An Introduction to Classical Generative Psychology—Peter Racz SpecGram Vol CLIII, No 4 Contents X-bar Diagram Acquisition—Tel Monks

Palinilap Cimordromic
Center Embedded Passives

Küçük Kaynaranyak Küçük
Universitätsphilosoph, University of Qaanaaq, Greenland

Across the world, increased intercultural contact via business dealings has led to the spread not only of English and other linguæ francæ of business, but also of business cultures. In many industries and geopolitical zones, the two main competitors in the marketplace of ideas are Japanese-style corporate and personal responsibility (up to and including seppuku, as needed) and American-style quicksilver-like shifting of blame. Unsurprisingly, the American way is winning out, in large part because it is simply a more cost-effective way of doing business and making money.

The surprise comes in how far into a culture this mode of thinking can seep. In numerous instances, speakers of languages without a fully-realized passive paradigm have moved, consciously or not, to create such a paradigm in order to better emulate their English-speaking counterparts’ desirably dissembling and dishonest double-dealing deceit.

A unique and unusual term for an oddly common type of such constructions has been coined in one or more languages, though the etymology is dreadfully unclear, and has spread to all of the languages I’ve been studying: Palinilap Cimordromic, which means something like “blame-shifting paradigm change”.

The phenomenon is eerily similar in several seemingly unrelated languages, so all data will be given in English glosses. Also, following Slater 2006, all data actually was gathered in English, using instant messaging and skype.

The simplest example of this phenomenon is when the direct object of a verb is repeated as the subject of the verb, in order to elide the true actor:

  1. it broke it
    It broke itself. / It was broken.

In some of the languages under consideration here, this parallels the agentification of the object when there is no obvious actor:

  1. it fell
    It fell.
     
  1. it rained
    It rained.

Except that in the passive instance, there usually is an obvious actor, who wishes to become unobvious.

Since this is a very new syntactic phenomena in these languages, the paradigm has been expanded upon in rather idiosyncratic ways. Often, more complex objects can be fronted:

  1. the project bungled the project
    The project bungled itself. / The project was bungled.

In some instantiations of this schema, the fronted constituent is inexplicably reversed:

  1. project the bungled the project
    The project bungled itself. / The project was bungled.

With unaccountably increasing frequency, an entire verbal complement, not just the direct object, may be summarily fronted to obfuscate the underlying actor:

  1. our product-plans to our competitors emailed our product-plans to our competitors
    Our product plans emailed themselves to our competitors. /
    Our product plans were emailed to our competitors.

In what I have reluctantly come to analyze as an unusual, nay, unfathomable, form of center-embedding, some varieties reverse the order of the upper level constituents in the fronted phrases:

  1. before the product-launch to our competitors our secret product-plans emailed
          our secret product-plans to our competitors before the product-launch
    Our secret product plans emailed themselves to our competitors before the product launch. /
    Our secret product plans were emailed to our competitors before the product launch.

In certain extreme, even baffling, cases, the reversal extends all the way down to the lowest level of syntactic constituents:

  1. product-launch the before competitors our to product-plans secret our emailed
          our secret product-plans to our competitors before the product-launch
    Our secret product plans emailed themselves to our competitors before the product launch. /
    Our secret product plans were emailed to our competitors before the product launch.

When this perplexing and bewildering center-embedding passivization is applied to complex phrases featuring ditransitive verbs, the results are incredibly complex utterances. Note the difference in focus in (9) & (10) below. The pseudo-subject has been fronted to subject position, and then the center-embedding transformation is applied to the entire utterance.

  1. the board of directors predictions sales optimistic overly several unintentionally gave
          unintentionally several overly optimistic sales predictions directors of board the
    The board of directors were unintentionally given several overly optimistic sales predictions.

  2. several overly optimistic sales predictions directors board of the to unintentionally gave
          unintentionally to the board of directors predictions sales optimistic overly several
    Several overly optimistic sales predictions were unintentionally given to the board of directors.

Naturally, not all speakers (nor even most) can produce these kinds of impenetrable and incomprehensible utterances, and so vague subjects can be used instead:

  1. Someone unintentionally gave the board of directors several overly optimistic sales predictions.
    or
    Someone unintentionally gave several overly optimistic sales predictions to the board of directors.

Observation of several high-stress business meetings has shown that such overly penetrable and comprehensible utterances are not as effective in shifting blame or hiding responsibility. Whether this is because the active voice explicitly admits a specific (if unspecified) actor upon whom to lay blame, because the linguistic feat of producing the active voice is less impressive (and thus worthy of less respect), or because very few people can understand a properly produced passive in these languages, is unknown.

I have been unable to find any commonality in the languages that have begun to exhibit this mystifying phenomenon, so I list them here, with genetic and geographic information, in hopes that another will be able to find the common link:

E (Tai-Kadai; China; 30,000 speakers)
Ere (Austronesian; Papua New Guinea; 1,030 speakers)
Erre (Australian; Australia; 1 speaker)
Malayalam (Dravidian; India; 35,000,000 speakers)
Mam (Mayan; Guatemala; 500,000 speakers)
Manam (Austronesian; Papua New Guinea; 7,000 speakers)
Mum (Trans-New Guinea; Papua New Guinea; 3,286 speakers)
Mutum (Trans-New Guinea; Papua New Guinea; 400 speakers)

References

Bailey, Edward P. 1997. The Plain English Approach to Business Writing.

De Roeck, Anne, Roderick Johnson, Margaret King, Michael Rosner, Geoffrey Sampson, and Nino Varile. 1982. “A Myth about Centre-Embedding,” Lingua Vol. 58.

Farrell, H, BJ Farrell. 1998. “The Language of Business Codes of Ethics: Implications of Knowledge and Power.” Journal of Business Ethics.

Good, C. Edward. 2002. A Grammar Book for You and I—OOPS, Me!

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook.

Kies, D. 1985. “Some stylistic features of business and technical writing: the functions of passive voice, nominalization, and agency.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication.

Lesikar, Raymond Vincent. 1989. Business Communication: Theory and Application.

Slater, Keith. 2007. “Evidential Complexity and Language Loss in Pinnacle Sherpa,” Speculative Grammarian Vol. CLI.

An Introduction to Classical Generative Psychology—Peter Racz
X-bar Diagram Acquisition—Tel Monks
SpecGram Vol CLIII, No 4 Contents