International Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2018 doi:10.30845/ijll.v5n3p19 189 Passive and Antipassive in Tugen Prisca Jerono University of Nairobi Kenya 1.0 Introduction The passive and the antipassive are constructions that affect the argument structure of the verb. The two operations are taken to be similar with respect to their detransitivizing nature. In the passive, the subject is demoted and the object promoted while in the antipassive the object is demoted. These constructions are formally marked. Tugen, a southern Nilotic language of Kenya is taken to have both constructions. There has been debate concerning the true nature of the passive in some languages. Some languages are taken to have a true (canonical) passive, while others are taken to have some form of the true passive. This paper attempts to relook at the nature of this passive construction in Tugen. There has also been debate regarding the relationship of the antipassive with other constructions such as ergatives and unaccusatives. This paper also attempts to find out if there is any relationship between the Tugen antipassive and these constructions. It also shows how these two constructions behave with respect to verb valence as well as their functions. The discussion of the nature of the passive and the antipassive construction is being undertaken against the background of the minimalist framework where verbs enter numeration already inflected with phi features. The sentence structure contains various heads depending on the features within the VP and case is arrived at by checking and pairing off features either overtly before spell out and covertly at LF. Case for the various arguments is assigned by the features of the verb. The case features of the various arguments are checked at their relevant specifier-head configurations., (Chomsky 1995, Jerono 2012, Schröder 2008). In this discussion, the antipassive verb in Tugen is taken to lack structural case to value the internal argument, and, therefore does not bear EPP features. This forces the object to be interpreted in the VP at LF (Alridge 2012). The passive on the other hand blocks agreement features from assigning nominative case to the external argument. In the passive the verb does not have agreement features therefore, does not also contain EPP features. The subject is therefore interpreted also in the VP at LF. In the sentence structure therefore, passive and antipassive heads are created to check for these detransitivizing features. 2.0 Passive in Tugen Discussions on the passive construction in languages have shown that it appears as canonical in some languages, while in others it is non-canonical. The canonical passive construction is defined according to the characteristics given by Dixon & Aikhenvald (2000:7): (i) it applies to an underlying transitive and derives an intransitive (ii) the underlying O becomes S (iii) underlying A goes into peripheral function being marked by a noncore case, adposition etc. The argument can be omitted, but there is always the option of including it (iv) there is some formal explicit general marking either by a verbal affix or a periphrastic verbal construction. Non-canonical passives on the other hand are constructions in a number of European languages that have passive- like interpretations but do not seem to share all the properties with their canonical counterpart (Alexiadou &Schafer, 2013). Most definitions of the passive focus on syntactic and morphological manifestations while a few incorporate the phonological aspects. The passive construction in Tugen is one that incorporates phonological aspects in its definition. It seems to be canonical in the sense that most of the characteristics enumerated by Aikhenvald & Dixon (2000) above, seem to hold true for the Tugen passive as can be seen from the example: 1 (a)Tíl-èì láàkw-éét táápt-èè Cut-IMP child-sg flower-sg