1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919

Abstract

Dutch impersonal passives are often considered to be only compatible with atelic volitional verbs, such as ‘work’, ‘laugh’, and ‘swim’. Two recent corpus studies, however, argue that a wider range of verbs is compatible with the construction, presenting examples of attested impersonal passives with telic and non-volitional verbs. This paper lends further support to this view, by providing an exploratory study of the frequencies of different intransitive verbs appearing in the construction, as well as a discussion of the telicity of attested impersonal passives with ‘fall’ and ‘die’. The paper concludes that also with these telic non-volitional verbs, the impersonal passive merely conveys the occurrence of the type of act described by the verb, without specifying whether this occurrence is constituted by a single or multiple events, or whether it involves one or more participants.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.01bel
2016-12-14
2019-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/avt.33.01bel.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.01bel&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Achard, M.
    2009 “The distribution of French intransitive predicates”. Linguistics47:3.513–558. doi: 10.1515/LING.2009.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.018 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beliën, M.
    2012 “Dutch manner of motion verbs: Disentangling auxiliary choice, telicity, and syntactic function”. Cognitive Linguistics23:1.1–26. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Broekhuis, Hans , Norbert Corver & Riet Vos.
    2015Verbs and verb phrases (Volume1). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi: 10.5117/9789089647313
    https://doi.org/10.5117/9789089647313 [Google Scholar]
  4. Carnie, A. & H. Harley
    2005 “Existential impersonals”. Studia Linguistica59:1.46–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2005.00119.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00119.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Cornelis, Louise & Arie Verhagen
    1995 “Does Dutch really have a passive?” Linguistics in the Netherlands 1995, ed. by M. den Dikken and K. Hengeveld , 49–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. de Haan, Sies
    2000 “Heeft het Nederlands echt geen passief?” Samengevoegde woordened. by Hans den Besten , Els Elffers and Jan Luif , 111–124. Amsterdam: Leerstoelgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dowty, D.
    1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language67.3:547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  8. Haeseryn, Walter , Kirsten Romijn , Guido Geerts , Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn
    1997Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kirsner, Robert S.
    1976 “On the subjectless ‘pseudo-passive’ in Standard Dutch and the semantics of background agents”. Subject and topiced. by C. N. Li , 385–415. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kraak, Albert & Willem G. Klooster
    1968Syntaxis. Culemborg: Stam-Kemperman.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Langacker, R.W.
    1999 “Virtual reality”. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences29:2.77–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Perlmutter, D.
    1978 “Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis”. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Societyed. by J.J. Jaeger , A.C. Woodbury , F. Ackerman , C. Chiarello , O.D. Gensler , J. Kingston , E.E. Sweetser , H. Thompson and K.W. Whistler , 157–190. doi: 10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198 [Google Scholar]
  13. Pollmann, T.
    1970 “Passieve zinnen en het geïmpliceerd logisch subject”. Studia Neerlandica2.34–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Primus, B.
    2011 “Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives”. Lingua121.80–99. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  15. van Es, G.A.
    1970 “Plaats en functie van de passieve constructie in het syntactisch systeem van het Nederlands”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde86.127–156, 213–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. van Hout, Angeliek
    1996Event semantics of verb frame alternations: A case study of Dutch and its acquisition . Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University.
  17. van Schaik-Rădulescu, M.
    2011 “(Non-)homogeneity in Dutch impersonal passives of unaccusatives”. Bucharest Working Papers in LinguisticsXIII:1.63–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Verhagen, A.
    1992 “Praxis of linguistics: Passives in Dutch”. Cognitive Linguistics3:3.301–342. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1992.3.3.301
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.3.301 [Google Scholar]
  19. Zaenen, Annie
    1988Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface. (= CSLI-88-123)Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.01bel
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.01bel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attested examples , Dutch , impersonal passive , telicity , unaccusativity and volitionality
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error