This article will discuss the different constructions which could be relevant for identifying antipassives in Oceanic languages, in spite of the fact that there is no dedicated antipassive marker. These constructions involve the backgrounding of the object, but are associated to different syntactic devices, discursive strategies and semantic functions, giving rise to either incompleteness of the action, low individuation of the patient, or restrictions on its uses. Looking at their semantic and pragmatic specificities, I will investigate what these types of construction have in common and to which extent they can be labelled ‘antipassive’, as has been done inter alia by Cooreman (1994), Dixon (1992) and Janic (2013, 2016).