{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03125, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015151515151515152, 'mean_word_length': 5.863636363636363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Javanese adversatives, passives and Mapping Theory

Relational Grammarians have proposed Union analyses for adversatives many languages. An odd asymmetry in base predicates contrasts Japanese (Dubinsky 1985), in which adversatives may not be formed on unaccusatives, and Indonesian (Kana 1986), in which adversatives may only be formed on unaccusatives. A close examination of adversatives in Javanese (a language closely related to Indonesian) resolves this asymmetry, revealing that Javanese adversatives (and by implication Indonesian adversatives) are best analyzed not as Unions but as passives. However, the passive analysis violates Perlmutter & Postal's (1984) I-Advancement Exclusiveness Law, which figures crucially in Dubinsky's elegant account of the distribution of Japanese adversatives. Gerdts' (1993a) Mapping Theory, rooted in an RG tradition, provides a solution, in which it is possible to capture the similarities of adversatives and other Javanese passives and at the same time preserve the insights of Dubinsky's analysis of Japanese.