1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Passive without morphology
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the syntax of a novel construction I call Passive without Morphology (PwM) constructions in Bùlì and the question of whether they have projected external arguments. The main proposal that I argue for is that PwM constructions in all their occurrences possess projected implicit external arguments. The discussions presented in the paper provide empirical as well as theoretical support for the classification of passives (Keenan and Dryer 2007) and a theory of passives and implicit arguments (Collins 2021). This paper argues that the internal argument moves to Spec,TP in two steps: first, the VP moves into Spec, VoiceP and from there the internal argument raises to Spec,TP (Collins 2005, 2021).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.23047.sul
2024-04-29
2025-01-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.23047.sul
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackema, Peter, and Maaike Schoorlemmer
    1995 Middles and Non-Movement. Linguistic Inquiry, (): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackema, Peter and Maaike Schoorlemmer
    2017 Middles. InMartin Everaert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom091
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom091 [Google Scholar]
  3. Agbedor, Paul
    2002 Reflexivation in Buli: A Preliminary Observation. InM. E. Kropp Dakubu and E. K. Osam. Selected proceedings of the Annual Colloquium of the Legon-Trondheim Linguistic Project. : –.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    2003 The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, Mark
    1988 Incorporation. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhatt, Rajesh and Rouyana Pancheva
    2017 Implicit Arguments. InMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom118
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom118 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bianchi, Valentina
    2015 Italian Arbitrary External Arguments in Active and Passive Clauses. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bruening, Benjamin
    2013 By Phrases in Passives and Nominals. Syntax, –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2012.00171.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Charnavel, Isabelle and Chrissy Zlogar
    2015 English reflexive logophors. InProceedings of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, –. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Charnavel, Isabelle and Dominique Sportiche
    (2016) Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/LING_a_00204
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00204 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky, Noam
    1977 On wh-movement. InCulicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A., editors, Formal Syntax, pages–. Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 1986 Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 1995 The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InStep by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds.Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001 Derivation by phase. InKen Hale: A life in language, ed. byMichael Kenstowicz, –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2008 On phases. InFoundational issues in linguistic theory, ed.R. Freidin, , –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Collins, Chris
    2005 A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English. Syntax, –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2005.00076.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x [Google Scholar]
  18. 2021 Principles of argument structure: a merge-based approach. Ms. New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Collins, Chris and H. Thráinsson
    1996 VP Internal Structure and Object Shift in Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Condoravdi, Cleo
    1989 The Middle: Where Semantics and Morphology Meet. InProceedings of the Student Conference in Linguistics, edited byPhil Branigan, Jill Gaulding, Miori Kubo, and Kumiko Murasugi, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fagan, S.
    1988 The English Middle, Linguistic Inquiry, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fagan, Sarah M. B.
    1992 The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferreira, Marcelo and Heejeong Ko
    2003 Questions in Buli. InStudies in Buli GrammarWorking Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages, vol., –. Cambridge: MITWPL.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fiengo, Robert
    1980 Surface Structure: The Interface of Autonomous Components. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674333765
     https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674333765 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gotah, Selikem
    2022 The Syntax of Tongugbe (Ewe) Nyá-constructions. Ms. New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hartman, Jeremy
    2009 Intervention in tough constructions. InProceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS).
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012 (Non-)Intervention in A-movement: some cross-constructional and cross-linguistic consequences. Linguistic Variation, ():–. 10.1075/lv.11.2.01har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.11.2.01har [Google Scholar]
  28. Helke, Michael
    1973 On Reflexives in English. Linguistics, –. 10.1515/ling.1973.11.106.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1973.11.106.5 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hicks, Glyn
    2009 Tough-Constructions and Their Derivation. Linguistic Inquiry(): –. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.535
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.535 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hiraiwa, Ken
    2003 Relativization in Buli. InWorking Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages, vol., –. Cambridge: MITWPL.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2005 Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: agreement and clausal architecture. MITPhD. dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hoekstra, Teun and Ian Roberts
    1993 Middle Constructions in Dutch and English. InKnowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, edited byEric Reuland and Werner Abraham, –. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1842‑2_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1842-2_9 [Google Scholar]
  33. Keenan, E. L. and Dryer, M. S.
    Passive in the world’s languages. In: Shopen, T. ed. Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007:–. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Keine, Stefan and Hedde Zeijlstra
    . (to appear). Morphology of extraction: Reassessing vP phasehood.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Keyser, Samuel J., and Thomas Roeper
    1984 On the Middle and Ergative Construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry, : –.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kratzer, Angelika
    1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, pp.–. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  37. Legate, Julie Anne
    2014 Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu, Na and C.-T. James Huang
    2016 Control and raising passives, and why Mandarin does not smuggle. J East Asian Linguist: –. 10.1007/s10831‑016‑9148‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-016-9148-3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Manzini, M. Rita
    1983 On Control and Control Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Meltzer-Asscher, Aya
    2012 Verbal Passives in English and Hebrew: a Comparative Study. InMartin Everaert, Marijana Marelj and Tal Siloni (eds.), The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, –. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  41. Newman, Elise
    2020 Facilitator effects in middles and more. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, (), . –. 10.5334/gjgl.990
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.990 [Google Scholar]
  42. Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland
    1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic inquiry(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Richards, Norvin
    1997 What moves where when in which language?PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
  44. Rizzi, Luigi
    1990 Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Roberts, Ian
    1987 The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Foris, Dordrecht. 10.1515/9783110877304
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877304 [Google Scholar]
  46. Roeper, Thomas
    1987 Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation. Linguistic Inquiry, –
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Schultze-Berndt, Eva and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    2004 Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology: –. 10.1515/lity.2004.004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.004 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sichel, Ivy
    2009 New Evidence for the Structural Realization of the Implicit External Argument in Nominalizations. Linguistic Inquiry: –. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.712
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.712 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr and Jim Wood
    2021 On the Implicit Argument of Icelandic Indirect Causatives. Linguistic Inquiry: –. 10.1162/ling_a_00384
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00384 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stroik, Thomas
    1992 Middles and Movement. Linguistic Inquiry, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 1995 On Middle Formation: A Reply to Zribi-Hertz. Linguistic Inquiry, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 1999 Middles and Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, –. 10.1162/002438999553986
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999553986 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2000 Syntactic Controversies. LINCOM.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 2006 Arguments in Middles. InBenjamin Lyngfelt and Torgrim Solstad (eds.), Demoting the Agent: Passive, Middle and other Voice Phenomena, –. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 10.1075/la.96.14str
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.96.14str [Google Scholar]
  55. Sulemana, Abdul-Razak
    2019 Pro as a partial copy: a movementbased account of control. InEszter Ronai, Laura Stigliano and Yenan Sun (eds.), Proceedings of the fifty-fourth annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society. CLS. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2021 Non-finite Complementation: A case study of Bùlì. MITPhD. dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Williams, Edwin
    1974 Rule Ordering in Syntax. MITPhD. dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 1985 PRO and the Subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (): –. 10.1007/BF00154265
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154265 [Google Scholar]
  59. Williams, Alexander
    2014 Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Zribi-Hertz, Anne
    1993 On Stroik’s Analysis of English Middle Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, (): –.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.23047.sul
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Bùlì ; implicit argument ; short passive ; movement ; smuggling ; syntax

Most Cited

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