Indian Institute of Technology Delhi prithachandra@gmail.com Indian Institute of Technology Delhi sahoo.anindita@gmail.com Haspelmath (2010) debates whether universal (descriptive) categories of the types that generativists (cf. Newmeyer, 2007) envisage are real and needed for cross-linguistic studies. Instead every language has its own unique set of categories. We raise doubt on this "categorial particularism" position by drawing on underlying similarities of passive constructions of three South Asian languages - Oriya (Indo-Aryan), Malayalam (Dravidian) and Kharia (Austro- Asiatic). Unlike English-type passives, they retain subject properties for their logical subjects and object properties for their logical objects, suggesting commonalities that a "categorial particularism" approach would not allow us to posit. Our further contention is that like English passives, they too satisfy Shibatani's (1985) minimal condition for passives - the underscoring or the optionality of agents. Passive voice must therefore be a universal found in all languages primarily resulting in the optionality of agents. We also show how adopting this approach helps us re-analyse Meitei and Ao (Tibeto-Burman) as languages involving passives. active-passives; universals; comparative concepts; descriptive categories; South Asian languages ? Haspelmath (2010) se v svoji razpravi sprašuje, ali so univerzalne kategorije, ki jih obravnavajo generativisti (prim. Newmeyer, 2007), resni?ne in potrebne za medjezikovne raziskave. Namesto tega naj bi imel vsak jezik svoje lastne kategorije. ?lanek se ne strinja s konceptom "specifi?nih kategorij", kar prikaže na primeru podobnih pasivnih konstukcij v treh jezikih Južne Azije: v indoarijskem jeziku orija, dravidskem jeziku malajalam in avstroazijskem jeziku karija. Z razliko od pasivov, ki so zna?ilni za angleš?ino, pasivi v teh jezikih ohranjajo zna?ilnosti osebka za logi?ne osebke in zna?ilnosti predmeta za logi?ne predmete. V okviru koncepta "specifi?nih kategorij" to ne bi smelo biti mogo?e. Sledi utemeljitev, da enako kot v angleš?ini tudi tu omenjene oblike pasiva ustrezajo mininalnim pogojem za pasiv, kot jih dolo?a Shibatani (1985), t.j. poudarek na neobveznem vršilcu dejanja. Pasiv torej mora biti univerzalna zna?ilnost vseh jezikov, ki se sprva kaže skozi neobvezni vršilec dejanja. ?lanek nazadnje pokaže, kako lahko s tem pristopom ponovno analiziramo tibetansko-burmanska jezika Meitei in Ao, kot jezika v pasivom. ? aktivni pasiv; univerzalije; koncepti primerjave; opisne kategorije; jeziki Južne Azije Acta Linguistica Asiatica, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2013. ISSN: 2232-3317 http://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/ala/
10 Pritha CHANDRA, Anindita SAHOO Generative linguistics is defined by its assumption of universals, the idea that there is a substantial set of categories such as adjectives, passive voice, accusative case etc. available cross-linguistically (Newmeyer, 2007). The "categorial universalist" approach allows linguists to compare languages at the level of categories and is widely accepted amongst generative typologists (Payne, 1997; Corbett, 2000; Van Valin, 2005; Dixon 2010). There are two perspectives with regard to universals. The first is that languages make their own selections from a universal set of features, constructing categories that may not be available cross-linguistically. However, if they have some category (say adjectives), this category will exist in the same sense as it is present in all other languages (cf. Newmeyer). A second and a more radical approach to universals, assumes that particular categories are