Olesya Khanina and Andrey Shluinsky * Intransitive verbs in Enets: a contribution to the typology of split intransitivity Abstract: This paper contributes to the typology of ‘active-stative’ split intransitivity and middle voice with a detailed case study: it proceeds from a typological comparison of the two phenomena, which are usually treated apart, to an analysis of the Enets data and a discussion of its place in the typology of possible intransitive splits. Enets (Uralic, Samoyedic) has two classes of intransitive verbs, and each class uses its own cross- reference paradigm in all finite forms. The paper provides an account of the morphology of this intransitive split and its connection to the lexical aspect, followed by an overview of semantic composition of the two lexical classes; special attention is given to cases of class variation available for a dozen verbs. The research is based on the data of a fieldworkers’ corpus and thus also shows the advantages of a corpus-based approach to this phenomenon. Keywords: intransitive verbs, split intransitivity, active alignment, middle voice, Enets, Samoyedic, corpus-based grammatical descriptions 1 Introduction 1.1 The phenomenon This paper is a study of two classes of intransitive verbs in a Northern Samoyedic (< Uralic) language of northern Siberia, Enets. Enets has two classes of intransitive verbs defined by a series of cross-reference markers that the verbs take for indexing the person and number of the subject. Some intransitive verbs (henceforth subjective verbs) take ‘subjective cross-reference series’, which is also used for indexing person and number of the subjects of transitive verbs. The other intransitive verbs (henceforth middle verbs) take ‘middle cross-reference series’ attested exclusively with this class. Examples (1)-(2) illustrate the phenomenon: the 1SG subject cross-reference marker -zʔ used in (1) belongs to the ‘subjective’ cross-reference paradigm, while the 1SG subject cross-reference marker -jʔ used in (2) belongs to the ‘middle’ 1 cross-reference paradigm. (1) tɔz tʃikoz tʃi pɔtabu-d kanʲe-zʔ FE 2 so this.ABL.SG here Potapovo-DAT.SG leave.PFV-1SG.S ‘So after that I went to Potapovo.’ (2) mɛ-nʲiʔ dʲodʲid … ʃim-e-jʔ FE tent-OBL.SG.1SG to run_away.PFV-M-1SG.M ‘I ran to my home.’ * Corresponding authors: Olesya Khanina: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Bolshoj Kislovskij per. 1/1., Moscow 125009, Russia. E-mail: olesya.khanina@gmail.com Andrey Shluinsky: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Bolshoj Kislovskij per. 1/1., Moscow 125009, Russia. E-mail: ashl@yandex.ru 1 Or ‘reflexive’ paradigm in the traditional Samoyedic terminology. 2 FE refers to the Forest dialect of Enets, more information on the Enets dialects is given in Section 2. 1