ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-133-044 · ATLAS 260

Antipassive

A construction in ergative languages that emphasizes the agent and downplays or omits the patient.

Part of the subject path Syntax and Grammar

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

A · Analytical concept R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Antipassive constructions add a distinct mapping between participant roles and core argument status. Patient demotion and changes in grammatical access distinguish the pattern from emphasis on the agent alone.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

The antipassive is a valency-changing construction, especially associated with ergative-absolutive languages, that treats a transitive agent as the sole core argument of an intransitive clause while demoting, obliquely marking, or omitting the patient. It does not merely rearrange word order: grammatical accessibility and often information structure, aspect, or degree of affectedness also change. In documented Chukchi contrasts, the patient of the antipassive may appear obliquely. Cross-linguistically, however, the label cannot be inferred from an agent-centred translation alone; morphology, case, valency, and constructional behaviour must converge. The concept reveals how grammar can recentre an event by foregrounding the actor and withdrawing the second participant from the syntactic core.

Movement of thought

1. A transitive event is first represented with agent and patient in the language's regular ergative-absolutive argument structure. 2. Special marking changes valency so that the agent can behave like the sole core argument of an intransitive construction. 3. The patient is omitted, obliquely coded, or less individuated while agent, activity, or unfolding process becomes more prominent. 4. A counter-test examines case, morphology, and syntactic behaviour and separates antipassive from passive, object omission, and information structure alone. 5. The event returns with a relocated centre: the action remains available while its patient recedes from the grammatical foreground.

Scientific use case

Typology, syntax, and morphology test antipassives through paradigms, corpora, and elicitation. Diagnostics include case alternation, verbal marking, syntactic accessibility, aspect, and patient referentiality.

Example

Alongside a transitive pattern meaning “the woman-ERG sewed the hide-ABS,” an ergative language has a marked construction meaning approximately “the woman-ABS sewed at the hide-OBL”; the patient is less central.

Counterexample

In “The letter was read,” the passive typically promotes the patient to subject and demotes the agent. That direction of restructuring is not antipassive.

Distinction

Distinguish antipassive from passive patient promotion, basic ergative alignment, ordinary object ellipsis, intransitivisation without antipassive properties, and pragmatic agent focus alone.

Effect on thought and perception

The antipassive shifts grammatical perspective toward agent and activity, reduces the patient's centrality, and thereby changes the linguistic shape of the same event.

Resonance

The action remains in motion while one of its poles grows quieter; the agent comes forward and the patient answers only from the edge of the grammatical scene.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Antipassive“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-133-044. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-133-044

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-133-044

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

Polinsky’s typological account credits Silverstein 1972 with the term antipassive, an attribution read here indirectly. The construction detransitivizes a predicate by suppressing or demoting its patient-like argument. Although especially conspicuous in ergative systems, it is not restricted to them. This supplies a technical lineage, not a verified first English attestation or German borrowing history.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

For Atlas analysis, antipassive concerns argument realization rather than an informal shift of attention toward the agent.

References for the historical section

Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.