.’


In this paper, I will focus on AMs, that is, on markers that occur on the noncausal
member in patterns such as (1) and (3). Anticausative marking on the verb can also
be described as anticausative voice and anticausativization can be defined as the
diathesis in which the Agent participant is removed from both the semantic and the
syntactic valency of bivalent verbs and the Patient is encoded as subject (Zúñiga &
Kittilä 2019: 41–53; Bahrt 2021: 37). The main semantic effect of anticausativization
is that, the Agent being removed from the semantic valency of the verb, the event is
construed as coming about spontaneously (Haspelmath 1993b: 90). Agent removal is



                                                                                             130
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


also the key difference between anticausatives and passives, as the latter still include
the Agent in the event frame, as shown by the fact that some languages allow its
expression via oblique phrases (Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 83).
   AMs show notable restrictions with respect to the verb bases that they may apply
to (see Cennamo et al. 2015: 680–681; Alexiadou et al. 2015: 20–23, 52–56; Tubino-
Blanco 2020). First, anticausativization mostly concerns change-of-state predicates
(Schäfer 2009; Alexiadou et al. 2015: 53), while other aspectual classes, such as atelic
activity verbs, are only marginally included (e.g. Cennamo 2012; Cennamo et al.
2015). Most importantly, transitive verbs that lexicalize what Haspelmath (1987: 12)
calls agent-oriented meaning components, that is, that have a lexically specified manner
and/or causer, such as cut or murder, are excluded from the anticausative alternation
(Koontz-Garboden 2009; Rappaport Hovav & Levin 2010).
   Anticausative verbs can semantically be split up in two main classes: decausative
and autocausatives or endoreflexive verbs (Geniušienė 1987: 86–89, 98–104;
Haspelmath 1987: 27; Creissels 2006: 10). The main semantic difference between the
two concerns control: decausative verbs involve (inanimate) participants that
undergo an uncontrolled change of state (e.g. melt, fall sick) (see also Haspelmath
2016), whereas autocausatives involve (animate) participants that are conceived as
partly controlling (at least the onset of) the event. In this respect, autocausative are
semantically closer to reflexives, and typically include verbs of self-induced motion
such as mobilize and rise (Geniušienė 1987: 87; Cennamo et al. 2015: 680). Crucially,
as already noted by Geniušienė (1987: 108), some verbs allow both a decausative and
an autocausative reading, as is the case of Lithuanian kelia ‘rise’ in (4a) and (4b),
respectively:


(4)   Lithuanian (Indo-European; Geniušienė 1987: 108)


a. kelia-si     rūk-as
   lifts-ANTC fog-NOM
   ‘The fog lifts.’
b. zmones       kelia-si
   people       lift-ANTC
   ‘People get up.’




                                                                                    131
Inglese                                                    Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


Finally, it has repeatedly been pointed out that AMs are often polyfunctional and
typically also express other valency changing functions such as passive, reflexive,
reciprocal and antipassive (thus already Nedjalkov & Silnitsky 1973: 22–24). In
particular, drawing from a sample of 222 languages, Bahrt (2021: 147, 150) found
that 48 languages feature anticausative syncretic markers whereas only 32 display
dedicated AMs. Among syncretic patterns, anticausatives are most often co-expressed
with reflexives and less so with passives (Bahrt 2021: 162; Inglese 2022a: 508).


3. AMs from reflexives


The reflexive and the anticausative diatheses are frequently co-expressed in the
world’s languages and this recurrent polyfunctionality pattern has diachronically
been explained as the result of the grammaticalization of reflexive markers into AMs.
A well-studied case is that of the development of Proto-Indo-European reflexive *swe
into the reflexive-anticausative marker of several Romance, Germanic, and Balto-
Slavic languages (this is actually part of a wider development of reflexives into middle
markers, see Geniušienė 1987; Kemmer 1993: 151–193; Cennamo 1993; Holvoet
2020 for discussion). For example, while Latin se essentially functioned as a reflexive
marker, as in (5), its French continuant se also acquired an anticausative function
(Heidinger 2010), as in (6), in which se fondre ‘melt (intr.)’ is the anticausative
counterpart of transitive fondre ‘melt (tr.)’.4


(5)     Latin (Indo-European; Pinkster 2015: 262)
        occido ‘kill’ à se occidere ‘kill oneself’


(6)     French (Indo-European; Heidinger 2010: 80)
        ils    se       fondent         aux          rayons du          soleil [...]
        3PL ANTC        melt.PRS.3PL in.DEF.3PL ray.PL of               sun
        ‘They [=hearts] melt in the rays of the sun’.




4
    Anticausative usages of se occur already in Latin, so that the   REFLEXIVE   > ANTICAUSATIVE shift must
have happened at an early date (Cennamo et al. 2015; Martínez Rojas et al. 2021). I refer to Cennamo
(2020a; 2020b) for a more extensive discussion of the development of reflexives from Latin to Romance
languages.


                                                                                                       132
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


Reflexives are only compatible with agentive subjects, whereas anticausatives
typically involve non-agentive subjects. This is why the development from reflexive
to anticausative is semantically described as entailing a loss of agency and control
restrictions (Haspelmath 1993b: 44; Heine 2002: 89; Heidinger 2010: 55–65). In this
shift, a key role is arguably played by motion verbs, which, as discussed above for
example (4), are compatible with both autocausative and decausative interpretations
(Holvoet 2020: 118–119; Inglese 2020: 236–237). Once reflexives extend to motion
verbs, they develop into autocausative markers, and they can subsequently be
generalized as AMs with all verb bases, including decausatives. This means that the
shift REFLEXIVE > ANTICAUSATIVE can more accurately be described as REFLEXIVE >
AUTOCAUSATIVE     > DECAUSATIVE (Haspelmath 1987: 29). A sketch of this development
can be found in (7).


(7)   STAGE I: reflexive marking with typically two-participant events, e.g. hit oneself
      [+control, +animacy]
      STAGE II: reflexive marking extended to verbs of motion, which are also
      compatible with inanimate subjects, e.g. move oneself/itself [±control,
      ±animacy]
      STAGE III: reflexive used in decausative contexts proper, e.g. melt (itself) [-control,
      ±animacy]


4. Non-reflexive sources of AMs


The development proposed in (7) is supported by abundant cross-linguistic evidence
(Bahrt 2021: 173–175), to the extent that the REFLEXIVE > ANTICAUSATIVE shift is often
described as a typologically frequent and unidirectional grammaticalization pathway
(e.g. Kuteva et al. 2019: 363).
   Non-reflexive sources of AMs have occasionally been mentioned in language-
specific studies, but these findings have not yet made their way into the typological
literature (but see Haspelmath 1987 for an early discussion). In fact, besides the
possibility of anticausatives deriving from passives, no source other than reflexive is
mentioned by Zúñiga & Kittilä (2019: 233) and Kuteva et al. (2019: 363). Only
recently has Bahrt (2021: Chap. 7) brought together some evidence suggesting the
possibility of AMs deriving from non-reflexive voice markers. In the remainder of this
section, I discuss evidence for non-reflexive sources of AMs.



                                                                                         133
Inglese                                           Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


4.1. Data and methods


For this paper, I investigated the sources of AMs in a sample of 98 languages, for a
total of 112 markers (languages may feature more than one AM). This is a
convenience sample that includes data from 47 language families plus 9 isolates (see
Appendix). Since this is not a variety sample, I will refrain from making quantitative-
based generalizations from it.
   I have included in my sample only AMs that comply with the following criteria: (i)
they occur on the noncausal member in either anticausativizing or equipollent verb
pairs; (ii) if they are syncretic, they do not encode reflexivity; (iii) they must be used
with at least decausative verbs (i.e., with inanimate non-controlling Patients).
   Let me briefly comment upon the choice of these criteria. According to some
scholars (e.g. Haspelmath 2016: 39 fn. 5), the label AM should be restricted to
markers on noncausal verbs in anticausative patterns proper, as in (1). In this paper,
I rather follow Bahrt (2021: 38–39) and extend the definition of AM so as to include
markers of noncausal verbs in equipollent pairs, as in (3). The reason to do so is that
there is little evidence that equipollent noncausal markers are different in nature than
those found in anticausative patterns proper. In fact, one finds languages in which the
same marker can be used in both equipollent and anticausative patterns, so that the
choice of the pattern is ultimately independent from the marker itself (see examples
in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.7.4).
   Since I am interested in exploring non-reflexive sources of AMs, criterion (ii) is
meant to exclude those markers that synchronically also function as reflexives,
because with these the widespread assumption is that the reflexive function must be
historically prior (Section 3; but see Section 4.7.4 for a critical discussion). Note that
I am aware that lack of a synchronic reflexive function does not necessarily exclude
a reflexive origin, as this original function might simply have been lost in the course
of time. A case in point is the suffix -əm in the Musqueam dialect of Halkomelem. This
suffix productively occurs, among other things, in both anticausative and antipassive
function, as in (8a-b), but never in prototypical reflexive contexts.


(8)   Musqueam, Halkomelem (Salishan; Suttles 2004: 230–231)


a. hánəkw-əm ‘get warm’     vs.   hánəkw-t ‘warm something up’
b. sɘ́l-ɘm ‘spin (wool)’    vs.   sɘ́l-ɘt ‘spin something’



                                                                                              134
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


However, as discussed by Gerdts & Hukari (2006), there are good reasons to believe
that the Halkomelem -(ə)m ultimately goes back to a reflexive source. Once the
original meaning of the suffix was progressively bleached as it extended to new
functions, including anticausative and antipassive, it was replaced in reflexive
function by a newly created reflexive -θət (on this type of reflexive renewal see
Kemmer 1993: Chap 5).5 For this reason, I have excluded from my sample also AMs
which synchronically do not also function as reflexive markers, but for which a
reflexive origin is nonetheless likely.
     Criterion (iii) is meant to exclude constructions that do not encode prototypical
anticausativization (see Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 43–48). For example, a construction
that I have excluded from my sample is the Yakkha marker -siʔ. This suffix does
function as an intransitivizer, but it is consistently associated with involuntary or
unintentional actions and is restricted to animate subjects (Schackow 2015: 307–
309), as in (9). Similarly, I have also excluded intransitivizers that only derive
resultative/stative verbs, e.g. Ket (Yeniseian) -jə- (Vajda 2015: 664).


(9)     Yakkha (Sino-Tibetan; Schackow 2015: 307)
        mendhwak=ci phaps-a-sy-a-ci
        goat=NSG            entangle-PST-INTR-PST-[3]DU
        ‘The two goats lost their way.’


AMs that I have identified thanks to the criteria (i) – (iii) fall into morphosyntactic
types already well-known from previous cross-linguistic studies (e.g. Haspelmath
1990; Nichols et al. 2004). These include both analytic (auxiliaries, clitics) and
synthetic strategies (affixation, morphophonological alternations, conjugation class
change). In total, I have collected 112 AMs: the mismatch between the number of
languages and that of markers is due to the fact that some languages feature more
than one AM. This is the case of Huarijio (Uto-Aztecan), where both the suffixes -i
and -pa function as AMs (Félix Armendáriz 2005: 222–228).
     As is it often the case in studies of diachronic typology, for most of the languages
under analysis one cannot rely on the necessary historical documentation to track
down the actual source of AMs. Instead, one must operate with indirect evidence

5
    The reflexive suffix -θət also extended to autocausative contexts and to the derivation of change-of-
state verbs from stative roots, e.g. nás ‘fat’ à nás-θət ‘get fat’, thus intruding into the anticausative
domain (Suttles 2004: 244).


                                                                                                     135
Inglese                                              Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


based on comparative and/or internal reconstruction (Sansò 2020: 407–408). Even
then, for several AMs a specific lexical source cannot be pinned down with certainty.
For example, Siar-Lak (Austronesian) features an anticausative prefix ta(k)- (Frowein
2011: 274–279). Comparative evidence shows that this prefix goes back to a
reconstructable Proto-Oceanic prefix *ta-, for which however no further lexical source
can be reconstructed (Pawley 1972: 39). Similarly, Zenzontepec Chatino
(Otomanguean) has an anticausative suffix -y (Campbell 2015: 1408–1409). This
suffix is a continuant of a reconstructable Proto-Zapotecan intransitivizing suffix *-i,
which however lacks further etymology (Campbell 2011: 238). I have treated these
and similar cases as having an unknown source, on par with cases in which no
etymology for a given AM is given.
   The overview of the sources of AMs attested in my sample is given in Table 1. For
the sake of exposition, sources are grouped in six main groups: lexical verbs, spatial
markers, spontaneous events, aspectual markers, nominalizations and verbalizations
and non-reflexive voice markers (plus a seventh group for unknown sources). In the
next sections, I shall discuss each group in more detail. In particular, I focus on the
semantic features of the source construction that might have triggered the emergence
of the anticausative function and discuss possible bridging contexts for such shifts
(see Heine 2002; Sansò 2017).


                             Type of source                 Frequency
                      Lexical verbs                     32
                      Spatial markers                   2
                      Spontaneous events markers        2
                      Aspectual markers                 6
                      Nominalizers and verbalizers      3
                      Non-reflexive voice markers       4
                      Unknown source                    63


                                  Table 1: Sources of AMs


4.2. Lexical verbs > AMs


Lexical verbs constitute a well-known source of voice marking (see Kuteva et al. 2019,
e.g. EAT > PASSIVE, DO > CAUSATIVE), so that it comes as no surprise that they may also
turn into AMs. This shift follows the well-known grammaticalization path whereby



                                                                                                 136
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


lexical verbs evolve into grammatical markers (e.g. Lehmann 2015: 35–39). In our
case, lexical verbs first develop a grammatical meaning when used in various types
of analytic constructions, either combined with other verbs in auxiliary or serial verb
constructions or combined with nouns or ideophones in light verb constructions, and
out of these contexts they may eventually develop into bound anticausative
morphology.6
     Elaborating upon a distinction proposed by Haspelmath (1990) for sources of
passive markers, verbal sources of AMs can further be distinguished into intransitive
inactive verbs (‘be’, ‘become’, ‘happen’, ‘suffer’, ‘fall’), intransitive active verbs (‘go’),
and transitive verbs (‘do’, ‘say’, ‘get’, ‘give’, ‘hit’).7


4.2.1. Intransitive inactive verbs


The AMs discussed in this section go back to intransitive inactive verbs, that is,
monovalent verbs featuring a non-controlling/non-agentive subject (Haspelmath
1990: 38). Let us begin by considering analytic anticausative constructions. Quite
unsurprisingly, verbs meaning ‘be’ and ‘become’, which constitute frequent sources
of various types of auxiliaries cross-linguistically (Anderson 2006: 359), may also be
involved in anticausative analytic constructions. Two examples are Lezgian x̂un
‘be(come)’ in (10) and Hindi honā ‘be’ in (11). Note that the two patterns are different.
Lezgian x̂un can rightfully be described as an auxiliary, as it combines with a verb
stem. By contrast, Hindi honā is involved in a light verb construction (Shamin 2018)
in combination with nominal and adjectival bases, giving rise to an equipollent
opposition with its causative counterpart karnā ‘do’.


(10) Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian; Haspelmath 1993a: 165–166)
         bašlamišun ‘finish (tr.)’ à bašlamiš x̂un ‘finish (intr.)’

6
    According to Haspelmath (1990: 40), in the case of periphrastic passive constructions “it is misleading
to attribute the passive function to the auxiliary” because the passive meaning component usually
comes from the verbal form with which the auxiliary combines, typically a passive participle. This
does not entirely hold for the sources of anticausatives surveyed in Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.3, given that
both inactive and active intransitive verbs actively contribute with an inherent change-of-state lexical
semantics to the analytic constructions in which they are involved (Section 5.1).
7
    In yet other cases, AMs go back to verbal elements whose precise lexical nature remains unknown.
For example, the Creek (Muskogean) suffix -k- (Martin 2011: 216–218) is reconstructed as going back
to a Pre-Proto-Muskogean auxiliary verb *-ka (Haas 1977: 528–529), whose semantics cannot however
be reconstructed.


                                                                                                       137
Inglese                                                Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


(11) Hindi (Indo-European; Koul 2008: 102)
      daraāzā    band       karo     vs.     daraāzā    band      huā
      door       close      CAUS             door       close     ANTC

      ‘Close the door.’                      ‘The door (was) closed.’


Other languages offer evidence for later stages of this grammaticalization path
(Haspelmath 1990: 38), as in these languages verbs originally meaning ‘be(come)’
have yielded derivational bound affixes. This is the case of the Huaylas Ancash
Quechua (Quechuan) suffix -ka, historically connected with the verb ka ‘be’ (Parker
1976: 116), as well as of AMs in a number of Pama-Nyungan languages, such as the
Ngaanyatjarra suffix -ri, which is likely cognate with the Warlpiri (Pama-Nyungan)
verb jarri- ‘become’ (McGregor 2002: 144; this might possibly be further traced back
to a verb ‘fall’, McGregor 2013: 120; see below).
   Other intransitive inactive sources of AMs are ‘happen’, ‘suffer’ and ‘fall’. The Rama
(Chibchan) verb ting- ‘happen’ is involved in compound verb forms with anticausative
meaning in equipollent contrast with uung- ‘do, make’, e.g. tup-ting- ‘sink (intr.)’ vs.
tup-uung- ‘sink (tr.)’ (Grinevald 1990: Chap. 5, 21). The Vietnamese (Austroasiatic)
auxiliary verb bị ‘suffer’ has given rise to analytic constructions often described as
passive in the literature (Haspelmath 1990: 41; Kuteva et al. 2019: 414) but it can
also occur in anticausative equipollent verb pairs in contrast with causative làm ‘do,
make’, e.g. làm/bị ốm ‘make/get sick’ (see discussion in Simpson & Tâm 2013;
Bruening & Tran 2015).
   A verb ti- ‘fall, disappear’ is the source of the Korean AM -eci (Ahn & Yap 2017:
444; Yap & Ahn 2019: 19–20). Already in 15th century texts, the verb ti- is used either
with its full lexical meaning, as in (12a), or as the second member of serial verb
constructions (linked to preceding verb by means of a linking vowel), in (12b). Ahn
& Yap (2017) argue that in these serial verb constructions ti- underwent semantic
bleaching, lost its spatial ‘downwards’ component and fused with the preceding linker
to yield a new AM -eti-, attested already in the 17th century, as in (12c).


(12) Korean (Koreanic; Ahn & Yap 2017: 444–446)


a. apa-nim       po-si-ko          stah-ay     ti-ye
   father-HON    see-HON-and earth-LOC fall-LNK
   ‘Father saw (him) and fell to the ground.’



                                                                                                   138
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


b. sot-a-ti-ye             à     sot-ati-ye
     pour-LNK-fall-LNK           pour-ANTC-LNK
     ‘pour and fall’             ‘pour (intr.)’
c. elAm-i         muntuk       phul-ety-e
     ice-NOM      suddenly undo-ANTC-because
     ‘And because the ice suddenly broke.’


Further evidence for the FALL > ANTICAUSATIVE shift comes from AMs in Pama-
Nyungan languages, e.g. Warlpiri -wanti and Martuthunira -npa, both originally
meaning ‘fall’ (McGregor 2002: 140; McGregor 2013: 120). More generally, ‘fall’
verbs have been reported as sources of markers expressing sudden/unexpected events
(Anderson 2006: 348), which bear semantic similarities to AMs.


4.2.2. Intransitive active verbs


The label intransitive active verbs refers to the motion verbs ‘go’ and ‘come’, which,
unlike inactive verbs in Section 4.2.1, feature a controlling and volitional subject.
Deictic motion verbs such as ‘go’ have repeatedly pointed out as sources of auxiliaries
and voice markers (see Anderson 2006: 345–352; Devos & van der Wal 2014; Kuteva
et al. 2019) and also constitute sources of AMs.
     For example, in Jaminjung the verb ijga- ‘go’, besides other various functions
(Schultze-Berndt 2000: 258–266), marks the noncausal member of equipollent
alternations in contrast with the causative verb ma- ‘hit’, as in (13).8


(13) Jaminjung (Mirndi; McGregor 2002: 124)
        bag-ijga- ‘break (intr., lit. break-go)’ vs. bag-ma- ‘break (tr., lit. break-hit)’


A less clear example comes from Mosetén(-Chimané). In this language,
anticausativization may be encoded by the polyfunctional suffix -ki, as in (14a) (Sakel
2011: 306–312). In addition, a comparable form is found in associated motion


8
    Another possible example is offered by Italian, where the combination of the verb andare ‘go’ plus
past participle may encode spontaneous events and does not allow Agent NPs. However, the
construction does not constitute a widespread anticausativization strategy, as it is virtually restricted
to a subset of negative verbs, typically verbs of destruction, e.g. la conoscenza andò perduta ‘knowledge
got (lit. went) lost’ (see Mocciaro 2014 for details).


                                                                                                     139
Inglese                                             Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


constructions with the meaning ‘go there (to do something)’ (Sakel 2011: 273–275),
as in (14b), and both forms are formally similar to the lexical verb ka- ‘bring there’.
A plausible scenario is that the verb ka- ‘bring/go there’ was first used in combination
with other verbs in coverb constructions expressing associated motion, as in (14b),
and later extended to the anticausative use. Interestingly, a spontaneous change-of-
state semantics is found in lexicalized usages of associated motion -ki, as in (14c).


(14) Mosetén (isolate, South America; Sakel 2007: 328; Sakel 2004: 307, 275)


a. jofor’yi- ‘open (tr.)’ à jofor’ya-ki- ‘open (intr.)’
b. phan’-ye-ki-’
   feather-do-go-[3]F[SG]
   ‘She goes there to ask for feathers.’
c. ö-yä-ye-ki-’
   F-AD-do-go-[3]F[SG]

   ‘She is getting better (lit. she is going there).’


Evidence for a ‘come’ origin of AMs also comes from a variety of languages. In Italian,
the verb venire ‘come’ can be used as a passive auxiliary. As shown by Giacalone-
Ramat & Sansò (2014: 31–34), passive venire originated out of an earlier anticausative
state, already attested in Old Italian, as shown in example (15), in which the
periphrasis vennerro smarriti ‘came to be lost’ constitutes the anticausative counterpart
of smarrirono ‘lost (tr.)’ (Squartini 2003).


(15) Italian (Indo-European; Squartini 2003: 25)
      e     allora   gli      cavalieri   tutti    vennero            smarriti
      and then       DEF.PL   knight.PL all.PL     come.PST.3PL       lose.PPP.PL
      ‘And then all knights got lost.’


Semantically, the development of verbs ‘go’ and ‘come’ into AMs can be linked to a
well-known GO/COME > CHANGE-OF-STATE semantic shift (Schultze-Berndt 2000: 262).
This shift is based on a conceptual metaphor whereby EVENTS/STATES ARE LOCATIONS
and change of state can consequently be conceptualized as a change of location (e.g.,
Eng. go mad; see also Kuteva et al. 2019: 101–102, 204–205). In these metaphorical
contexts, the agency and animacy restrictions on the subject of the verb can



                                                                                                140
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


progressively be lost, favoring its extension to decausative verbs (e.g., Eng. go cold).
Note that a comparable metaphorical shift, whereby entry into/exit from a location
stands for beginning of an event, also underlies the development of the verbs ‘go’ and
‘come’ into ingressive markers ‘begin to’ (Anderson 2006: 347; Kuteva et al. 2019:
101), and ingressives constitute another source of AMs (Section 4.5.2).


4.2.3. Transitive verbs


Transitive verbs like ‘do’ and ‘give’ typically give rise to causative markers (Zúñiga &
Kittilä 2019: 220–221), but, perhaps surprisingly, they may also serve as sources of
AMs. Transitive verbs found as sources of AMs in the sample are ‘do’, ‘say’, ‘get’, ‘give’
and ‘hit’.
   Ainu features a suffix -ke that can be used in anticausative function when opposed
to causative verbs in -V, as in (16a). The same suffix also has a verbalizing function,
as it forms either agent-oriented causative verbs, as in (16b), or change-of-state
intransitive verbs from ideophones, as in (16c). In addition, -ke is sporadically used
in causative contexts, as in (16d) (Bugaeva 2015: 473–474).


(16) Ainu (isolate, Eurasia; Bugaeva 2015: 449, 473, 451)


a. mak-ke ‘open (intr.) vs.        mak-a ‘open (tr.)’
b. su ‘pan’        à      su-ke ‘cook (tr.)’
c. pat IDEO        à      pat-ke ‘explode’
d. ray ‘die’       à      ray-ke ‘kill’


The perhaps puzzling anticausative/causative syncretism of Ainu -ke can
diachronically be explained as follows. As argued by Bugaeva (2015: 473–474), -ke
can etymologically be traced back to a full verb *kï ‘do’. As a lexical verb, *kï ‘do’
could combine with various non-verbal elements, and these analytic constructions
served as basis for its grammaticalization into a verbalizer. Depending on the nature
of the element it combines with, verbalizations with *kï shows different semantics
(this is a typical feature of verbalizers, see e.g. Karaj & Sansò forth.). When combined
with nominal roots the result is a [N *kï] construction ‘do (with) N’ indicating an
agent-oriented activity involving the nominal element as instrument/theme, as in
(16b), while when combined with ideophones the result is an emission verb ‘do the



                                                                                      141
Inglese                                                  Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


IDEO    sound’, as in (16c). These are two typical contexts in which ‘do’ verbs occur
cross-linguistically: the use as activity verb and the use as verbalizer with sound-symbolic
expressions (Schultze-Berndt 2008: 190–191, 193–194). From the former, the suffix
further extended to direct causative contexts, as in (16d), while the latter served as
the basis for the development of the anticausative function, as in (16a), based on the
fact that emission verbs can easily be interpreted as spontaneous situations involving
a non-controlling inanimate participant. Thus, the anticausative and the causative
functions of -ke independently go back to the verbalizing function of the lexical verb
*kï ‘do’ (on the connections between ‘do’ and ‘become’ verbs see also more generally
Gil 2017). I return to the connection between verbalizers and AMs in Section 4.6.
     The verbalizing function with ideophones also plays a key role in the development
of ‘say’ verbs into AMs. This development underlies the anticausative use of the suffix
-me in Bininj Kun-Wok (Gunwinyguan), which according to Alpher et al. (2003: 332–
333) goes back to a verb *me ‘do, say’, the anticausative function of the in- prefix in
Semitic languages such as Arabic (Afro-Asiatic; Roset 2018: 247–248), which can be
reconstructed as going back to a generic action verb *n- ‘say, do, become’
(Kouwenberg 2010: 314–317), and the Yuracare AM -tA, likely from the verb ta- ‘say’
(Section 4.7.4). Comparable developments have also been discussed for a number of
languages from East Africa by Cohen et al. (2002).
     Acquisitive ‘get’ verbs are a known source of both anticausative (and also passive)
morphology (Lenz & Rawoens 2012; Kuteva et al. 2019: 187–189).9 According to
Gronemeyer (1999), historical corpus evidence from English shows that the
development GET > CHANGE-OF-STATE (Kuteva et al. 2019: 186) possibly originated in
the use of get in locative construction with a Goal, e.g. get to the shop. In these
constructions, the slot of the Goal was progressively filled first by adverbs and then
by adjectives/participles, while the construction kept the general meaning of
‘reaching a goal’. When combined with adjectives/participles, this resulted into an
anticausative reading, e.g. get burned, partly based on the CHANGE OF STATE IS CHANGE
OF LOCATION     metaphor discussed in Section 4.2.2. The passive reading of English get
eventually developed from the anticausative one (Gronemeyer 1999: 29).




9
    Interestingly, a connection between possession and change-of-state is also documented for several
denominal verbalizers that may variously be translated as ‘have N’ or ‘get N’ (Karaj & Sansò forth.).


                                                                                                     142
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


      Another compelling case for a ‘get’ origin of an AM is made by Frellesvig &
Withman (2016: 296–306) for the Japanese -e suffix.10 Already in Old Japanese, one
finds alternations between stem in -e (bigrade) opposed to consonantal stems
(quadrigrade). As shown in (17), the e-suffixed verbs occurs both in causative, in
(17a), and in anticausative function, as in (17b).


(17) Old Japanese (Japonic; Frellesvig & Withman 2016: 291)


a. tat- ‘rise, set out’        à     tat-e- ‘raise’
b. yak- ‘burn (tr.)’           à     yak-e- ‘burn (intr.)’


The anticausative/causative suffix -e derives from the combination of basic stems with
the verb e- ‘get’, still attested as a full lexical verb in Old Japanese. Both its valency-
related functions arose in constructions where the verb e- ‘get’ was used with
secondary predicates (though probably the causative was formed earlier and
remained the predominant pattern). In particular, as argued by Frellesvig & Withman
(2016), the anticausative usage likely emerged as the reinterpretation of a secondary
predicate transitive construction ‘A gets P to X’ as an intransitive construction
denoting a spontaneous event ‘P gets (to) X’. A context in which this reinterpretation
might have taken place are occurrences in which the transitive construction features
an omitted non-agentive experiencer/goal subject participant, as in (18).


(18) Old Japanese (Japonic; Frellesvig & Withman 2016: 299)
         kari     wo    tukapi          ni        e-tesika     mo
         goose    ACC   messenger       be.INF get-OPT         even
         ‘Would that (I) had gotten the wild geese as messengers! > Would the wild
         geese had become messengers.’


The development of transfer/contact verbs ‘give’ and ‘hit’ into AMs appears to be less
common. In the sample, I have only found one possible example of each. The Ingush



10
     Still, as remarked by Frellesvig & Withman (2016: 308), the English and the Japanese cases are not
fully equivalent. The anticausative meaning of the English get-constructions is also due to the
combination with resultative participles (which inherently indicate a change of state), while in
Japanese the verb e- ‘get’ is the solely responsible of the change-of-state semantics, as it combines with
basic stems.


                                                                                                      143
Inglese                                                   Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


anticausative marker -lu, shown in (19), is homophonous with the verb ‘give’ (Nichols
2011: 491), thus possibly deriving from the latter. In Yagaria, causative transitive verbs
can be turned into anticausatives by compounding them with the verb ei- ‘hit’, as in
(20).11


(19) Ingush (Nakh-Daghestanian; Nichols 2011: 751)
        d.iell ‘open (tr.)’   à     d.iella-lu ‘open (intr.)’


(20) Yagaria (Nuclear Trans New Guinea; Renck 1975: 154)
        lo’ao- ‘break (tr.)’ à      ei-lo’ao- ‘break (intr.)’


Also due to the rarity of these shifts, it is unclear how ‘hit’ and ‘give’ verbs might have
grammaticalized as AMs. In the case of ‘hit’, perhaps a role could have been played
by constructions in which hit denotes a motion event, e.g. he hit the ground (with his
body), thus linking the development of hit to that of ‘go’ (Section 4.2.1). I return to
the development of ‘give’ in Section 4.7.2.


5.2. Spatial markers > AMs


In section 4.2.2, I have discussed the developmental path connecting motion verbs to
the anticausative domain. In my sample, there are two more cases of AMs that go
back to sources with spatial semantics.
     The first example is that of the so-called ‘separative’ extension in Bantu languages.
Consider the suffix -uw- in Chuwabu, which occurs in passive and anticausative
contexts, as in (21).


(21) Chuwabu (Atlantic-Congo; Guérois & Bostoen 2018: 212, 219)


a. mí-ri       dhí-ni-ó-j-uw-á                   na     nyenyéle
     4-tree SM4-IPFV.DJ-15-eat-PASS-FV           by     10a.ant
     ‘The trees are being eaten by the ants.’
b. gob-ól-a ‘break (tr.)’ à         gob-ów-a ‘break (intr.)’
c. fúga ‘shut’                à     fúg-uw-a ‘open (intr.)’

11
     Renck (1975: 154) also mention that ei- ‘hit’ can be compounded with intransitive verbs to add a
causative meaning, but no data is given to illustrate this pattern.


                                                                                                      144
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


Chuwabu -uw- goes back to the Proto-Bantu intransitive separative suffix *-ʊk-
(Guérois & Bostoen 2018: 218–222), which in origin indicated “movement out of
some original position” (Schadeberg & Bostoen 2019: 185–186).12 This semantics is
especially visible in intransitive ablative motion verbs such as Proto-Bantu *-tá-ʊk-
‘come from’ (Schadeberg 1982: 61–65). Guérois & Bostoen (2018: 219) link the
anticausative function of Chuwabu -uw- directly to the reconstructed separative
semantics, but how this shift actually took place is not straightforward.
      One can hypothesize that the potential bridging context between the
separative/ablative and the anticausative functions was the reversive function
displayed by outcomes of *-ʊk- in several Bantu languages, such as Fwe in (21c). The
ABLATIVE     > REVERSIVE shift can be motivated by a metaphorical extension whereby
inverting the state resulting from an event can be conceived as exit from a location
(Gibert-Sotelo 2018). In some contexts, reversive verbs in fact encode spontaneous
change-of-state events, possibly only physical in origin, as in (21c), but secondarily
also involving more abstract situations, as in (22). It is out of the latter that *-ʊk- was
possibly reinterpreted as an AM proper.


(22) Fwe (Atlantic-Congo; Gunnik 2018: 234)
         -rwârà ‘become sick’ à -rwárùkà ‘become better’


The second, albeit less assured, case comes from Moskona (East Bird’s Head). In this
language, anticausativization is expressed by adding to transitive verbs an enclitic
element =ef, which elsewhere serves as a proximal demonstrative enclitic ‘near’, e.g.
og ‘bend (tr.)’ à og=i-ef ‘bend (intr.)’ (Gravelle 2010: 123–125, 196). The historical
relationship between the deictic and the AM functions of Moskona =ef remains
unclear, but it is possible that the deictic function is prior, as it is the only one attested
for the cognate demonstrative if ‘this’ in the closely related language Meyah (Gravelle
2002: 149–150). Perhaps the development of Moskona =ef can be linked to the
development of deictic motion verbs into anticausatives (Section 4.2.2).




12
     On the polyfunctionality of outcomes of Proto-Bantu *-ʊk- in individual Bantu languages see Dom et
al. (2016: 140–143).


                                                                                                   145
Inglese                                                Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


4.4. Spontaneous events > AM


AMs may emerge from markers that encode of spontaneous events. In fact, a historical
link between the two is not surprising, given that both encode uncontrolled events
(Fauconnier 2011: 323–327).
   Sino-Tibetan languages offer a case in point. As shown in Table 2, in languages
such as Galo and Northern Pumi anticausativization is expressed by an alternation
between voiceless and voiced onsets of verbal roots, with the intransitive member
being associated with the voiced variants.


 Language                        ‘break (tr.)’        ‘break (intr.)’        Source
 Galo (Macro-Tani)               tɨŕ-                 dɨŕ-                   (Post 2007: 97)
 Northern Pumi (Burmo-Qlangic)   ʈʰwɐ̌                ɖwɐ̌                   (Daudey 2014: 295)
 Japhug (Burmo-Qlangic)          prɤt                 mbrɤt                  (Jacques 2021: 917)


                Table 2: The anticausative alternation in Sino-Tibetan languages


The origin of this alternation is a much-discussed topic in Sino-Tibetan linguistics:
some scholars argue that the direction of the derivation is from transitive to
intransitive, with voicing reflecting an intransitivizing prefix *N-, while others argue
for de-voicing of transitive verbs due to a causative prefix *s- (see Handel 2012 for
an overview). As argued by Jacques (2015; 2021: 918–922) and Gates et al. (2022),
decisive evidence in favor of an intransitivizing origin of the pattern comes from
Gyalrongic    languages.     This       is   particularly     clear     in    Jahpug,     in    which
anticausativization is expressed by pre-nasalization of transitive roots. For example,
pre-nasalization of the transitive verb prɤt ‘break’ yields anticausative mbrɤt ‘break
(intr.)’. This pre-nasalization historically underlies the pre-voicing pattern in Table 2.
   Jacques goes one step further and argues that anticausative pre-nasalization in
Japhug is historically connected with the ‘autive’ prefix nɯ- (Jacques 2021: 967–982).
This prefix is used either to encode self-benefactive events of various types (but never
in reflexive contexts proper) or it can be added to intransitive verbs to indicate that
the event takes place spontaneously or accidentally. The prefix is never connected
with a change in transitivity, and can likewise occur with intransitive and transitive
verbs, as in (23a-b).




                                                                                                   146
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


(23) Japhug (Sino-Tibetan; Jacques 2021: 974, 975)


a. ɲɯ-kɯ-nɯ-βze
   IPFV-SUBJ:PTCP-AUTO-grow

   ‘It grows by itself.’
b. kʰɯtsa       pɯ-nɯ-qrɯ-t-a
   bowl         AOR-AUTO-break-PST:TR-1SG

   ‘I broke the bowl (by mistake).’


Jacques hypothesizes that both anticausative pre-nasalization and the ‘spontaneous’
use of nɯ- ultimately derive from a common source which he reconstructs as a “nasal
prefix expressing spontaneous/non-volitive actions” (2015: 18), and which was not
originally connected with intransitivization (see Fauconnier 2011 on the link between
involuntary agent constructions and transitivity). Evidence for this comes also from
rare voicing pairs where both members are syntactically transitive, e.g. Khaling
(Himalayish) plum- ‘rinse in water’ vs. blum- ‘sink in water’. It is only later that
outcomes of this prefix become associated with transitivity change, hence turning into
AMs.
   A connection with spontaneous events has also been proposed for two
anticausativization strategies found in ancient Indo-European languages. The first
example is that of the Old Indo-Aryan suffix -yá, which is continued by AMs/passive
markers of modern Indo-Aryan languages, as is the case of Palula -íǰ in (24a-b)
(Liljegren 2016: 240–241).


(24) Palula (Indo-European; Liljegren 2016: 241)


a. bilá- ‘melt (tr.)’ à      bil-íǰ- ‘melt (intr.)’
b. de- ‘give’         à      da-íǰ- ‘be given’


The origin of passive -yá- in Indo-Aryan still constitutes a disputed topic among
specialists (see Lazzeroni 2004; Kulikov 2012; Luraghi et al. 2021 with references).
There is a consensus that the passive function of -yá- is likely secondary and must be
connected with the Sanskrit 4th class presents in -ya-, which were also associated with
the anticausative alternation, especially when opposed to causative suffixes such as -
áya-, e.g. náś-ya-ti ‘perish’ vs. nāś-áya-ti ‘make disappear’ (Kulikov 2012: 727–729).



                                                                                   147
Inglese                                                   Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


According to Lazzeroni (2004), intransitivization was however not the original
function of -ya-, which was instead connected with the characterization of
spontaneous (unaccusative) change-of-state events.13
     A similar scenario has also been proposed for the origin of the Active vs. Middle
voice alternation in ancient Indo-European languages such as Hittite, Ancient Greek
and Latin. For reasons of space, I will not discuss the details here (see Lazzeroni 1990;
Luraghi 2012; Inglese 2020: Chap 3).14 In short, scholars have argued that in Proto-
Indo-European verbal voice originally followed a lexical distribution, with the Middle
inflection specifically being confined to verbs indicating uncontrolled change-of-state
events or states, e.g., Lat. morior and Hitt. kištari ‘die’. Out of this original middle-only
group, voice alternation with anticausative function first arose, e.g. Hitt. zinnizi
‘finish.ACT (tr.)’ vs. zinnatari ‘finish.MID (intr.)’, and was later extended to other
functions such as the passive.


4.5. Aspectual markers > AMs


In a number of languages, AMs go back to aspectual-like markers (here broadly
understood as per Croft 2012). The three sources that I have detected in the sample
are resultative, ingressive and stative markers.


4.5.1. Resultative markers > AMs


Resultative markers indicate “a state that was brought about by some action in the
past” (Bybee et al. 1994: 63) and bear notorious resemblances to anticausatives
(Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 43), thus making the RESULTATIVE > AM shift unsurprising.15
Recall for example that anticausative get-constructions in English are built by
combining get with resultative participles. Another language that instantiates the
RESULTATIVE      > AM shift is possibly Hausa. The Hausa suffix -u shows a variety of

13
     The ultimate source of Indo-Aryan -ya- remains highly contested. For a discussion of possible
etymologies see Kulikov (2012: 748–759) and Willi (2018: 582 fn. 60).
14
     None of these languages has been included in my sample because their Middle inflection
synchronically also shows a reflexive function, which is however historically secondary with respect
to the anticausative one (see Inglese 2020: 235–237).
15
     Vajda (2015: 657–658) discusses the existence of anticausative verbs in Ket featuring a suffix -j-
etymologically connected with resultative -jə-. However, since from the available data it is not clear
whether -j- complies with the criteria laid out in Section 4.1, I have excluded it from my sample.


                                                                                                      148
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


functions (Jaggar 2001: 260–267), including proper resultative and anticausative, as
in (25a-b). Jaggar (1988: 405–408) reconstructs Hausa -u as the outcome of the Proto-
Chadic resultative suffix *-kwo, so that the resultative function is likely to be
historically prior.


(25) Hausa (Afro-Asiatic; Jaggar 2001: 263, 264, 267)


a. fas-à ‘smash’         vs.     fàs-u ‘(the glass) is smashed’
b. kaɗ-ā̀ ‘shake (tr.)’ vs.     kàɗ-u ‘shake (intr.)’


4.5.2. Ingressives > AMs


That AMs may also be associated with ingressive semantics has already been noted
by Haspelmath (1987: 34). An ingressive source might be proposed for the Filomeno
Mata Totonac prefix ta-. Among its various functions, the prefix can be used in
anticausative verb pairs following two patterns (McFarland 2009: 182–186). First, it
may stand in an equipollent opposition to causative maa-, as in (26a). This pattern is
limited to roots that never occur in isolation. Second, ta- can also be used as an AMs
attached to unmarked transitive verbs, as in (26b). In addition, the prefix shows an
ingressive, or ‘inceptive’ (McFarland 2009: 144), use, by creating dynamic motion
verbs when added to a close set of so-called positional verbs, i.e. stative roots
indicating location, as in (26c).


(26) Filomeno Mata Totonac (Totonacan; McFarland 2009: 185, 184, 109)


a. maa-čaw-ii ‘open (tr.)’              vs.    ta-čawa ‘open (intr.)’
b. lak-ponqa ‘knock down (tr.)’ à              ta-lak-ponqa ‘fall down’
c. -xuu- ‘inside’                       à      ta-xuu-maa ‘he’s getting inside’


Even though the etymology of Filomeno Mata Totonac ta- remains unknown, one can
tentatively sketch the following diachronic scenario.16 A comparable prefix occurs in


16
     McFarland (2009: 96) mentions a possible connection with the prefix ta- found in result
nominalizations, e.g. pink ‘split (tr.)’ à ta-pínk ‘split (intr.)’ and ta-pínk ‘the crack’. This connection
remains speculative, and might be due to chance, but note that a        NOMINALIZATION   >   ANTICAUSATIVE

development is perfectly conceivable (Section 4.6).


                                                                                                      149
Inglese                                             Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


virtually every Totonacan language, both of the Totonac and the Tepehua branches
(Beck 2012: 593), and its range of functions greatly varies: in some languages, such
as Upper Naxaca, it also occurs with autocausative and grooming verbs (Beck 2011:
15), while in other it also has a passive/resultative meaning, as in e.g. Yecuatla (or
Misantla) Totonac (MacKay 1999: 257). Nevertheless, the ingressive function seems
to be widespread among the family and indeed the prefix is only compatible with
stative verbs in the languages of the Tehepua branch (Kung 2007: 287). In particular,
other Totonacan languages attest to the existence of a pattern similar to (26c), but in
which a stative root co-exists alongside a ta-form with change-of-state semantics and
a causative ma-form, as in the Upper Naxaca example in (27):


(27) Upper Naxaca Totonac (Totonacan; Beck 2011: 35)
      lakí: ‘be open’ vs. ta-lakí: ‘open (intr.)’ vs. ma-lakí: ‘open (tr.)’


One may speculate that the ingressive function with stative verbs shown in (26c) and
(27) is older and served as the source for the development of ta- into an AM. This was
possibly favored by the loss of the original stative root, as in Filomeno Mata (26a), so
that both the change-of-state and the spontaneous semantic components were
reinterpreted as being expressed by ta- alone. Once reinterpreted as an AM, ta- could
be extended to transitive verbs in an anticausativization pattern proper, as in (26b).
   Further comparative work on ta- in Totonacan might shed light on the likelihood
of this reconstruction, but a good typological parallel comes from Latin. As discussed
in Inglese (2021: 148–153 with references), Latin features a peculiar pattern of
anticausativization for some stative roots, whereby alongside a bare stative root one
finds a telic spontaneous counterpart with a suffix -sc- and a causative counterpart
with -facio ‘make’, as in (28a). This pattern is reminiscent of that found in Upper
Naxaca Totonac in (27).


(28) Latin (Inglese 2021: 149)


a. pateo ‘be open’ vs. patesco ‘open up’ vs. patefacio ‘open (tr.)’
b. tremo ‘tremble’ vs. tremesco ‘start shaking’ vs. tremefacio ‘make tremble’
c. morbus ‘illness’ à morbesco ‘fall ill’ vs. morbificio ‘make ill’




                                                                                                150
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


In pairs such as (28a), the suffix -sc- arguably only adds a telic meaning component
to stative roots. This aspectual meaning is particularly clear when the verb applies to
atelic but dynamic roots such as tremo ‘shake’ in (28b), with which it gives an
ingressive reading ‘start shaking’. However, -sc- alone may also function as an
equipollent AM, especially in the case of verbs derived from nominal roots for which
a corresponding stative verb is lacking, as in (28c). This anticausativization function
of Latin -sc- is secondary. In fact, comparative evidence robustly points towards an
original aspectual use of the Proto-Indo-European suffix *-sḱe/o-, connected with
imperfectivity, atelicity and pluractionality (Berrettoni 1971; Inglese & Mattiola
2020: 286–291; Inglese 2021: 151). Out of this original meaning, the ingressive
semantics only developed in combination with atelic roots (as evidenced already by
Hittite; Inglese & Mattiola 2020), and from there it was further extended to stative
roots, thus leading to the change-of-state and eventually anticausative semantics.


4.5.3. Stative markers > AMs


A connection between stativity and anticausativization has traditionally been
reconstructed for Ancient Greek -ē-. This suffix is described in reference grammars as
a dedicated passive affix in the Aorist system, as in (29a), but in fact it also functions
as an AM (Allan 2003: Chap. 3; Romagno 2014), as shown in (29b).


(29) Ancient Greek (Indo-European; Allan 2003: 95, 99)


a. éplēksa ‘hit’                vs.    eplḗg-ē ‘was hit’
b. ékausa ‘burned (tr.)’ vs.           éka-ē ‘burned (intr.)’


Much has been written about the origin of the ē-aorist in Greek (see Luraghi et al.
2021: 14–16 for an overview), but the general consensus is that it derives from the
Proto-Indo-European stative suffix *-eh1- (e.g. Willi 2018: 15). Outside of Greek, this
suffix predominantly occurs with stative verbs, e.g. Latin rub-ē-o ‘be red’, Hittite marš-
e- ‘be false, corrupted’, and this is taken as evidence to reconstruct an original
intransitive stative semantics for Proto-Indo-European *-eh1- (thus Ruijh 2004).17 The


17
     Ancient Greek features another ‘passive’ Aorist suffix -thē- which also functions as AM. This suffix is
reconstructed as a Greek combination of stative *-eh1- with a suffix *-dh-, the latter possibly resultative
in origin (Luraghi et al. 2021: 14–16 with references). A comparable suffix -th- is also found in the


                                                                                                        151
Inglese                                                    Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


anticausative function of Greek -ē- likely emerged in its combination with the Aorist
and was facilitated by the semantic proximity between stative markers and AMs, both
typically denoting uncontrolled situations (thus Haspelmath 1990: 51–52).18
     A stative origin has also been proposed for AMs in Tibeto-Burman languages. In
Bunan, the suffix -s performs an anticausative function, among its various usages, as in
(30a), and it also occurs with some inherently stative verbs, as in (30b) (Widmer 2018:
361–382). Based on comparable suffixes showing also a reflexive function in other
Tibeto-Burman languages, LaPolla (1996: 3) reconstructs a reflexive origin for Proto-
Tibeto-Burman *-si, from which both the stative and the anticausative use emerged.


(30) Bunan (Sino-Tibetan; Widmer 2018: 363)


a. al-tɕ-um ‘open (tr.)’ vs. al-s-ɕ-um ‘open (intr.)’
b. noŋs-men ‘be spoilt’, tʰos-men ‘be high’


However, an alternative reconstruction has been proposed by Matisoff (2003: 471–
472), who connects *-si with the Sino-Tibetan nominalizing stative suffix *-s, as
attested in e.g. Tibetan za ‘eat’ à zas ‘food’ (Jacques 2016). How a (stative)
nominalizing suffix can turn into an AM remains a matter of speculation, and I return
to this point in Section 4.6.


4.6. Nominalizers and verbalizers > AMs


Nominalizers and verbalizers constitute a well-known sources of voice morphology,
including passives and antipassives (Sansò 2016; 2017), and there is evidence that

formation of present stem verbs with anticausative function, e.g. phlég-ō ‘burn (tr.) vs. phlegé-th-ō ‘burn
(intr.)’ (see Magni 2010). If so, Greek -thē- provides further evidence for the            RESULTATIVE   >
ANTICAUSATIVE    shift discussed in Section 4.5.3.
18
     This is admittedly not the only possible scenario. In fact, to account for the shift from stative to
change-of-state semantics, Ruijh (2004: 59–61) himself propose that the anticausative/passive
meaning actually arose only in combination with the Aorist formant *-s- and that Ancient Greek -ē-
thus goes back to *-eh1-s-. Other scholars instead have argued that the Proto-Indo-European suffix *-
eh1- was not simply stative but that a change-of-state component must be reconstructed for the proto-
language as well (e.g., Harđarson 1998), so that one cannot state with certainty which semantic
component was the original one. Finally, particularly interesting is a proposal that links stative *-eh1-
to the nominal instrumental case ending (Jasanoff 2004): in this view, the suffix was originally used
in stative nominal predications ‘X is endowed with N-eh1-’ and was later reinterpreted as a
denominative verbal suffix ‘X is/becomes V-eh1-’.


                                                                                                       152
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


they can also give rise to AMs. This is not entirely surprising and a synchronic
association between AMs and denominal verbalizers has already been noted in the
literature (Haspelmath 1987: 33; Aikhenvald 2011: 244–245; Grestenberger 2016:
105).
   In Section 4.5.3, I have mentioned the stative nominalizer *-s as a possible source
of the Tibeto-Burman AM -s-. A potential parallel is discussed by Authier (2012) for
the AM -aR- of Kryz and other related Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In Kryz, the
suffix -aR- can be used for anticausativization (as well as other voice operations), as
in (31a), and a comparable suffix is found in nominalizations, as in (31b-c).


(31) Kryz (Nakh-Daghestanian; Authier 2012: 149, 160)


a. ˀuf-a- ‘open (tr.)’    vs.   ˀuf-ar- ‘open (intr.)’
b. ke-xh-r-ic ‘move’      à     xh-ar ‘wind (lit. the moving)’
c. x-irayc ‘weave’        à     x-al ‘roof; cobweb (lit. the woven)’


Based on comparative evidence, Authier argues that the nominalizing function of -
aR- in (31b-c) is historically older. He further hypothesizes that these deverbal nouns
with S or P orientation ‘V-ing, V-ed’ could have been used in predicative function ‘X
(is a) V-ing/ed’ and that out of these contexts, deverbal nouns could have been
reinterpreted as intransitive V-aR- verbs. This is possibly how -aR- developed into a
voice marker encoding anticausativization.
   Verbalizers may also be sources of AMs. In Section 4.2.3, I have discussed how in
their development into AMs ‘do, say’ verbs first go through a stage in which the
function as verbalizers with ideophones (see also Section 4.7.4). Karaj & Sansò (forth.)
propose a verbalizing origin also for AMs in Malayic languages. For example, in Malay
(Austronesian) the prefix bər- also occurs in anticausative contexts, e.g. tolak ‘push
someone away’ à bər-tolak ‘shove off’. As argued by Karaj & Sansò (forth.), this prefix
goes back to Proto-Malayic *(mb)AR-, which can be reconstructed as a verbalizer
deriving either activities/states or change-of-state verbs from nouns. Out of the latter,
the prefix further developed a full-fledged anticausative function.
   A brief digression is in order on the status of inchoative verbalizers as AMs.
Verbalizers that create (spontaneous) change-of-state events ‘become X’ from
adjectives and nouns have been reported for several languages, and these often go
back to lexical verbs meaning ‘(be)come’ or ‘do’ (Aikhenvald 2011: 232, 237; Mattiola



                                                                                     153
Inglese                                                    Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


& Sansò 2021). However, inchoative verbalizers can rightfully be described as AMs
only when they participate in the anticausative alternation (criterion (i) in Section
4.1). An example from Misantla Totonac will serve to illustrate this point. Misantla
Totonac features two synthetic strategies to create denominal verbs meaning ‘become
X’: the suffixes -nan and -la (MacKay 1999: 339–342).19 While both suffixes derive
inchoative verbs from nominals, as in (32a-b), only -nan also occurs as an
intransitivizer with causative (denominal) stems, as in (32c). This means that while -
nan qualifies as an AM, -la does not.20


(32) Misantla Totonac (Totonacan; MacKay 1999: 339, 341)


a. haks-ta ‘smelly place’             à     haks-ta-nan ‘become smelly’
b. siski ‘sweet’                      à     siski-la ‘become sweet’
c. papaks-nV̰ ˀ-ii ‘make old’         à     papaks-nV̰ ˀ-ii-nan ‘grow old’


4.7. Non-reflexive voice markers > AMs


As already mentioned, reflexives are commonly held to be the main valency-related
source of AMs (Section 3). However, there is an increasing body of evidence
suggesting that also voice markers originally dedicated to other valency operations
may also extend to the anticausative domain (Bahrt 2021: Chap. 7).


4.7.1. Passive markers > AMs


While there is ample evidence that anticausatives may develop into passives (e.g.
Haspelmath 1990), the reverse shift, that is PASSIVE > ANTICAUSATIVE, is held to be


19
     The latter can in fact either occur bound to nominal roots or in isolation taking its own inflection
and is cognate to the Upper Necaxa Totonac verb la ‘do, make, become’ (Beck 2011: 204).
20
     MacKay (1999: 339) does not discuss the etymology of -nan, but it is strikingly similar to the
antipassive suffix -nan, which is widely attested in the Totonacan family (Beck forthc.) and possibly
derives from a suffix for agent nominalizations (Sansò 2017: 180–181). A connection between
anticausative and antipassive -nan can tentatively be sought in the use of -nan as a verbalizer: as
discussed by Beck (2008: 17), in Upper Nexaca Totonac -nan can be used to derive activity verbs from
nouns, e.g. tʃanáx ‘coa’ à tʃanax-nán ‘work with a coa’, or from ideophones, e.g. ʃtaya̰ya̰ ‘object gliding’
à ʃtaya̰ya̰-nán ‘glide’. Notably, the latter may also encode non-volitional events, and thus may have
served as bridge towards the inchoative and anticausative functions (see also Section 4.2.3).


                                                                                                       154
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


much rarer. This shift has been proposed by Kulikov (2011) for various passive
formations in Vedic Sanskrit (Indo-European). In his view, this development was
mostly confined to experiencer verbs and the bridging contexts was provided by
impersonalized passives: when these verbs were used with generic human Agents,
they were reinterpreted as encoding spontaneous events, e.g. śru- ‘hear’ > śrū-yá-te
‘be heard (by someone)’ > ‘be audible’ (on the etymology of -yá- see Section 4.4).
   Evidence for comparable developments remains rather scanty. In my sample, one
possible instance comes from Tzeltal. In this language, the infix <j> can be used in
both anticausative and passive function, as in (33a-b), but the latter is probably
original, as the infix is reconstructed as a passive infix *<h> in Proto-Mayan (Polian
2013: 292). Note however that Tzeltal <j> has a much wider anticausative usage
than the one discussed for Vedic by Kulikov (2011), so that it is doubtful whether the
PASSIVE > ANTICAUSATIVE       shift in Mayan took place following the same path.


(33) Tzeltal (Mayan; Polian 2013: 291, 293)


a. tsak’ ‘take’       à      tsa<j>k’ ‘be taken’
b. puk’ ‘melt (tr.)’ à       pu<j>k’ ‘melt (intr.)’


4.7.2. Causative markers > AMs


Causative markers have mostly been discussed as sources of passive markers (e.g.
Haspelmath 1990: 46–49, Bahrt 2021: 216–218), but they are also connected to AMs
(cf. Kittilä 2000). This connection should sound less surprising in light of the
discussion in Section 4.2.3 on the development of transitive verbs into AMs. In the
case of syncretic causative-anticausative(-passive) markers, it is commonly believed
that it is the causative meaning that gives rise to the anticausative one, as compelling
evidence of the reverse development has not yet been found (cf. Bahrt 2021: 107–
109, 214–215). Besides the examples discussed in Section 4.2.3, further possible
candidates for the CAUSATIVE > AM shift comes from Tungusic languages and from
Korean.
   Tungusic languages feature cognate suffixes with either anticausative or passive
function, as Even -b in (34) and Evenki -v/-p in (35). The situation of Manchu is
slightly different: here the suffix -bu shows either passive or causative functions, as in
(36), but it never functions as an AM.



                                                                                      155
Inglese                                             Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers




(34) Even (Tungusic; Malchukov & Nedjalkov 2015: 598)
      aŋa- ‘open (tr.)’ à aŋa-b- ‘open (intr.)’


(35) Evenki (Tungusic; Malchukov & Nedjalkov 2015: 609)
      ula- ‘make wet’ à ula-v-/ula-p- ‘become wet’


(36) Manchu (Tungusic; Malchukov & Nedjalkov 2015: 610)
      va- ‘kill’ à va-bu- ‘make kill, be killed’


Comparative evidence shows that Even -b-, Evenki -b-/-v- and Manchu -bu- historically
all derive from a lexical verb *-bu- ‘give’ (Nedjalkov 1993). According to Malchukov
& Nedjalkov (2015: 608–612), the most likely diachronic scenario is that Tungusic *-
bu- ‘give’ first developed into a causative marker, subsequently shifted to a passive
function, as shown in Manchu, and in languages such as Even and Evenki the passive
served as basis for the anticausative function. Both developments are compatible with
the known grammaticalization path that links ‘give’ verbs with causatives and
passives (Kuteva et al. 2019: 195–196, 198–199). In other words, in Malchukov &
Nedjalkov’s account, the passive is an intermediate bridging context in the CAUSATIVE
> PASSIVE > AM shift.
   While this might be true for Tungusic languages, a direct CAUSATIVE > AM shift has
been hypothesized for Korean by Yap & Ahn (2019). Besides the anticausative marker
-eci discussed in (12), Korean also feature a syncretic voice marker -i with (at least)
causative, anticausative and passive functions, as in (37a-c):


(37) Korean (Koreanic; Yap & Ahn 2019: 2, 6, 11)


a. emma-ka       aki-eykey cec-ul            mek-y-ess-ta
   mother-NOM baby-DAT breast-ACC            eat-CAUS-PST-DEC
   ‘Mother breast-feeded her baby.’
b. pang-mwun-i         cecello     camk-y-ess-ta
   room-door-NOM       by_itself   lock-ANTC-PST-DEC
   ‘The door of (my) room locked by itself.’
c. manhun     mwulkoki-tul-i     sange-eykey capamek-hy-ess-ta
   lots_of    fish-PL-NOM        shark-DAT     eat-PASS-PST-DEC
   ‘A lot of fish got eaten by the shark.’


                                                                                                156
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


Unfortunately, the lexical source of Korean -i is yet unknown (Yap & Ahn 2019: 20).
Taken at face value, the polyfunctionality of Korean -i is compatible with the
development CAUSATIVE > PASSIVE > ANTICAUSATIVE proposed for Tungusic *-bu by
Malchukov & Nedjalkov (2015). However, the available historical data does not fully
support this scenario: while the causative usage of -i is clearly primary, since it is
attested already in Old Korean documents dating to the 10th century, the anticausative
and the passive functions both first appear in Middle Korean texts of the 15th century
(Yap & Ahn 2019: 15). To account for this chronological distribution, Yap & Ahn
(2019: 16–19) argue in favor of the existence of two independent developments
CAUSATIVE       > PASSIVE and CAUSATIVE > ANTICAUSATIVE. Concerning the latter, they
propose that a crucial bridging might have been reflexive-causatives constructions, as
in (38), which, in absence of an overt Causee Agent and of a body-part expression
(omitted for e.g., politeness reasons), were liable to be reinterpreted as intransitive
constructions. Once -i started being used in intransitive constructions, it could have
well been extended to anticausative contexts proper featuring a omission of the causee
‘(someone) closed the gate’ > ‘the gate closed’.


(38) Korean (Koreanic; Yap & Ahn 2019: 17)
         namwu tok-(k)uy . . .       (ne-eykey)      koloi       kulk-hi-ketun
         tree     poison-NOM         2SG-DAT         painfully scratch-CAUS-if
         ‘If the poison of a tree causes (you) to scratch (yourself) badly’ à ‘If the poison
         of a tree scratches badly’.


4.7.3. Reciprocal markers > AMs


Reciprocals remain a lesser explored source of AMs. A possible example comes from
Bantu languages.21 In Orungu, the suffix -an can be used in both reciprocal and
anticausative function, as shown in (39a-b).22




21
     Other putative examples of the RECIPROCAL > ANTICAUSATIVE shift are discussed by Bahrt (2021: 192–
195). However, since the markers discussed by Bahrt also display a reflexive function, I have excluded
them from my sample.
22
     See Bostoen & Nzang-Bie (2010: 1276–1283) and Bostoen et al. (2015) for an exhaustive discussion
of the polysemy of -an in various Bantu languages.




                                                                                                   157
Inglese                                          Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


(39) Orungu (Atlantic-Congo; Ambouroue 2007: 191)


a. -rɔ̀ndà ‘love’     à     -rɔ̀ndànà ‘love each other’
b. -ßùrà ‘bend (tr.)’ à     -ßùrànà ‘bend (intr.)’


Comparative evidence suggests that the reciprocal meaning is primary and the suffix
is reconstructable to Proto-Bantu as an associative/reciprocal suffix *-an,
etymologically related to the comitative preposition n(a)- ‘with’ (Schadeberg &
Bostoen 2019: 174, 182–184). Bostoen et al. (2015) suggest that the link between the
reciprocal and anticausative use of *-an should be sought in the fact that both
situations are associated with low elaboration of events (Kemmer 1993; Lichtenberk
2000). This view is partly questionable, in that it is not clear why anticausatives
should feature low degree of elaboration of events/participants, as they are simply
one-participant events (see Inglese 2022a: 521). More importantly, it does not explain
how and out of which contexts the anticausative meaning actually arose. Based on
data from Hittite, Inglese (2020: 238–239) argues that a possible bridging context
between reciprocals and anticausatives is offered by the class of lexical spatial
reciprocals of the type ‘gather (intr.)’. These, much in the same vein as autocausatives,
may also license non-agentive subjects, e.g. ‘the leaves gathered (because of the
wind)’, thus giving rise to a spontaneous reading which can be then extended to
decausative verbs proper. More research is needed to assess the likelihood of this
diachronic scenario for Bantu languages.


4.7.4. AM > reflexive markers?


As discussed in Section 4.1, I have excluded from my sample those markers that
besides anticausatives synchronically also function as reflexives, based on the
widespread assumption that with these the reflexive function must be the original
one. Nevertheless, there is evidence that syncretic anticausative/reflexive markers
can also originate from non-reflexive sources and develop a reflexive function only
after the anticausative one. If this is correct, then the numbers in Table 1
underestimate the actual frequency of non-reflexive sources of anticausatives. For
reasons of space, I will only discuss the case of Yuracare and refer to Inglese (2022b)
for other possible examples.




                                                                                             158
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


   Yuracare features a suffix -tA that functions, among other things, as an
anticausative and reflexive marker (van Gijn 2010). Notably, while in reflexive usage
the suffix -tA is opposed to unmarked transitive verbs, as in (40a), in its anticausative
function it typically stands in an equipollent alternation with verbs marked by
causative suffixes such as -pi or -che, as in (40b).


(40) Yuracare (isolate, South America; van Gijn 2010: 277, 278)


a. chumë ‘cut (tr.)’         à     chumë-të ‘cut oneself ’
b. pishij-pi ‘break (tr.)’ vs.     pishij-ta ‘break (intr.)’
c. dürrüm ta-ø=ya
   IDEO.SI   say-3=REP
   ‘“Brooom” it went.’


Van Gijn (2010) convincingly shows that -tA is etymologically connected to the verb
ta- ‘say’. As a full verb, ta- could be involved in combinations with sound-imitating
ideophones ‘say X’, as in (40a). Following the developmental trajectory discussed in
Section 4.2.3, ta- was progressively extended to other visual and more abstract
ideophones, thus undergoing semantic bleaching, and also became morphologically
bound to the preceding ideophone. As a result, it effectively grammaticalized into a
new suffix -ta ‘say, be, become, do X’ which essentially functioned as a verbalizer
creating intransitive change-of-state verbs (Section 4.6). At this point, IDEO-ta verbs
started being paired with the independently created causative constructions IDEO-
che/pi (or other suffixes), thereby giving rise to an equipollent anticausative
alternation. Confirmation for this reconstruction comes from the fact that most roots
that take part in the pattern (40b) are in fact ideophones. The anticausative use of -
tA served as basis for the extension to other valency-reducing functions, including the
reflexive, which must therefore be secondary.
   How the ANTICAUSATIVE > REFLEXIVE shift actually takes place remains unclear.
Inglese (2020: 236–237) argues that a key role is played by autocausative motion
verbs, which, due to their intermediate semantic status, may serve as bridging
contexts between reflexives and anticausatives in either direction (see Section 2). A
crucial piece of evidence in support of the scenario proposed in Inglese (2020) comes
from the fact that markers that originate out of non-agentive sources may partially
extend to the autocausative domain without ever fully expanding to reflexive contexts



                                                                                     159
Inglese                                          Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


proper (in some cases, the only reflexive-like verb discussed in the sources is ‘hide’,
whose reflexive status is however questionable). For example, the Teltzal infix <j>,
which derives from a passive source (Section 4.7.1), is also attested with the
autocausative verb lijk’ ‘rise (oneself) up’ (Polian 2013: 293), or the Hausa suffix -u
of resultative origin (Section 4.5.1), is also used with the autocausative reciprocal
verb tār̀ -u- ‘(the doctors) gather’ (Jaggar 2001: 265). This evidence suggests that
autocausatives are not necessarily an extension of reflexive verbs as an intermediate
step in the REFLEXIVE > ANTICAUSATIVE shift (Section 3), but that they may actually
arise as a direct extension of decausative markers proper to contexts with more agent-
like subjects.


5. Discussion


5.1. Where do AMs come from?


In Section 4, I have shown that AMs cross-linguistically derive from a much more
varied pool of sources than what is reported in the typological literature. Overall, the
changes whereby the source constructions surveyed in Sections 4.2 to 4.7 develop
into AMs boil down to two general paths.
   Sources that already lexicalize an uncontrolled change-of-state semantics are
particularly suitable to turn into AMs. This is the case of verbs ‘become’ and of
spontaneous event markers. Other sources first undergo some intermediate, often
metaphorical, semantic shifts in order to acquire change-of-state semantics. For
example, intransitive inactive verbs all inherently denote uncontrolled change-of-
state events undergone by a Patient participant, and they all first develop into
‘be(come)’ verbs and subsequently into anticausatives. The verb ‘go’ acquires a
change-of-state component metaphorically through its change-of-location semantics,
and this might be the case of other deictic spatial sources. Acquisitive verbs ‘get’ also
develop into anticausative markers through a stage in which they function as motion
verbs. Ablative sources possibly first acquire a reversive function, which out of some
contexts may give rise to the anticausative semantics. Finally, aspectual sources share
different semantic components with anticausatives: ingressives and resultatives
already lexicalize a change-of-state component, while stative markers feature the
necessary uncontrolled semantics. All these cases can be subsumed under a more
general (SOURCE) > BECOME > ANTICAUSATIVE shift.



                                                                                             160
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


     Transitive verbs do not obviously share any semantic component with AMs. Their
development into anticausatives follows two trajectories. Generic action verbs ‘do,
say’ first develop into inchoative verbalizers (especially when combined with
ideophones) and subsequently into anticausatives. Other transitive verbs, e.g. ‘give’
(and partly ‘get’), likely go through an intermediate stage as causative markers.
     For other sources, the connection with anticausatives lies with intransitivization,
as these sources lack a spontaneous change-of-state component. Instead, all these
constructions are first reinterpreted as (agentless) intransitive verb constructions and
eventually extend to anticausative contexts. This is the case of (predicative)
nominalizers and of non-reflexive voice markers. Concerning the latter, the specific
mechanisms are quite varied. Causatives either first develop into passives, or they
directly develop into anticausatives due to the reinterpretation of agentless
constructions as intransitive ones. Passives possibly develop into anticausatives via
impersonalization. Finally, reciprocals license an anticausative-like reading only with
verbs that lexically encode symmetric spatial relations (e.g., gather).
     Note also that the same source can turn into an AM following multiple pathways,
as is the case of verbs ‘get’, which either follow the trajectory of motion verbs or that
of causatives (Section 4.2.3). The pathways of development of AMs can be
schematized in the network in Figure 1.23




                                       Figure 1: The origin of AMs



23
     The network merely visualizes how the various sources relate to the anticausative function, but by
no means constitute a semantic map of anticausativization in the technical sense of Georgakopoulos &
Polis (2018). A semantic map of anticausativization has been proposed by Haspelmath (1987: 35).


                                                                                                   161
Inglese                                                   Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


5.2. How does the anticausative alternation come about?


In Section 4, I. have investigated the (lexical) sources of AMs in the languages of the
world. A distinct question concerns how the anticausative alternation emerges in the
first place. Addressing this question falls out of the scope of this paper, so that I will
limit myself to some preliminary considerations here.
      The developmental pathways of AMs discussed in Section 5.1 partly account for
how individual AMs start being involved in the anticausative alternation. As hinted
in Section 4.6, in the case of BECOME-sources the anticausative alternation only
emerges once noncausal BECOME-verbs start being paired with corresponding causal
verbs, as discussed for the Yurakare suffix -tA (Section 4.7.4). Notably, in this scenario
the rise of the anticausative alternation constitutes a logically distinct and secondary
phenomenon with respect the diachronic processes that lead individual sources to
develop a spontaneous change-of-state semantics. By contrast, INTRANSITIVIZING-source
constructions are already involved in a transitivity alternation to begin with (with the
likely exception of nominalizers), so that with these the anticausative alternation
constitutes the result of individual sources extending to the expression of spontaneous
change-of-state events.
      Another question concerns the origin of anticausative and equipollent patterns. In
principle, one may speculate that specific source types will preferably give rise to
either pattern. For example, AMs that go back to light verb constructions with ‘do,
say’ verbs might be expected to give rise to equipollent patterns, as their causal
counterpart will likely be marked by a corresponding causative light verb, as is the
case of Hindi in (11) and Jaminjung in (13) (as similar scenario may hold for several
BECOME-sources).       By contrast, sources that already combine with verbs in auxiliary
verb constructions, coverb constructions or serial verb constructions might be
connected with the anticausative pattern, as shown by Lezgian in (10), Mosetén in
(14) and Korean in (12), respectively.24 Unfortunately, in most cases we lack the
necessary historical evidence to assess the syntactic pattern in which sources of AMs
originally occurred, so that this hypothesis cannot be thoroughly tested at present.




24
     I owe this observation to one of the anonymous reviewers.


                                                                                                      162
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


             Source                           Anticausative pattern      Equipollent pattern
             Lexical verbs                    14                         17
                ‘be(come)’                    5                          4
                ‘come’                        1                          0
                ‘do’                          0                          2
                ‘fall’                        1                          2
                ‘get’                         2                          0
                ‘give’                        1                          1
                ‘go’                          2                          2
                ‘happen’                      0                          1
                ‘hit’                         1                          0
                ‘say, do’                     1                          4
                ‘suffer’                      0                          1
             Spatial markers                  2                          1
             Spontaneous events markers       1                          1
             Aspectual markers                4                          3
             Nominalizers and verbalizers     3                          -
             Non-reflexive voice markers      4                          1


                               Table 3: Sources of AMs and types of alternation


At any rate, the data from my sample, shown in Table 3, only partially supports the
idea that the nature of the source construction determines the preference for one
pattern over the other.25 For example, as expected voice markers seem to preferably
give rise to anticausative patterns and so do verbalizers and nominalizers. For the
other source types no clear pattern can be detected, even if one considers the more
fine-grained etymology of lexical verb sources, in part because the numbers are so
small that they do not allow compelling generalizations. Nevertheless, the fact that
there appears to be a weak link between type of sources and types of patterns further
supports to the idea that markers that occur in the two patterns are not different in
nature (see Section 4.1).


5.3. Are anticausative a type of reflexives?


Especially in formally-oriented research, which has mostly focused on syncretic
reflexive-anticausative markers in Germanic and Romance languages, the relationship
between reflexives and anticausatives has been the object of much discussion focusing


25
     AMs that are in both detransitivizing and equipollent pairs have been counted twice in Table 3.


                                                                                                       163
Inglese                                          Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


on whether anticausatives constitute a type of reflexives or not (see Tubino-Blanco
2020: 22–29). According to some authors, for example Koontz-Garboden (2009),
anticausativization is in fact a type of reflexivization. This view has been challenged
by e.g. Horvath & Siloni (2011), who instead argue that anticausativization must be
kept distinct from reflexivity proper, despite the fact that the two may be co-
expressed. Indeed, Koontz-Garboden (2009: 92) maintains that “a compelling
argument for the reflexivization approach to anticausativization comes from the fact
that anticausativization and reflexivization are very commonly marked identically to
one another cross-linguistically.” I do not wish to enter here into the debate
concerning the status of reflexives and anticausatives, but I would like to point out
that the syncretism argument made by Koontz-Garboden (2009) is a rather weak one,
since, as demonstrated in this paper, languages often feature non-reflexive
anticausativization strategies. In particular, the diachronic evidence discussed in this
paper shows that AMs can arise out of source constructions that have little or nothing
to do with reflexivity, so that it is not clear how a reflexive analysis may be viable for
these.


6. Conclusions


In this paper, I have offered a detailed discussion of the sources and processes that
lead to the rise of AMs in a sample of 98 languages. Against the communis opinio that
AMs invariably grammaticalize out of reflexive and passive markers, I have shown
that AMs in fact emerge out of a much wider pool of sources in the languages of the
world. I have also discussed how the variety of sources observed in fact boils down
to two main developmental paths: individual sources develop into AMs either because
they are prone to developing a change-of-state semantics or because they are
connected with intransitivity. Another interesting finding is that there does not appear
to exist a strong correlation between types of sources and the type of morphosyntactic
pattern in which individual AMs are involved in terms of the anticausative vs.
equipollent distinction. This speaks to the fact that AMs can rightfully be considered
so irrespective of the pattern in which they occur. More research is needed to better
understand how and why the two patterns come about. Finally, the diachronic
evidence presented in this paper on non-reflexive sources of AMs also compels us to
rethink the purported connection between reflexivity and anticausativization, and
suggests that anticausativization, at least historically, is a phenomenon of its own.



                                                                                             164
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Simone Mattiola for reading through an earlier draft of this
paper as well as two anonymous reviewers for their insightful observations, which
have contributed to improving this paper. All remaining shortcomings are my own.


Abbreviations


 1 = 1st person                    DJ   = disjoint            OPT   = optative
 2 = 2 person
         nd
                                   DU    = dual               PASS   = passive
 3 = 3 person
         rd
                                   F   = feminine             PTCP   = participle
 ACC   = accusative                FV   = final vowel         PL   = plural
 AD   = adessive relation          HON    = honorific         PRS   = present
 ANTC   = anticausative            IDEO   = ideophone         PPP   = past passive participle
 AOR   = aorist                    INF   = infinitive         PST   = past
 AUTO   = autive                   INTR   = intransitive      REP   = reportative
 CAUS   = causative                IPFV   = imperfective      SUBJ   = subject
 DAT   = dative                    LKN    = linking element   SG   = singular
 DEC   = declarative               LOC    = locative          SI = sound imitation

 DEF   = definite article          NOM    = nominative        TR   = transitive
 DET   = determiner                NSG    = non-singular


References


Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap. 2017. From middle to passive: A diachronic analysis
        of Korean -eci constructions. Diachronica 34(4). 437–469.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2011. Word-class changing derivation in typological
        perspective. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Language at Large:
        Essays on Syntax and Semantics, 221–289. Leiden: Brill.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer. 2015. External
        Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford
        University Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2010. On the morpho-syntax of (anti-)causative verbs. In Malka
        Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and
        Event Structure, 177–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alhoniemi, Alho. 1993. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari). Hamburg: Buske.
Allan, Rutger J. 2003. The middle voice in ancient Greek: a study in polysemy.
        Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.



                                                                                                165
Inglese                                             Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


Alpher, Barry, Nicholas Evans & Mark Harvey. 2003. Proto-Gunwinyguan verb
      suffixes. In Nicholas Evans (ed.), The Non-Pama-Nyungan languages of Northern
      Australia, 305–352. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Ambouroue, Odette. 2007. Eléments de description de l’orungu. Langue bantu du Gabon
      (B11b). PhD Dissertation, Université Libre de Brussels.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2006. Auxiliary Verb Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University
      Press.
Armendáriz, Rolando Félix. 2005. A Grammar of River Warih’io. PhD Dissertation,
          Rice University.
Authier, Gilles. 2012. The detransitive voice in Kryz. In Gilles Authier & Katharina
      Haude (eds.), Ergativity, Valency and Voice, 133–164. Berlin / New York: de
      Gruyter.
Bahrt, Nicklas N. 2021. Voice syncretism. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Barlow, Russel. 2018. A Grammar of Ulwa. PhD Dissertation, University of Hawai’i
          at Mānoa.
Beck, David. 2008. Ideophones, Adverbs, and Predicate Qualification in Upper Necaxa
      Totonac. International Journal of American Linguistics 74(1). 1–46.
Beck, David. 2011. Upper Necaxa Totonac Dictionary. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Beck, David. 2012. Apéndice: Tablas de morfología comparativa. In Paulette Levy &
      David Beck (eds.), Las lenguas totonacas y tepehuas: textos y otros materiales para
      su estudio, 587–596. Mexico City: UNAM Press.
Beck, David. Forthcoming. Totonacan languages. In Søren Wichmann (ed.), The
      Languages and Linguistics of Middle and Central America: A Comprehensive Guide.
      Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Berrettoni, Pierangiolo. 1971. Considerazioni sui verbi latini in -scō. Studi e Saggi
      Linguistici 11. 89–169.
Bostoen, Koen, Sebastian Dom & Guillaume Segerer. 2015. The antipassive in Bantu.
      Linguistics 53(4). 731–772.
Bostoen,       Koen   &      Yolande   Nzang-Bie.   2010.      On      how      “middle”       plus
      “associative/reciprocal” became “passive” in the Bantu A70 languages.
      Linguistics 48(6). 1255–1307.
Bruening, Benjamin & Thuan Tran. 2015. The nature of the passive, with an analysis
      of Vietnamese. Lingua 165. 133–172.
Bugaeva, Anna. 2015. Causative constructions in Ainu: A typological perspective with
      remarks on the diachrony. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 68(4). 439–



                                                                                                166
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


      484.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar:
      Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of
      Chicago Press.
Campbell, Eric. 2011. Zenzontepec Chatino Aspect Morphology and Zapotecan Verb
      Classes. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(2). 219–246.
Campbell, Eric. 2015. Valency classes in Zenzontepec Chatino. In Andrej Malchukov
      & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, vol. 2, 1391–
      1426. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Castro Alves, Flávia de. 2004. O Timbira Falado Pelos Canela Apãniekrá: Uma
        Contribução aos Estudos da Morfossintaxe de uma Língua Jê. PhD Dissertation,
        Universidad Estadual de Campinas.
Cennamo, Michela. 1993. The reanalysis of reflexives: a diachronic perspective. Napoli:
      Liguori.
Cennamo, Michela. 2012. Aspectual Constraints on the (Anti)Causative Alternation in
      Old Italian. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 394–421.
Cennamo, Michela. 2020a. The actualization of new voice patterns in Romance.
      Persistence in diversity. In Bridget Drinka (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2017, 109–
      142. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cennamo, Michela. 2020b. Mechanisms and paths of grammaticalization and
      reanalysis in Romance. In Walter Bisang & Andrej Malchukov (eds.),
      Grammaticalization scenarios: cross-linguistic variation and universal tendencies.
      Volume 1 Grammaticalization Scenarios from Europe and Asia, 165–248. Berlin /
      New York: de Gruyter.
Cennamo, Michela, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2015. Semantic and
      (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization: Evidence from Latin and
      Old Norse-Icelandic. Linguistics 53(4). 677–729.
Cohen, David, Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle & Martine Vanhove. 2002. The
      grammaticalization of ‘say’ and ‘do’: An areal phenomenon in East Africa. In
      Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), Reported Discourse, 227–251.
      Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Constenla Umaña, Adolfo. 1998. Gramática de lengua Guatusa. Heredia (Costa Rica):
        EUNA.
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale: une introduction typologique. Paris: Lavoisier.




                                                                                      167
Inglese                                           Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


Creissels, Denis & Séckou Biaye. 2016. Le balant ganja. Dakar: IFAN Cheikh Anta
          Diop.
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2021. Towards a source-oriented approach to typological
      universals. In Peter Arkadiev, Jurgis Pakerys, Inesa Šeškauskienė & Žeimantienė
      Žeimantienė (eds.), Studies in Baltic and Other Languages, 97–117. Vilnius:
      Vilniaus Universiteto Leidykla.
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University
      Press.
Cunha de Oliveira, Christiane. 2005. The Language of the Apinajé People of Central
          Brazil. Eugene: PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon (Eugene).
Daudey, Gerdine Henriëtte. 2014. A grammar of Wadu Pumi. PhD Dissertation, La
      Trobe University.
Dench, Alan. 1995. Martuthunira: A Language of the Pilbara Region of Western
          Australia. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU.
Devos, Maud & Jenneke van der Wal (eds.). 2014. “COME” and “GO” off the Beaten
      Grammaticalization Path. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Dom, Sebastian, Leonid Kulikov & Koen Bostoen. 2016. The middle as a voice
      category in Bantu: Setting the stage for further research. Lingua Posnaniensis
      58(2). 129–149.
Dunn, Michael John. 1999. A Grammar of Chukchi. PhD Dissertation, Australian
          National University.
Estrada Fernández, Zarina, Mercedes Tubino & Jesús Villalpando. 2015. Valency
          classes in Yaqui. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency
          Classes in the World’s Languages, vol. 2, 1359–1389. Berlin / New York: de
          Gruyter.
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-Wok: A Pan-dialectal Grammar of Mayali,
          Kunwinjku and Kune. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,
          ANU.
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2011. Involuntary agent constructions are not directly linked to
      reduced transitivity. Studies in Language 35(2). 311–336.
Félix Armendáriz, Rolando. 2005. A Grammar of River Warihio (Mexico). PhD
      Dissertation, Rice University.
Filchenko, Andrey Yury. 2007. A grammar of Eastern Khanty. PhD Dissertation, Rice
          University.




                                                                                              168
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


Foley, William A. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford
        University Press.
Forker, Diana. 2013. A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Frachtenberg, Leo Joachim. 1922. Coos. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American
        Indian Languages 2, 297–429. Washington: Government Printing Office.
Frellesvig, Bjarke & John Whitman. 2016. The historical source of the bigrade
      transitivity alternations in Japanese. In Taro Kageyama & Wesley M. Jacobsen
      (eds.), Transitivity and Valency Alternations: Studies on Japanese and Beyond, 289–
      310. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Frowein, Friedel Martin. 2011. A grammar of Siar, an Oceanic language of New Ireland
      Province, Papua New Guinea. PhD Dissertation, La Trobe University.
Frowein, Friedel Martin. 2011. A grammar of Siar, an Oceanic language of New Ireland
        Province, Papua New Guinea. PhD Dissertation, La Trobe University.
Gates, Jesse P., Sami Honkasalo & Yunfan Lai. 2022. From transitive to intransitive
      and voiceless to voiced in Proto-Sino-Tibetan. Language & Linguistics 23(2). 212–
      239.
Geniušienė, Emma Š. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis. 2018. The semantic map model: State of
      the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics
      Compass 12(2). e12270.
Gerdts, Donna B. & Thomas E. Hukari. 2006. The Halkomelem Middle: A Complex
      Network of Constructions. Anthropological Linguistics 48(1). 44–81.
Giacalone-Ramat, Anna & Andrea Sansò. 2014. Venire 'come' as a passive auxiliary in
      Italian. In Maud Devos & Jenneke van der Wal (eds.), “COME” and “GO” off the
      Beaten Grammaticalization Path, 21–44. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Gibert-Sotelo, Elisabeth. 2018. Deriving ablative, privative, and reversative meanings
      in Catalan and Spanish. Borealis 7(2). 161–185.
Gijn, Rik van. 2010. Middle voice and ideophones, a diachronic connection: The case
      of Yurakaré. Studies in Language 34(2). 273–297.
Gil, David. 2017. Roon ve, DO/GIVE coexpression, and language contact in Northwest
      New Guinea. NUSA 62. 41-100.
Gravelle, Gilles. 2002. Morphosyntactic properties of Meyah word classes. In Ger P.
      Reesink (ed.), Languages of the eastern Bird’s Head, 109–180. Canberra: Research
      School of Pacific and Asian Studies.
Gravelle, Gloria Jean. 2010. A Grammar of Moskona: an East Bird’s Head Language of



                                                                                     169
Inglese                                            Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


      West Papua, Indonesia. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Grestenberger, Laura. 2016. Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European Deponents. Indo-
      European Linguistics 4(1). 98–149.
Grinevald, Colette. 1990. A grammar of Rama. Report to National Science Foundation.
Gronemeyer, Claire. 1999. On deriving complex polysemy: the grammaticalization of
      get. English Language & Linguistics 3(1). 1–39.
Guérois, Rozenn. 2015. A grammar of Cuwabo (Mozambique, Bantu P34). PhD
          Dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2.
Guérois, Rozenn & Koen Bostoen. 2018. On the origins of passive allomorphy in
      Cuwabo (Bantu P34). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
      36(3). 211–233.
Gunnik, Hilde. 2018. A grammar of Fwe. A Bantu language of Zambia and Namibia. PhD
      Dissertation, Ghent University.
Haas, Mary. 1977. From auxiliary verb to inflectional suffix. In Charles Li (ed.),
      Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 525–537. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Haiman, John. 2011. Cambodian. loall.16. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
          Benjamins.
Handel, Zev. 2012. Valence-Changing Prefixes and Voicing Alternation in Old Chinese
      and Proto-Sino-Tibetan: Reconstructing *s- and *N- Prefixes. Language and
      Linguistics 13(1). 61–82.
Harđarson, Jón A. 1998. Mit dem Suffix *-eh1- bzw. *-(e)h1-i ̯e/o- gebildete
      Verbalstämme im Indogermanischen. In Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur
      der Indogermanen: Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft
      Innsbruck,     22.-28.   September   1996,     323–339.     Innsbruck:       Institut     für
      Sprachwissenschaft.
Hardy, Donald E. 1994. Middle Voice in Creek. International Journal of American
          Linguistics 60(1). 39–68.
Hardy, Heather K. & Timothy Montler. 1991. The formation of the Alabama middle
          voice. Lingua 85(1). 1–15.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type. Köln:
      Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The Grammaticization of Passive Morphology. Studies in
      Language 14(1). 25–72.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993a. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993b. More on the typology of the inchoative/causative verb



                                                                                               170
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


      alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and
      Transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2016. Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation
      and the spontaneity scale. Lingua Posnaniensis 58(2). 33–63.
Healey, Phyllis M. 1965. Levels, constituent strings, and agreement in Telefol syntax.
        PhD Dissertation, Australian National University.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2005. A Grammar of Tamashek (Tuareg of Mali). Berlin / New York:
        de Gruyter.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2014. Grammar of Humburi Senni (Songhay of Hombori, Mali). Ms.
Heidinger, Steffen. 2010. French anticausatives: A diachronic perspective. Berlin / New
      York: de Gruyter.
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer &
      Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 83–102.
      Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hill, Jane H. 2005. A Grammar of Cupeño. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of
        California Press.
Hill, Jane H. & Kenneth C. Hill. 2019. Comparative Takic Grammar. Survey Reports,
        Survey of California and Other Indian Languages. Berkeley.
        https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6tr732gg.
Holvoet, Axel. 2020. The Middle Voice in Baltic. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
      Benjamins.
Honeyman, Thomas. 2017. A grammar of Momu, a language of Papua New Guinea.
        PhD Dissertation, Australian National University.
Horvath, Julia & Tal Siloni. 2011. Anticausatives: Against reflexivization. Lingua
      121(15). 2176–2186.
Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.). 2003. A Grammar of Basque.
        Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Inglese, Guglielmo & Simone Mattiola. 2020. Pluractionality in Hittite: A new look at
      the suffix -ške/a-. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73(2). 261–303.
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2020. The Hittite middle voice: synchrony, diachrony, typology.
      Leiden: Brill.
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2021. Anticausativization and basic valency orientation in Latin.
      In Silvia Luraghi & Elisa Roma (eds.), Valency over time, 133–168. Berlin / New
      York: de Gruyter.
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2022a. Towards a typology of middle voice systems. Linguistic



                                                                                         171
Inglese                                             Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


      Typology 26(3). 489–531.
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2022b. The rise of middle voice systems: a study in diachronic
      typology. Diachronica aop.
Jacques, Guillaume. 2015. The spontaneous-autobenefactive prefix in Japhug
      Rgyalrong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 38(2). 271–291.
Jacques, Guillaume. 2016. How Many *-s Suffixes in Old Chinese? Bulletin of Chinese
      Linguistics 9(2). 205–217.
Jacques, Guillaume. 2021. A grammar of Japhug. Language Science Press. Berlin:
      Language Science Press.
Jaggar, Philip. 1988. Affected-subject (‘grade 7’) verbs in Hausa: What are they and
      where do they come from. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and Voice, 387–
      416. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jaggar, Philip. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jakobi, Angelika, Joachim Crass & Bakhit Seby Abdoulaye. 2004. Grammaire du
          beria (langue saharienne). Köln: Köppe.
Janhunen, Juha A. 2012. Mongolian. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jasanoff, Jay H. 2004. ‘Stative’ *-ē- revisited. Die Sprache 43. 127–170.
Joswig, Andreas. 2019. The Majang Language. Utrecht: LOT.
Karaj, Dawid & Andrea Sansò. Forthcoming. From agent-oriented verbalizer to middle
      marker: The diachrony of the middle voice in Malayo-Sumbawan. STUF -
      Language Typology and Universals.
Kawachi, Kazuhiro. 2007. A Grammar of Sidaama (Sidamo), a Cushitic Language of
          Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation, State University of New York.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
      Benjamins.
Kim, Yuni. 2005. Topics in the Phonology and Morphology of San Francisco del Mar
          Huave. PhD Dissertation, University of California (Berkeley).
Kittilä, Seppo. 2000. Causative morphemes as a de-transitivizing device: what do non-
      canonical instances reveal about causation and causativization? Folia Linguistica
      47(1). 113–137.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic
      Theory 27(1). 77–138.
Koul, Omkar Nath. 2008. Modern Hindi grammar. Springfield: Dunwoody Press.
Kouwenberg, Norbertus J. C. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background.
          Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns.



                                                                                                172
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


Kulikov, Leonid. 2011. Passive to anticausative through impersonalization. The case
      of Vedic and Indo-European. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.),
      Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, 229–254. Amsterdam /
      Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kulikov, Leonid. 2012. The Vedic -ya-presents: Passives and Intransitivity in Old Indo-
      Aryan. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kullmann, Rita & D. Tserenpil. 2008. Mongolian Grammar. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of
        Sciences.
Kung, Susan Smythe. 2007. A Descriptive Grammar of Huehuetla Tepehua. PhD
      Dissertation, University of Texas (Austin).
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee.
      2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
      Press.
LaPolla, Randy. 1996. Middle voice marking in Tibeto-Burman. Proceedings of the
      Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics: Pan-Asiatic Linguistics
      (January 8-10, 1996) 5. 1940–1954.
Lazzeroni, Romano. 1990. La diatesi come categoria linguistica. Studi sul medio
      indoeuropeo. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 33(2). 11–23.
Lazzeroni, Romano. 2004. Inaccusatività indoeuropea e alternanza causativa vedica.
      Archivio Glottologico Italiano 89(2). 139–164.
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization (3rd edn.). Berlin: Language
      Science Press.
Lenz, Alexandra N. & Gudrun Rawoens. 2012. The art of getting: GET verbs in
      European languages from a synchronic and diachronic point of view:
      Introduction. Linguistics 50(6). 1075–1078.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.
      Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2000. Reciprocals without reflexives. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier
      & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and Functions, 32–62. Amsterdam /
      Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Liljegren, Henrik. 2016. A grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press.
López Nicolás, Óscar. 2016. Estudios de la fonología y gramática del zapoteco de
        Zoochina. PhD Dissertation, CIESAS (Ciudad de México).
Luraghi, Silvia. 2012. Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies
      in Language 36(1). 1–32.



                                                                                      173
Inglese                                            Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


Luraghi, Silvia, Guglielmo Inglese & Daniel Kölligan. 2021. The passive voice in
          ancient Indo-European languages: inflection, derivation, periphrastic verb
          forms. Folia Linguistica Historica 42(2). 339–391.
MacKay, Carolyn Joyce. 1999. A Grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City:
      University of Utah Press.
Magni, Elisabetta. 2010. L’evoluzione semantico-funcionale dell’elemento -θ- nella
      morfologia verbale del greco. In Ignazio Putzu, Giulio Paulis, Gianfranco Nieddu
      & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), La morfologia del greco tra tipologia e diacronia, 266–
      287. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Malchukov, Andrej & Igor V. Nedjalkov. 2015. Valency classes in Even (North
      Tungusic) in a comparative Tungusic perspective. In Andrej Malchukov &
      Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, vol. 1, 571–627.
      Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Malchukov, Andrej. 2015. Valency classes and alternation: parameters of variation.
      In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s
      Languages, vol. 1, 73–130. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Martin, Jack B. 2011. A Grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln / London: University
      of Nebraska Press.
Martínez Corripio, Israel & Ricardo Maldonado. 2010. Middles and reflexives in
          Yucatec Maya: Trusting speaker intuition. In Daisy Rosenblum, Jean Gail
          Mulder & Andrea L. Berez (eds.), Fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous
          languages of the Americas, 147–171. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Martínez Rojas, Lucía, Veróniqua Orqueda, Francisca Toro Varela, & Berta González
      Saavedra. 2021. Desarrollo diacrónico de las funciones de se y sibi del latín
      arcaico al latín clásico. Boletín de Filología 56(2). 483–517.
Martins, Silvana Andrade. 2004. Fonologia e Gramática Dâw. Utrecht: LOT.
Matisoff, James. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of
      Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Mattiola, Simone & Andrea Sansò. 2021. A typology of denominal verb formation.
      Paper presented at the 54th SLE Meeting, online.
McFarland, Teresa Ann. 2009. The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata
      Totonac. PhD Dissertation, University of California (Berkeley).
McGregor, William B. 2002. Verb Classification in Australian Languages. Berlin / New
      York: de Gruyter.
McGregor, William B. 2013. Grammaticalisation of verbs into temporal and modal



                                                                                               174
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


      markers in Australian languages. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.),
      Diachronic and typological perspectives on verbs, 107–132. Amsterdam /
      Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mithun, Marianne. 2000. Valency-changing derivation in Central Alaskan Yup’ik. In
        R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing Valency: Case Studies
        in Transitivity, 84–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mocciaro, Egle. 2014. Passive in motion: the Early Italian auxiliary andare (‘to go’).
        In Maud Devos & Jenneke van der Wal (eds.), “COME” and “GO” off the
        Beaten Grammaticalization Path, 45–68. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Morgan, Lawrence. 1991. A Description of the Kutenai Language. PhD Dissertation,
        University of California (Berkeley).
Mushin, Ilana. 2012. A Grammar of (Western) Garrwa. Berlin / New York: de
        Gruyter.
Narrog, Heiko. 2016. Japanese transitivity pairs through time–a historical and
        typological perspective. In Taro Kageyama & Wesley M. Jacobsen (eds.),
        Transitivity and Valency Alternations: Studies on Japanese and Beyond, 249–268.
        Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Nava, Fernando & Ricardo Maldonado. 2004. Basic Voice Patterns in Tarascan
        (P’orhepecha). In Michael Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language,
        Culture, and Mind, 461–477. CSLI Publications. Stanford.
Nedjalkov, Igor V. 1993. Causative-passive polysemy of the Manchu-Tungusic -bu/-
      v(u)-. Antwerpen: Hoger Instituut voor Vertalers en Tolken 27. 193–202.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Georgij G. Silnitsky. 1973. The Typology of Morphological
      and Lexical Causatives. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Trends in Soviet Theoretical
      Linguistics, 1–32. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and
      detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2). 149–211.
Nikolaeva, Irina & Maria Tolskaya. 2001. A Grammar of Udihe. Berlin / New York:
        de Gruyter.
Okrand, Marc. 1977. Mutsun Grammar. PhD Dissertation, University of California
        (Berkeley).
Pacchiarotti, Sara & Leonid Kulikov. 2022. Bribri media tantum verbs and the rise of
        labile syntax. Linguistics. 60(2). 617–657.
Park, Indrek. 2012. A grammar of Hidatsa. PhD Dissertation, Indiana University.



                                                                                    175
Inglese                                            Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


Parker, Gary J. 1976. Gramática del quechua Áncash-Huaylas. Lima: IEP.
Pawley, Andrew K. 1972. On the internal relationship of eastern Oceanic languages.
      In Roger C. Green & Marian Kelly (eds.), Studies in Oceanic culture history, 1–142.
      Honolulu: Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum.
Peña, Jaime G. 2015. A grammar of Wampis. PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon.
Petrollino, Sara. 2016. A Grammar of Hamar: A South Omotic Language of Ethiopia.
          PhD Dissertation, Leiden University.
Pharris, Nicholas J. 2006. Winuunsi Tm Talapaas: a grammar of the Molalla language.
          PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Pinkster, Harm. 2015. The Oxford Latin Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polian, Gilles. 2013. Gramática del tseltal de Oxchuc. Ciudad de Mexico: CIESAS.
Post, Mark. 2007. A Grammar of Galo. PhD Dissertation, La Trobe University.
Pucilowski, Anna. 2013. Topics in Ho morphophonology and morphosyntax. PhD
          Dissertation, University of Oregon.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result
      complementarity. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.),
      Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University
      Press.
Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (Nìinò Mó-Dì). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Renck, Günther L. 1975. A Grammar of Yagaria. Canberra: Research School of Pacific
      and Asian Studies, ANU.
Riese, Timothy. 2001. Vogul. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Robinson, Stuart. 2011. Split intransitivity in Rotokas, a Papuan language of
          Bougainville. PhD Dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
Rojas Berscia, Luis Miguel. 2013. La sintaxis y semántica de las construcciones
          causativas en el chayahuita de Balsapuerto. MA. Thesis, Pontificia Universidad
          Católica del Perú.
Romagno, Domenica. 2014. The aorist in “-en” in Homeric Greek: at the
      morphosyntax-semantics interface: a thorough analysis of Iliad and Odyssey.
      Archivio glottologico italiano 99(2). 155–186.
Rombandeeva, E. I. 1973. Mansijskij (vogul’skij) jazyk. Moscow: Nauka.
Roset, Caroline. 2018. A grammar of Darfur Arabic. Utrecht: LOT.
Ruijh, Cornelius J. 2004. The Stative Value of the PIE Verbal Suffix *-eh1-. In John
      Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies In Honour of Anna Morpurgo
      Davies, 48–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



                                                                                               176
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. The verbness markers of Mosetén from a typological
        perspective. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), New Challenges in
        Typology: Broadening the Horizons and Redefining the Foundations, 315–335.
        Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Sakel, Jeanette. 2011. A Grammar of Mosetén. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Salminen, Mikko. 2016. A Grammar of Umbeyajts as spoken by the Ikojts people of San
        Dionisio del Mar, Oaxaca, Mexico. PhD Dissertation, James Cook University.
Sansò, Andrea. 2016. Agent-defocusing constructions from nominalized VPs: A cross-
      linguistic type? Studies in Language 40(4). 894–954.
Sansò, Andrea. 2017. Where do antipassive constructions come from?: A study in
      diachronic typology. Diachronica 34(2). 175–218.
Sansò, Andrea. 2020. Routes towards the irrealis. Transactions of the Philological
      Society 118(3). 401–446.
Sasaki, Kan. 2016. Anticausativization in the northern dialects of Japanese. In Taro
        Kageyama & Wesley M. Jacobsen (eds.), Transitivity and Valency Alternations:
        Studies on Japanese and Beyond, 183–214. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Schadeberg, Thilo. 1982. Les suffixes verbaux séparatifs en bantou. Sprache und
      Geschichte in Afrika 4. 55–66.
Schadeberg, Thilo & Koen Bostoen. 2019. Word formation. In Mark Van de Velde,
      Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (2nd
      edn.), 172–203. London: Routledge.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (anti-)causatives: External Arguments in Change-
      of-state Contexts. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schäfer, Florian. 2009. The Causative Alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass
      3(2). 641–681.
Schrock, Terrill. 2017. The Ik language. Language Science Press. Berlin: Language
        Science Press.
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2000. Simple and Complex Verbs in Jaminjung: A Study of Event
      Categorisation in an Australian Language. PhD Dissertation, Katholieke
      Universiteit Nijmegen.
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2008. What do “do” verbs do? The semantic diversity of
      generalised action verbs. In Elisabeth Verhoeven, Stavros Skopetas, Yong-Min
      Shin, Yoko Nishina & Johannes Helmbrecht (eds.), Studies on Grammaticalization,
      185–208. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.



                                                                                     177
Inglese                                             Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


Segerer, Guillaume. 2002. La langue bijogo de Bubaque (Guinée Bissau). Louvain:
          Peeters.
Seidel, Frank. 2008. A Grammar of Yeyi: A Bantu Language of Southern Africa. Köln:
          Köppe.
Shamin, Fatma. 2018. Conjunct verbs in Hindi. In Ghanshyam Sharma & Rajesh Bhatt
      (eds.), Trends in Hindi Linguistics, 214–244. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Simpson, Andrew & Hồ Hảo Tâm. 2013. Vietnamese and the typology of passive
      constructions. In Daniel Hole & Elisabeth Löbel (eds.), Linguistics of Vietnamese:
      An International Survey, 155–184. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Song, Jae Jung. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal -typological perspective.
      London: Longman.
Squartini, Mario. 2003. La grammaticalizzazione di <venire + participio> in
      Italiano. In Claus D. Pusch & Andreas Wesch (eds.), Verbalperiphrasen in den
      (ibero-)romanischen Sprachen, 23–34. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Steeman, Sander. 2012. A grammar of Sandawe a Khoisan language of Tanzania.
          Utrecht: LOT.
Suttles, Wayne P. 2004. Musqueam Reference Grammar. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Troiani, Duna. 2007. Fonología y morfosintaxis de la lengua totonaca: Municipio de
          Huehuetla, Sierra Norte de Puebla. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de
          Antropología e Historia.
Tubino-Blanco, Mercedes. 2020. Causative-Inchoative in Morphology. Oxford
      Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, Katherine. 1987. Aspects of Salinan Grammar. PhD Dissertation, University of
          California (Berkeley).
Vajda, Edward J. 2015. Valency properties of the Ket verb clause. In Andrej
      Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages,
      vol. 1, 629–668. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Wagner, Peter. 2012. A Grammar of North West Lovari Romani. PhD Dissertation,
          Univerzita Karlova v Praze.
Wakasa, Motomichi. 2008. A Descriptive Study of the Modern Wolaytta Language. PhD
          Dissertation, University of Tokyo.
Watters, David. 2006. Notes on Kusunda Grammar: A language isolate of Nepal.
          Himalayan Linguistics Archive 3. 1–182.
Wegener, Claudia. 2012. A Grammar of Savosavo. A Grammar of Savosavo. Berlin /
          New York: de Gruyter.



                                                                                                178
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221


Widmer, Manuel. 2018. A Grammar of Bunan. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Willi, Andreas. 2018. Origins of the Greek Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University
      Press.
Yap, Foong Ha & Mikyung Ahn. 2019. Development of grammatical voice marking in
      Korean: On the causative, middle and passive uses of suffix -i. Lingua 219. 1–23.
Yarapea, Apoi Mason. 2006. Morphosyntax of Kewapi. PhD Dissertation, Australian
        National University.
Yeon, Jaehoon & Lucien Brown. 2011. Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar. London:
        Routledge.
Zúñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä. 2019. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge
      University Press.

CONTACT
guglielmo.inglese@unito.it




                                                                                   179
Inglese                                             Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


Appendix: language sample


The sample used in this study derives from the combination of various existing samples of AMs and voice markers more generally
(Nichols et al. 2004; Hartmann et al. 2013; Muysken et al. 2016; Bahrt 2021; Inglese 2022a) to which I have also added languages
from other sources. Language names and genealogical classification are taken from Glottolog, consulted on 30/08/2022.


          Language         Glottocode              Family                      Marker                   Origin           References
 Afar                      afar1241      Afro-Asiatic                     Aux. edhe             verb ‘say, do’   (Cohen et al. 2002)
 Ainu                      ainu1251      Ainu                             Suff. -ke             verb ‘do’        (Bugaeva 2015)
 Alabama                   alab1237      Muskogean                        Infix -li             unknown          (Hardy & Montler 1991)
 Ancient Greek             anci1242      Indo-European                    Suff. -th(ē)          resultative      (Luraghi et al. 2021)
 Ancient Greek             anci1242      Indo-European                    Suff. -ē              stative          (Luraghi et al. 2021)
 Apinayé                   apin1244      Nuclear-Macro-Je                 a-series              unknown          (Cunha de Oliveira 2005)
                                                                          prefixes
 Arabic, Sudanese          suda1236      Afro-Asiatic                     Pref. in-             verb ‘say, do’   (Kouwenberg 2010; Roset
                                                                                                                 2018)
 Balanta (Ganja)           bala1302      Atlantic-Congo                   Suff. -le             unknown          (Creissels & Biaye 2016)
 Basque                    basq1248      Isolate                          Aux. da               verb ‘be’        (Hualde & de Urbina
                                                                                                                 2003)
 Bidyogo                   bidy1244      Atlantic-Congo                   Suff. -ok             verb ‘be’        (Segerer 2002)
 Bininj Kun-Wok            gunw1252      Gunwinyguan                      Suff. -me             verb ‘say, do’   (Evans 2003)
 Bribri                    brib1243      Chibchan                         Suff. -r              unknown          (Pacchiarotti & Kulikov
                                                                                                                 2022)


                                                                                                                                            180
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221

 Bunan                           gahr1239          Sino-Tibetan          Suff. -s       stative      (Widmer 2018)
 Canela                          cane1242          Nuclear-Macro-Je      Pref. -pi      unknown      (de Castro Alves 2004)
 Central Alaskan Yupik           cent2127          Eskimo-Aleut          Intransitive   unknown      (Mithun 2000)
                                                                         inflection
 Chukchi                         chuk1273          Chukotko-Kamchatkan   Suff. -et      unknown      (Dunn 1999)
 Chuwabu                         chuw1238          Atlantic-Congo        Suff. -uw      separative   (Guérois 2015)
 Creek                           cree1270          Muskogean             Suff. -k       auxiliary    (Hardy 1994; Martin
                                                                                                     2011)
 Cupeño                          cupe1243          Uto-Aztecan           Suff. -yax     unknown      (Hill 2005; Hill & Hill
                                                                                                     2019)
 Dâw                             daww1239          Naduhup               Tone shift     unknown      (Martins 2004)
 East Kewa                       east2516          Nuclear Trans New     Suff. -ba/bi   unknown      (Yarapea 2006)
                                                   Guinea
 East Khanty                     east2774          Uralic                Suff. -uj      unknown      (Filchenko 2007)
 Eastern Mari                    east2328          Uralic                Conj. -am      unknown      (Alhoniemi 1993)
 English                         stan1293          Indo-European         Verb get       verb ‘get’   (Gronemeyer 1999)
 Even                            even1260          Tungusic              Suff. -b       causative    (Malchukov & Nedjalkov
                                                                                                     2015)
 Even                            even1260          Tungusic              Suff. -rga     unknown      (Malchukov & Nedjalkov
                                                                                                     2015)
 Even                            even1260          Tungusic              Suff. -lbe     unknown      (Malchukov & Nedjalkov
                                                                                                     2015)
 Fang                            fang1247          Atlantic-Congo        Suff. -əbə     unknown      (Bostoen & Nzang-Bie
                                                                                                     2010)

                                                                                                                               181
Inglese                                         Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


 Fwe                    fwee1238    Atlantic-Congo                    Suff. -ahar           unknown       (Gunnik 2018)
 Galo                   galo1242    Sino-Tibetan                      Prevoicing            spontaneous   (Post 2007)
 Garrwa                 gara1269    Garrwan                           Suff. -j (Class 2     unknown       (Mushin 2012)
                                                                      verbs)
 Hamer-Banna            hame1242    Afro-Asiatic                      Suff. -(a)ʔ           unknown       (Petrollino 2016)
 Hanis                  coos1249    Coosan                            Suff. -ē              unknown       (Frachtenberg 1922)
 Hausa                  haus1257    Afro-Asiatic                      Grade 7               resultative   (Jaggar 1988; Jaggar
                                                                                                          2001)
 Hidatsa                hida1246    Siouan                            Middle                unknown       (Park 2012)
                                                                      inflection
 Highland Totonac       high1243    Totonacan                         Suff. -kan            unknown       (Troiani 2007)
 Hindi                  hind1269    Indo-European                     Aux. hona ‘be’        verb ‘be’     (Koul 2008)
 Hinukh                 hinu1240    Nakh-Daghestanian                 Suff. -ł              unknown       (Forker 2013)
 Ho                     hooo1248    Austroasiatic                     Suff. -en             unknown       (Pucilowski 2013)
 Hokkaido Japanese      hokk1249    Japonic                           Suff. -rasar          unknown       (Sasaki 2016)
 Huambisa               huam1247    Chicham                           Suff. -na             unknown       (Peña 2015)
 Huarijio               huar1255    Uto-Aztecan                       Suff. -i              unknown       (Armendáriz 2005)
 Huarijio               huar1255    Uto-Aztecan                       Suff. -pa             unknown       (Armendáriz 2005)
 Huave, San Dionisio-San sand1278   Huavean                           Suff. -j              unknown       (Kim 2005; Salminen
 Mateo                                                                                                    2016)
 Huaylas Ancash         huay1240    Quechuan                          Suff. -ka             verb ‘be’     (Parker 1976)
 Quechua
 Humburi Senni Songhay humb1243     Songhay                           Tone shift            unknown       (Heath 2014)


                                                                                                                                 182
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221

 Ik                              ikkk1242          Kuliak              Suff. -Vm        unknown          (Schrock 2017)
 Ingush                          ingu1240          Nakh-Daghestanian   Suff. -lu        verb ‘give’      (Nichols 2011)
 Ingush                          ingu1240          Nakh-Daghestanian   Aux. d.uoda      verb ‘go’        (Nichols 2011)
 Italian                         ital1282          Indo-European       Aux. venire      verb ‘come’      (Squartini 2003)
 Italian                         ital1282          Indo-European       Aux. andare      verb ‘go’        (Mocciaro 2014)
 Jaminjung                       jami1236          Mirndi              Suff. -ijga      verb ‘go’        (McGregor 2013)
 Jaminjung                       jami1236          Mirndi              Verb -yu(nngu)   verb ‘say, do’   (Schultze-Berndt 2000)
 Japanese                        nucl1643          Japonic             Suff. -ar        unknown          (Narrog 2016; Frellesvig &
                                                                                                         Whitman 2016)
 Japanese                        nucl1643          Japonic             Suff. -e         verb ‘get’       (Narrog 2016; Frellesvig &
                                                                                                         Whitman 2016)
 Khmer (Central)                 cent1989          Austroasiatic       Pref. ra-        unknown          (Haiman 2011)
 Korean                          kore1280          Koreanic            Suff. -i         causative        (Yeon & Brown 2011; Yap
                                                                                                         & Ahn 2019)
 Korean                          kore1280          Koreanic            Suff. -eci       verb ‘fall’      (Yeon & Brown 2011; Ahn
                                                                                                         & Yap 2017)
 Krongo                          kron1241          Kadugli-Krongo      Suff. -ani       unknown          (Reh 1985)
 Krongo                          kron1241          Kadugli-Krongo      Suff. -i         unknown          (Reh 1985)
 Kryz                            kryt1240          Nakh-Daghestanian   Suff. -aR        nominalizer      (Authier 2012)
 Kusunda                         kusu1250          Isolate             Suff. -q         unknown          (Watters 2006)
 Kutenai                         kute1249          Isolate             Suff. -p         unknown          (Morgan 1991)
 Latin                           lati1261          Indo-European       Suff. -sc        ingressive       (Inglese 2021)
 Lezgian                         lezg1247          Nakh-Daghestanian   Aux. x̂un ‘be’   verb ‘become’    (Haspelmath 1993)
 Majang                          maja1242          Surmic              Suff. -(ɗ)iːᴸ    unknown          (Joswig 2019)
                                                                                                                                  183
Inglese                                     Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


 Malay              mala1479   Austronesian                       Pref. bər             verbalizer      (Karaj & Sansò forth.)
 Maléku Jaíka       male1297   Chibchan                           Suff. -ti             unknown         (Constenla Umaña 1998)
 Mansi (Northern)   mans1258   Uralic                             Suff. -l              unknown         (Rombandeeva 1973;
                                                                                                        Riese 2001)
 Martuthunira       mart1255   Pama-Nyungan                       Suff. -npa            verb ‘fall’     (Dench 1995)
 Molale             mola1238   Isolate                            Pref. -taŋ            verb ‘do’       (Pharris 2006)
 Momu-Fas           fass1245   Balbai-Fas                         Suff. -ni/-nu         unknown         (Honeyman 2017)
 Mongolian          mong1331   Mongolic-Khitan                    Suff. -r              unknown         (Kullmann & Tserenpil
                                                                                                        2008; Janhunen 2012)
 Mosetén-Chimané    mose1249   Isolate                            Suff. -ki             verb ‘go’       (Sakel 2007, 2011)
 Moskona            mosk1236   East Bird’s Head                   Clitic =ef            spatial         (Gravelle 2010)
 Ngaanyatjarra      ngaa1240   Pama-Nyungan                       Suff. -ri             verb ‘become’   (McGregor 2013)
 Ohlone, Southern   sout2986   Miwok-Costanoan                    Suff. -n(i)           unknown         (Okrand 1977)
 Orungu             orun1242   Atlantic-Congo                     Suff. -an             reciprocal      (Ambouroue 2007)
 Palula             phal1254   Indo-European                      Suff. -íǰ             spontaneous     (Liljegren 2016)
 Purepecha          pure1242   Tarascan                           Suff. -ra             unknown         (Nava & Maldonado 2004)
 Purepecha          pure1242   Tarascan                           Suff. -ku             unknown         (Nava & Maldonado 2004)
 Rama               rama1270   Chibchan                           Suff. -ting           verb ‘happen’   (Grinevald 1990)
 Romani, Vlax       vlax1238   Indo-European                      Suff. -uv             verb ‘become’   (Wagner 2012)
 Rotokas            roto1249   North Bougainville                 Class A verbs         unknown         (Robinson 2011)
 Salinan            sali1253   Isolate                            Pref. k-              unknown         (Turner 1987)
 Sandawe            sand1237   Isolate                            Suff. -ts’i ̥̀        unknown         (Steeman 2012)
 Sandawe            sand1237   Isolate                            Suff. -ts’i ̥̀        unknown         (Steeman 2012)

                                                                                                                                 184
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 162-221

 Savosavo                        savo1255          Isolate             Suff. -za         unknown          (Wegener 2012)
 Shawi                           chay1248          Cahuapanan          Pref. -ya         unknown          (Rojas Berscia 2013)
 Siar-Lak                        siar1238          Austronesian        Pref. ta(k)-      unknown          (Frowein 2011)
 Sidaama                         sida1246          Afro-Asiatic        Suff. -am         unknown          (Kawachi 2007)
 Tamasheq                        tama1365          Afro-Asiatic        Pref. m-/n-       unknown          (Heath 2005)
                                                                       /nvy-
 Telefol                         tele1256          Nuclear Trans New   Aux. tébemin      verb ‘become’    (Healey 1965)
                                                   Guinea
 Tigre                           tigr1270          Afro-Asiatic        Aux. bala         verb ‘say, do’   (Cohen et al. 2002)
 Totonac (Filomeno               filo1235          Totonacan           Pref. ta-         ingressive       (McFarland 2009)
 Mata)
 Tzeltal                         tzel1254          Mayan               Inf. <j>          passive          (Polian 2013)
 Udihe                           udih1248          Tungusic            Suff. -ptA/-ktA   unknown          (Nikolaeva & Tolskaya
                                                                                                          2001)
 Udihe                           udih1248          Tungusic            Suff. -kpi        unknown          (Nikolaeva & Tolskaya
                                                                                                          2001)
 Vietnamese                      viet1252          Austroasiatic       Aux. bị           verb ‘suffer’    (Simpson & Tâm 2013;
                                                                                                          Bruening & Tran 2015)
 Warlpiri                        warl1254          Pama-Nyungan        Suff. -wanti      verb ‘fall’      (McGregor 2013)
 Wolaytta                        wola1242          Ta-Ne-Omotic        Suff. -t          unknown          (Wakasa 2008)
 Yagaria                         yaga1260          Nuclear Trans New   Aux. ei-          verb ‘hit’       (Renck 1975)
                                                   Guinea
 Yaqui                           yaqu1251          Uto-Aztecan         Suff. -te         unknown          (Estrada Fernández et al.
                                                                                                          2015)

                                                                                                                                      185
Inglese                                       Cross-linguistic sources of anticausative markers


 Yaqui                 yaqu1251   Uto-Aztecan                       Suff. -tu             verb ‘become’   (Estrada Fernández et al.
                                                                                                          2015)
 Yaul                  maru1253   Keram                             Pref. na-             unknown         (Barlow 2018)
 Yecuatla Totonac      yecu1235   Totonacan                         Suff. -nan            verbalizer      (MacKay 1999)
 Yeyi                  yeyi1239   Atlantic-Congo                    Suff. -aak            unknown         (Seidel 2008)
 Yimas                 yima1243   Lower Sepik-Ramu                  Suff. -ara            unknown         (Foley 1991)
 Yucatec Maya          yuca1254   Mayan                             CVVC pattern          unknown         (Martínez Corripio &
                                                                                                          Maldonado 2010)
 Zaghawa               zagh1240   Saharan                           Verb Class 1          unknown         (Jakobi et al. 2004)
 Zapotec               zapo1437   Otomanguean                       Pref. d-              auxiliary       (López Nicolás 2016)
 Zenzontepec Chatino   zenz1235   Otomanguean                       Pref. y-              unknown         (Campbell 2015)




                                                                                                                                      186
