Morphologically Unmarked Passives - Institut für Linguistik/Anglistik
Transcrição
Morphologically Unmarked Passives - Institut für Linguistik/Anglistik
NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 Morphologically Unmarked Passives – Evidence from let-passives and let-middles Marcel Pitteroff University of Stuttgart [email protected] 0. Introduction Generalization: (verbal) passives are always morphologically distinct from their active counterparts (e.g. Haspelmath 1990).1 (1) a. John reads the novel. b. The novel is read (by John). (English) (2) a. Hans liest den Roman. John reads the.ACC novel ‘John reads the novel.’ b. Der Roman wird (von Hans) the.NOM novel becomes by John ‘The novel is read (by John).’ (German) gelesen. read.PART This talk: evidence that this generalization is too strong; morphologically unmarked passives do exist Empirical domain: two types of let-constructions in German – let-passives (3a) and letmiddles (3b) (3) a. Hans lässt den Roman lesen. John lets the.ACC novel read.INF ‘John makes someone read the book.’ b. Der Roman lässt sich gut lesen. the.NOM novel lets REFL well read.INF ‘The book reads well.’ (let-passive) (let-middle) Main claims: o The infinitival complement of lassen ‘let’ in (3a,b) involves the projection that introduces the external argument (VoiceP, following Kratzer 1996). o The embedded Voice must be thematic, but must not introduce an argument in its specifier. Following Bruening (2012, 2014), I take this to be the core property of passives (see also, e.g., Embick 2004a,b, 2010, 2012, Schäfer 2008, Harley 2013, for the postulation of a passive VoiceP with these characteristics). lassen in (3a,b) embeds a passive. 1 See also Baker (1988) for the claim that GF-changing processes are generally morphologically marked. The same seems to be the underlying assumption in analyses of passives such as Haider 1984, 1986, Jaeggli 1986, Baker, Johnson & Roberts 1989, where an essential function in the derivation of the passive (i.e. the ‘suppression’ of the external argument) is tied to passive morphology. 1 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 o The absence of passive morphology in (3) suggests that it has to be dissociated from Voice (in German). o Passive morphology is located in a projection on top of Voice: PassP, cf., Bruening 2012, 2014, Kiparsky 2013, Sundaresan 2013, Wurmbrand 2013a,b, Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2014, Spathas, Alexiadou & Schäfer to appear, a.o.), or AspP (Embick 2004a, 2010, 2012). o Deriving unmarked passives: the infinitival complement involved in (3a,b) qualifies as a restructuring infinitive, i.e. a truncated clausal structure (Wurmbrand 2001, 2004, 2007). As such, it projects up to Voice, but no higher. Outline: Section 1: An Embedded VoiceP in let-passives and let-middles Section 2: Dissociating Passive Morphology and Voice Section 3: Restructuring Section 4: Conclusion Appendix: Reviewing the arguments against an embedded Voice 1. An Embedded VoiceP in let-passives and let-middles The most common analyses of let-passives - or its Romance Faire-Par equivalent (see, e.g., Kayne 1975) for that matter - propose that the infinitival complement lacks Voice. These approaches come in two types: 1) VP-approaches: the causative predicate combines with a bare VP (Huber 1980, Grewendorf 1983, Gunkel 2003, Enzinger 2010 for German; Burzio 1986 for Italian; Taraldsen 1983 for Norwegian; Wood 2011 for Icelandic) 2) Nominalized Infinitive: the causative predicate combines with a nominalized infinitive (cf. Guasti 1996, 2005, Folli & Harley 2007) Upshot: due to the absence of Voice, no passive morphology is expected (see, e.g., Harley 2013 in the context of Hiaki indirect causatives). o The same type of reasoning could be extended to let-middles to explain the absence of passive morphology. I will now provide a number of arguments that speak in favor of the presence of an embedded VoiceP in let-passives and let-middles. 1.1 Voice Adjuncts By-phrase The possibility to introduce the suppressed external argument via a by-PP is typically taken as being contingent on the presence of a (thematic) VoiceP (e.g., Collins 2005, Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2006, 2014, Bruening 2012, 2014, Alexiadou & Schäfer 2013, a.o.). 2 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 o Both constructions in question allow the addition of by-PPs (see Kunze 1996, Szatmári 2004, Pitteroff & Alexiadou 2012 for let-middles). (4) a. Der Lehrer lässt das Klassenzimmer (von den Schülern) aufräumen. the teacher lets the classroom by the students clean.up ‘The teacher makes the students clean up the classroom.’ b. Martin lässt das Auto (von einem Mechaniker) reparieren. Martin lets the car by a mechanic repair ‘Martin makes a mechanic repair the car.’ (5) a. Dieses Lied lässt sich (von Kindern) leicht lernen. this song lets REFL by children easily learn ‘This song can be learned easily by children.’ b. Diese Tür lässt sich (von niemandem) öffnen. this door lets REFL by no one open ‘This door can be opened by no one.’ o (5b) shows that the acceptability of by-PPs in let-middles does not require the presence of the adverbial. The by-PP in (4),(5) is not a (sub)event-modifier (unlike the se-phrase in Hindi/Urdu causatives, which can add an (intermediate) agent to unaccusatives (Ramchand 2011); see Dotlačil & Šimík 2013, who treat the by-PP in Czech retroactive infinitives as a VPadjunct). o If a by-PP added as a modifier to a VP could introduce an (intermediate) agent, it is unclear why this was not possible in, say, canonical middles (see Fagan 1992; Ackema & Schoorlemmer 1994, 1995, 2005; Steinbach 2002; Bhatt & Pantcheva 2006, a.o.). Consider the contrast between (5) and (6).2 (6) a. Dieses Lied lernt sich (*von Kindern) leicht. this song learns REFL by children easily ‘This song learns easily (*by children).’ b. Diese Tür öffnet sich (*von niemandem) leicht. this door opens REFL by no one easily ‘This door opens easily (*by no one).’ The acceptability of by-PPs in let-passives and let-middles is also evidence against an analysis of the infinitival complement as a nominalized infinitive. (7) shows that in nominalized infinitives, by-PPs as in (4) and (5) are unacceptable (see Alexiadou, 2 This possibility would arguably wrongly predict the existence of let-passives with an embedded unaccusative predicate (i). As mentioned in the text, Ramchand (2011) shows that the se-phrase in Hindi/Urdu can appear in such a context (ii) (see Ramchand (2011) for evidence that ban ‘make‘ is unaccusative). (i) Peter lässt (*von Hans) das Haus entstehen. Intended: ‘Peter makes Hans bring about the building of the house.’ (ii) Anjum-ne (mazdurõ-se) makaan ban-vaa-yaa Anjum-erg labourers-instr house make-vaa-perf.m.sg ‘Anjum had a house built (by the labourers).’ 3 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 Ioardăchioaia & Schäfer 2011 for details).3 (7) a. Das ständige die Sterne Beobachten (*von Kindern) führt zu Schlaflosigkeit the continuous the stars watch.INF by children leads to insomnia ‘Frequently observing stars (*by children) leads to insomnia.’ b. Das das Gelände Betreten (*von Unbefugten) ist untersagt. the the area enter.INF by trespassers is forbidden ‘Entering the area (*by trespassers) is forbidden.’ Anti-assistive modifiers In Hole (2002), Spathas, Alexiadou & Schäfer (to appear), anti-assistive modifiers such as selbst ‘self’ in (8) are argued to be Voice-adjuncts. (8) Der Koch hat die Blaubeeren selbst gepflückt. the cook has the blueberries self picked ‘The cook has picked the blueberries himself.’ (Hole 2002: 136, (6)) o If the infinitival complement in let-middles and let-passives lacks Voice, anti-assistive selbst should be ungrammatical – contrary to fact: (9) a. Schmuckstücke, die nicht nur einzigartig und originell, sondern auch Pieces.of.jewelry that not only unique and fancy but also typgerecht sind, lassen sich am besten selbst herstellen. 4 type.fitting are let REFL at.the best self produce ‘Pieces of jewelry that are not only unique and fancy, but also suit your personal type can be best produced oneself.’ b. Die vielen neuen Änderungen lassen sich am Besten selbst entdecken: the many new changes let REFL at.the best self discover 5 auf: www.esbit.de. on: www.esbit.de. ‘The many new changes can be best discovered oneself: on www.esbit.de.’ (10) a. Der Lehrer hat die Prüfungsaufgabe (von seinen Schülern) immer selbst the teacherhas the examination.question by his students always self auswählen lassen. pick let ‘The teacher has always let his students pick the examination question themselves.’ b. Ich lasse selbst aussuchen, was gegessen wird. 6 I let self pick what eaten becomes ‘I let them choose themselves what will be eaten.’ 3 I use the more verbal nominalization characterized by structural accusative on the theme argument. The more nominal one that comes with a genitive DP clearly could not be involved in let-passives or let-middles. Be this as it may, even this nominalization disallows by-phrases (i). (i) das Beobachten der Sterne (*von Kindern) the watching the.GEN stars by children ‘the watching of the stars by children’ 4 < http://www.katrin-und-frank.de/2011/05/> 5 <http://www.dynasite.de/dynasite.cfm?dsmid=76745&dspaid=587223> 6 <http://www.9monate.de/community/thread/Archiv-Kinderernaehrung-Erfahrungen-und-Tipps/Untergewicht? threadId=13162154> 4 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 Agent oriented modifiers A further test often used to identify the presence of Voice/an implicit agent is the acceptability of agent-oriented modifiers. Under the assumption that adjuncts attach to the projections they modify, such adverbs require Voice. o Agent-oriented modifiers are often considered to be incompatible with the middlesemantics (see, e.g., Lekakou 2006). Nevertheless, given semantic coherence, it seems that they are acceptable in let-middles, consider (11). (11) a. … die ansonsten typische erdig grüne Holznote lässt sich nur the otherwise characteristic earthy green wood.flavor lets REFL only unbewusst wahrnehmen.7 unconsciously notice ‘The otherwise characteristic, earthy, green, wooden flavor can only be noticed unconsciously.’ b. Die Blase entleert sich reflexartig und lässt sich nicht bewusst the bladder empties refl as.a.reflex and lets REFL not consciously kontrollieren.8 control. ‘The bladder empties as a reflex and can not be controlled consciously.’ c. Aber dieses Gefühl lässt sich nicht absichtlich herbeiführen.9 but this feeling lets REFL not intentionally bring.about ‘But this feeling cannot be brought about intentionally.’ For let-passives, the addition of an agent-oriented modifier to the infinitival clause leads to ill-formedness. I suggest, however, that this is for independent reasons: it is difficult to imagine a situation in which you make someone do something consciously, willingly, intentionally, etc. o Evidence for this claim comes from the observation that such adverbs cannot modify the embedded Voice in canonical AcI-causatives either. (12) a. Der Lehrer lässt die Schüler das Buch (*freiwillig) lesen. ‘The teacher lets/makes the students read the book deliberately.’ b. Der Schaffner lässt die Jugendlichen die Sitze (*absichtlich) zerstören. ‘The conductor lets/makes the teenagers destroy the seats intentionally.’ The absence of embedded agent-oriented modifiers in let-passives, then, is not an argument against an embedded VoiceP. 1.2 Stem Allomorphy In German, the causative alternation is sometimes marked via stem allomorphy (13) and (14) (similar to rise/raise in English). 7 < http://www.parfumo.de/Benutzer/Imel/Kommentare/10> < http://www.special-harninkontinenz.de/service/glossar/blasenerkrankungen-blase-harnwege-id74180.html> 9 < http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-9286027.html> 8 5 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 (13) a. Peter muss das Schiff versenken. Peter must the ship sink.TR ‘Peter has to sink the ship.’ b. Das Schiff muss versinken. the ship must sink.INTR ‘The ship has to sink.’ (14) a. Peter muss die Katze ertränken. Peter must the cat drown.TR ‘Peter has to drown the cat.’ b. Die Katze muss ertrinken. the cat must drown.INTR ‘The cat has to drown.’ o Adopting a Distributed Morphology framework, the morpho-phonological alternation in (13) and (14) can be treated as a case of contextually triggered allomorphy (Embick 2010, 2012, 2013a,b).10 a morphosyntactic feature in a local environment of the element undergoing the change conditions or triggers a certain morphophonological form. o Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2006, 2014: the causative alternation as a Voice alternation (see, e.g., Pylkkänen 2008, Schäfer 2008, Legate 2012, Harley 2013 for arguments in favor of the v-Voice split). (15) a. Causative VoiceP 3 vP 3 √P b. anticausative vP11 3 √P o Given (15), the trigger for the alternation is (a morphosyntactic feature on) Voice. Roughly, this can be represented as follows (where ͡ indicates concatenation; see Embick 2010. Wood 2014 has a slightly different implementation which, however, would not change the argument made in this section): (16) a. √SINK → senk / ͡ Voice √SINK → sink b. √TRINK → tränk / ͡ Voice √TRINK → trink This turns the pairs in (13) and (14) into a Voice-diagnostic: the transitive stem allomorph can only appear in the context of Voice. Now consider the data in (17). 10 I take the term contextually triggered allomorphy to cover a larger class of morphophonological alternations then it does in Embick (2010). There it is restricted to cases involving Vocabulary insertion, essentially capturing alternations that are suppletive. I include what Embick (2012) labels morpheme-morpheme rules under the term contextually triggered allomorphy. Nothing in the argument hinges on this. 11 With Schäfer (2012), Wood (2012), Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer (2014) I assume that there is no vCAUS (pace Harley 1996, Folli and Harley 2005, 2007) – in other words: the syntax of causatives and anticausatives is distinguished by the presence/absence (or, following Wood 2014, the interpretation) of Voice, not by the flavor of the little v head involved. 6 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 (17) a. Dieses Schiff lässt sich leicht *versinken / versenken. this ship lets REFL easily sink.INTR / sink.TR ‘This ship can be sunk easily.’ / *‘This ship easily sinks.’ b. Ein Fisch lässt sich nicht so leicht *ertrinken / ertränken. a fish lets refl not so easily drown.INTR / drown.TR ‘A fish can not be drowned so easily.’ / *‘A fish does not easily drown.’ The fact that, in let-middles, the transitive stem-variant has to surface, while the intransitive one is ungrammatical, strongly suggests that the infinitival complement involves Voice.12 The data in (17) cannot be explained as a consequence of the selectional restrictions of lassen. (18) shows that lassen can combine with an intransitive complement. (18) a. Die Piraten lassen das Schiff the pirates let the ship ‘The pirates let the ship sink.’ b. Peter lässt den Fisch ertrinken. Peter lets the fish drown.INTR ‘Peter lets the fish drown.’ versinken. sink.INTR o Importantly, if the by-phrase is present in the causative context, the transitive stem allomorph is required, again suggesting that the infinitival complement in let-passives involves Voice: (19) a. Die Piraten lassen das Schiff von ihren Handlangern versenken/*versinken. the pirates let the ship by their henchmen sink.TR /*sink.INTR ‘The pirates make their henchmen sink the ship.’ b. Peter lässt den Fisch von Marie ertränken / *ertrinken. Peter lets the fish by Mary drown.TR / *sink.INTR ‘Peter makes Mary drown the fish.’ 1.3 Disjoint Reference Effect Kratzer (1996, 2000): the Disjoint Reference Effect (DRE) as an indication of the presence of Voice. In the absence of Voice, a reflexive reading is possible (but see Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2014; Spathas, Alexiadou & Schäfer to appear for a different view; Bruening 2014, Alexiadou, Gehrke & Schäfer to appear claim that some, if not all, adjectival passives involve Voice). (20) a. Die Kinder wurden gewaschen. the children became washed Someone other than the children washed the children. *The children washed the children. (verbal passive) 12 Aside: It can not be argued that under a bare VP-approach, the data can be explained as well if one assumes that the matrix Voice triggers the transitive stem allomorph. Following Haider (1993) in taking all verbal and extended functional projections (except CP) to be head-final in German, matrix Voice would not be linearly adjacent to the embedded Root (intervening element: lassen), and thus, not local enough to serve as a contextual trigger (see Embick 2010, 2012 2013a,b for the locality conditions on contextual and stem allomorphy). 7 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 b. Die Kinder sind gewaschen. the children are washed Someone other than the children washed the children. The children washed the children. (adjectival passive) o Let-middles and let-passives exhibit the DRE, which points to the presence of Voice. (21) a. Kinder lassen sich leicht waschen. children let REFL easily wash It is easy for anyone to wash children. *It is easy for children to wash themselves. b. Die Mutter lässt die Kinder waschen. the mother lets the children wash The mother makes someone wash the children. *The mother makes the children wash themselves. The effect cannot be ascribed to lassen. If the embedded subject is overtly realized as a DP, it may be co-referent with the embedded internal argument (22). (22) Die Mutter lässt die Kinder sich waschen. the mother lets the children REFL wash ‘The mother makes/lets the children wash themselves.’ Conclusion: lassen in let-middles and let-passives embeds a VoiceP 2. Dissociating Passive Morphology and Voice (23) Definition of the Passive (Bruening 2012: 35; see also Wood 2014) The passive is a morphosyntactic operation that prevents the realization of the external argument as an argument. (24) Identifying Features of the Passive (Bruening 2012: 35; see also Wood 2014)13 a. The external argument is missing, and is interpreted as existential; or b. The external argument is realized as an adjunct. (23;24a): Although let-middles and let-passives involve an embedded VoiceP (see section 1), this VoiceP must not introduce an argument in its specifier (the external argument can be realized as an adjunct, though; see (4)). This is clear in the context of letpassives. For let-middles, this is shown in (25). (25) *Piraten lassen sich das Schiff leicht pirates let REFL the ship easily Intended: ‘Pirates can easily sink the ship.’ versenken. sinkCAUSATIVE o In other words: the embedded VoiceP exhibits the properties of a passive VoiceP (as defined in Embick & Bhatt 2003; Embick 2004a,b, 2010; Harley 2013) / the VoiceP 13 Promotion to subject is not considered an identifying feature of the passive, but is treated as a side effect. 8 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 involved in passives in Bruening 2012, 2014; Wurmbrand 2013a,b; Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2014; Spathas, Alexiadou & Schäfer to appear. o That the implicit agent in let-passives is existentially quantified over can be seen by the fact that it cannot be controlled or bound (26a). See also the example in (26b) (building on Legate 2012). (26) a. Jeder Journalist lässt den Artikel vorlesen. every journalist lets the article read ‘Every journalist makes someone read the article.’ *‘Every journalist makes himself read the article.’14 b. Hans ließ das Fenster öffnen, aber ich weiß nicht, von wem. Hans let the window open but I know not by whom ‘Hans made someone open the window, but I do not know who it was.’ o There are different ways, how the embedded external argument position can be existentially bound. Following Bruening (2012) and Spathas, Alexiadou & Schäfer (2014), who write existential closure into the semantics of Pass, one could assume that lassen itself can imposes existential closure over an open argument variable in its complement. Alternatively, existential closure could be done in a Diesing-type of way, or be written into the semantics of a passive Voice head (cf. Legate 2012, fn. 44). o For let-middles, the implicit agent is interpreted as a generic indefinite (see Lekakou 2005), which I take to be the consequence of binding via the generic operator involved in middle constructions (see Steinbach 2002, Lekakou 2005).15 Yet, albeit ‘passive’, the embedded predicate in let-middles and let-passives necessarily lacks passive morphology. (27) a. Der Lehrer lässt den Roman lesen / *gelesen (werden). the teacher lets the novel read.INF / read.PART become ‘The teacher makes someone read the novel.’ b. Der Roman lässt sich gut lesen / *gelesen (werden). the novel lets REFL well read.INF read.PART become ‘The novel reads well.’ Passive morphology in German cannot be the spell-out of a (passive) Voice head, otherwise it should surface in let-middles and let-passives. 2.1 Towards an account This required dissociation can be found in two existent approaches to passives: 16 14 Admittedly, this reading is highly marked in the corresponding AcI-variant. Given that it is not ungrammatical, though, I take (26a) to show that the embedded agent is existentially quantified over and cannot be bound by the matrix subject. 15 Condoravdi 1989 argues that middles involve generic quantification over events, which leaves open the possibility that the implicit external argument is existentially quantified (see Bruening 2012 for a similar approach). This could then mean that even in let-middles, lassen binds the external argument variable. I leave this possibility for future research. 16 A third analysis that splits passive morphology from the external argument introducing projection (vP in his system) is Collins (2005). 9 NELS 45 (i) (ii) MIT 11/02/2014 Bruening (2012, 2014) (see also Sundaresan 2013, Wurmbrand 2013, Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2014, Spathas, Alexiadou & Schäfer to appear, a.o.) Embick (2004a,b, 2010) The two approaches are given in (28a,b) respectively.17 (28) a. Bruening (2012, 2014) b. Embick (2004a,b) PassP 3 Pass VoiceP 3 Voice vP … AspP 3 Asp VoiceP 3 VoicePASSIVE vP … Passive morphology: Spell-out of Pass Passive morphology: Spell-out of Asp o Aside: VoiceP (in either approach): thematic (i.e. introduces external argument variable), but lacks a specifier. Such a VoiceP also leads to the absence of accusative case (through the absence of an argument in Spec,VoiceP; cf. Burzio’s generalization; I gloss over the theoretical details concerning how the absence of accusative is derived). Deriving unmarked passives: For expository reasons, I will adopt Bruening’s analysis. I assume that the ‘passive auxiliary’ werden ‘become’ realizes a functional head that combines with PassP.18 o By looking at the structure in (28a), combined with how passive morphology arises in this system, unmarked passives are expected in contexts where the highest functional projection (PassP) is missing. o I propose that this is the case in the infinitival complement of let-passives and letmiddles. VoiceP 3 Voice vP 3 EA 3 v PartP 3 Part VP The (passive) participle is the consequence of the presence of Part, and, according to Collins, requires licensing by Voice (triggering phrasal movement to Spec,Voice). I think his system could also explain unmarked passives, although less straightforwardly, which is why I do not further take his approach into consideration. 17 See Legate 2012 for arguments that the external argument introducing projection has to be present in passives. 18 Alternatives come to mind: one could assume that the auxiliary in German is a spell-out of Pass (Wurmbrand 2013a,b), which would allow the participial morphology to be a spell-out of Voice (potentially contextually triggered by the presence of Pass). Absence of passive morphology would then be the consequence of the absence of Pass (see section 3). As a reviewer pointed out, this would mean that ‘passive morphology’ in the narrow sense (i.e. the morphological marking on the verb), must not be dissociated from Voice. However, in this scenario, the morphological marking in passives cannot be reduced to the morphology on the verb, but must include the auxiliary, which is treated as passive specific. Thus, even under this approach, passive morphology in the broad sense (trivially) needs to be dissociated from Voice. 10 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 3. Restructuring The infinitival complement in let-middles and let-passives qualifies as a restructuring infinitive. o Let-passives and let-middles show all the properties of a coherent / restructuring infinitive (see Bech 1955, Aissen and Perlmutter 1983, Haider 1987, 2003, 2010; Fanselow 1989; Grewendorf 1994, Wurmbrand 2001, 2004, 2007, Cinque 2004, Enzinger 2010, a.o. for tests targeting restructuring infinitives), i.e. let-passives and letmiddles are monoclausal. 1) Both constructions disallow extraposition. (29) a.*weil der Lehrer lässt [von den Schülern das Buch lesen]. because the teacher lets by the students the book read ‘because the teacher has the book read by the children.’ b. weil sich (*das Buch) lässt [(*das Buch) leicht lesen]. because REFL das Buch lets the book easily read ‘because the book reads easily.’ o Intraposed infinitives have been argued by Bayer, Schmid, Bader (2005) to qualify as coherent/restructuring infinitives (but see Wurmbrand 2001 for a different view). 2) Both constructions allow long pronoun fronting (scrambling of an embedded object pronoun across the matrix subject; see e.g., Lenerz 1977, 2001 and Haider & Rosengren 2001 for the claim that with geben ‘give‘ NOM<DAT<ACC constitutes the base-order). (30) a. weil ihr der Lehrer den Brief geben because her.DAT the.NOM teacher the.ACC letter give ‘because the teacher makes someone give her the letter.’ b. weil ihr sich der Brief leicht geben because her.DAT REFL the.NOM letter easily give ‘because it is easy to give her the letter.’ lässt. lets lässt. lets 3) Both constructions only allow wide scope for negation. (31) a. weil der Wirt keinen Wein vergießen ließ, und der Kellner auch nicht. because the innkeeper no wine spill let and the waiter also not ‘because the innkeper did not let someone spill wine, and the waiter didn't either.’ b. weil sich dieses Skript keinem Produzenten verkaufen lässt, und because REFL this script no producer sell lets and diese Reportage auch nicht. this report also not ‘because it is not possible to sell this skript or this report to any producer.’ 11 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 4) Both constructions allow topicalization of the verbal complex (Haider 1993, 2010) / remnant topicalization (Wurmbrand 2001). (32) a. [zerbrechen lassen] hat der Lehrer die Scheibe von break let has the teacher the window by ‘The teacher made his trainee break the window.’ b. [zerbrechen lassen] hat sich diese Scheibe ganz leicht. break let has REFL this window very easily ‘It was easy to break this window.’ seinem Lehrling. his trainee 5) A number of authors have argued that sich lassen in let-middles has to be treated as the reflexively marked anticausative of causative lassen (Kunze 1996; Gunkel 1999, 2003; Pitteroff & Alexiadou 2012, Pitteroff 2014). Similarity to long passives ((34b) see Höhle 1978, Wurmbrand 2001): the case properties of the embedded internal argument depend on the Voice properties of the matrix predicate (see Pitteroff & Alexiadou 2012, Pitteroff & Schäfer to appear; Pitteroff 2014 for arguments that the nominative DP is merged as the internal argument of the embedded predicate). (33) a. weil der Lehrer den Roman lesen lässt. because the teacher the.ACC novel read lets ‘because the teacher makes someone read the novel.’ b. weil sich der / *den Roman gut lesen lässt. because REFL the.NOM/ACC novel well read lets ‘because the novel reads well.’ (causative lassen) (anticausative lassen) (34) a. weil Mark den Traktor zu reparieren versucht. (active versuchen) because Mark the.ACC tractor to repair tries ‘because Mark tries to repair the tractor.’ b. weil der / den Traktor zu reparieren versucht wurde. (passive versuchen) because the.NOM/ACC tractor to repair tried became ‘because they tried to repair the tractor.’ o The accusative case in (34b) signals a non-restructuring infinitive, while the nominative signals a restructuring infinitive (see Wurmbrand 2001). The fact that accusative is unacceptable in (33b) indicates that lassen obligatorily selects for a restructuring infinitive (cf. Haider 1987, Wurmbrand 2001; see Grewendorf 1989, 1990 for a different view). Conclusion The infinitival complement in let-passives and let-middles is a restructuring infinitive. I follow Wurmbrand (2001, 2004, 2007, 2013a,b) in her view that restructuring infinitives do not involve (lexical) complex predicate formation (pace e.g., Haider 1993, 2003, 2010; see Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2007, Wurmbrand 2007, 2013a,b for further arguments against this approach), but are structurally truncated clausal complements. 12 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 o Section 1 has shown that restructuring infinitives must not be analyzed as bare VPs (pace Wurmbrand 2001, 2004, 2007, Legate 2012), but project up to Voice (see also Chung 2004). I follow Wurmbrand (2013) in assuming that they project no higher (at least in the case of let-constructions; see Lundin 2003, Folli and Harley 2007, Wood 2011 for the claim that the causative predicate in an analytic causative construction combines with VoiceP). o The restructuring infinitive in let-passives and let-middles, then, constitutes a context in which a passive argument constellation arises (i.e. a specifierless, yet thematic VoiceP), but the absence of any higher functional projections leads to the absence of passive morphology and thus, a morphologically unmarked passive.19 4. Conclusions Passives do not necessarily have to be morphologically marked; let-middles and letpassives provide evidence for this. The absence of passive morphology in these constructions requires the dissociation of passive morphology from Voice in German (see Embick 2004, 2010, Bruening 2012, 2014, Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2014, Spathas, Alexiadou & Schäfer to appear, a.o. for such an approach to English passives). The absence of passive morphology is thus expected in contexts where, for independent reasons, Voice is projected while the higher functional projections are not. Such a context is provided in German let-constructions, where the infinitival complement qualifies as a restructuring infinitive, i.e. a truncated clausal complement that projects up to Voice, but no higher (Wurmbrand 2013a,b, Pitteroff 2014). References Ackema, P. & M. Schoorlemmer. 1994. The middle construction and the syntax‐semantics interface. Lingua 93: 59‐90. Ackema, P. & M. Schoorlemmer. 1995. Middles and nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry 26:173‐197. Ackema, P. & Schoorlemmer, M. 2005. Middles. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III, eds. Martin Everaert and Hank van Riemsdijk, 131-203. Oxford: Blackwell. Aissen, J. & D. Perlmutter. 1983. Clause reduction in Spanish. In Studies in Relational Grammar 1, ed. David Perlmutter, 360-403. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou & F. Schäfer. 2006. The properties of anticausatives cross-linguistically. In Phases of interpretation, M. Frascarelli (ed.), 187-211. Berlin: de Gruyter. Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopolou, & F. Schäfer. 2014. External arguments in transitivity alternations: a layering approach. Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, A., B. Gehrke & F. Schäfer. To appear. The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua. 19 The infinitival morphology could be treated as some type of default marking that is arguably inserted at PF. 13 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 Alexiadou, A., G. Iordachioaia & F. Schäfer. 2011. Scaling the Variation in Romance and Germanic Nominalizations. In The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic. Structure, Variation, and change, eds. P. Sleeman and H. Perridon, 26-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & F. Schäfer. 2013. Non-canonical passives. In Non-canonical passives, eds. A. Alexiadou and F. Schäfer, 1-21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago:. University of Chicago Press. Baker, M., K. Johnson & I. Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219-252. Bayer, J., T. Schmid & M. Bader. 2005. Clause Union and Clausal Position. In M. den Dikken and C. Tortora (eds.), The function of function words and functional categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bech, G. 1955/21983. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. Linguistische Arbeiten 139. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bhatt, R. & R. Pancheva. 2006. Implicit arguments. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, eds.Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, v. II, 554-584. Blackwell. Bobaljik, J.D. & Wurmbrand, S. 2007. Complex predicates, aspect, and antireconstruction. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16: 27-42. Bruening, B. 2012. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16: 1-41. Bruening, B. 2014. Word formation is syntactic: adjectival passives in English. NLLT 32: 363-422. Burzio, L. 1986. Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Chung, S. 2004. Restructuring and verb-initial order in Chamorro. Syntax 7.3: 199-233. Cinque, G. 2004. “Restructuring” and functional structure. In: A. Belletti (ed). Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 3, 132-191. Collins, C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8:2, 81-120. Dotlačil, J., & R. Šimík. 2013. Peeling, Structural Case, and Czech Retroactive Infinitives. In: Proceedings of FDSL 9, eds. U. Junghanns et al., 105-124. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Embick, D. 2003. Locality, Listedness, and Morphological Information. Studia Linguistica 57.3: 143–169. Embick, D. 2004a. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35.3: 355-392. Embick, D. 2004b. Unaccusative Syntax and Verbal Alternations. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert (eds.) The Unaccusativity puzzle. Oxford University Press. Embick, D. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press. Embick, D. 2012. Contextual conditions on stem alternations: Illustrations from the Spanish conjugation. In I. Franco, S. Lusini and A. Saab eds. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2010. Selected papers from 'Going Romance' Leiden 2010. John Benjamins. Embick, D. 2013a. Morphemes and morphophonological loci. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, eds. Alec Marantz and Ora Matushansky, 151-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Embick, D. 2013b. Locality across domains: From morphemes to structures to sounds. Talk given at NELS 44, University of Connecticut. Enzinger, S. 2010. Kausative und perzeptive Infinitivkonstruktionen. Studia grammatica 70. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Fanselow, G. 1989. Coherent infinitives in German. In Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena. eds. Ch. Bhatt, E. Löbel & C. Schmidt, 1-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 14 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 Fagan, S.M.B. 1992. The syntax and semantics of middle constructions: A study with special reference toGerman. Cambridge:CUP. Folli. R. & H. Harley. 2005. Flavors of v: Consuming Results in Italian and English. In Aspectual Enquiries, eds. P. Kempchinsky and R. Slabakova, 95-120. Dordrecht: Springer. Folli, R. & H. Harley. 2007. Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197-238. Grewendorf, G. 1983. Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Kein transformations-grammatisches Dilemma mehr. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 23: 120-196. Grewendorf, G. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. Grewendorf, G. 1990. Small pro in German. In Scrambling and barriers, G.Grewendorf & W. Sternefeld (eds), 295-315. Amsterdam. Grewendorf, G. 1994. Kohärente Infinitive und Inkorporation. In: Steube, A. & G. Zybatow eds. Zur Satzwertigkeit von Infinitiven und Small Clauses, 31-50. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Guasti, M.T. 1993. Causative and perception verbs. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Guasti, M.T. 2006. Analytic Causatives. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. Malden: Blackwell. 142-172. Gunkel, L. 1999. Causatives in German.Theoretical Linguistics 25: 133-159. Gunkel, L. 2003. Infinitheit, Passiv und Kausativkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 67. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Haider, H. 1984. Was zu haben ist und was zu sein hat – Bemerkungen zum Infinitiv. Papiere zur Linguistik 30: 23-36. Haider, H. 1986. Fehlende Argumente: vom Passiv zu kohärenten Infinitiven. Linguistische Berichte 101: 3-33. Haider, H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax ‐ Generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Haider, H. 2003. V-clustering and clause union: Causes and effects. In Verb constructions in German and Dutch. eds. P.Seuren & G. Kempen, 91-126. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Haider, H. 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haider, H., & I. Rosengren. 2003. Scrambling: Nontriggered Chain Formation in OV Languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15.3: 203-267. Haspelmath, M. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. In Studies in Language 14: 25-72. Höhle, T. N. 1978. Lexikalistische Syntax. Die Aktiv‐Passiv‐Relation und andere Infinitivkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hole, D. 2002. Agentive selbst in German. In: Graham Katz, Sabine Reinhard & Philip Reuter (eds.). Sinn und Bedeutung VI, Proceedings of the sixth meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, Osnabrück, Germany, October, 2001. University of Osnabrück. < http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/ilg/institut/mitarbeiter/hole/schriften/Hole2002a.pdf>. Huber, W. 1980. Infinitivkomplemente im Deutschen – Transformationsgrammatische Untersuchungen zum Verb lassen. Ph.D. dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin. Jaeggli, O. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587-622. Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, J.Rooryck & L. Zaring (eds.), 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kratzer, A. 2000. Building statives. In L. Conathan, J. Good, D. Kavistkaya, A. Wulf & A. Yu (eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 26, 385-399. Kunze, J. 1996. Plain middles and lassen middles in German: Reflexive constructions and sentence perspective. Linguistics 34: 645-695. Legate, J.A. 2012 Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88.3: 495525. 15 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 Lekakou, M. 2005. In the middle, somewhat elevated. The semantics of middles and its crosslinguistic realization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London. Lenerz, J. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lenerz, J. 2001. Scrambling and Reference in German. In Issues in formal German(ic) typology, eds. W. Abraham and C.J.-W. Zwart, 179-192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lundin, K. 2003. Small Clauses in Swedish: Towards a Unified Account. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University. Pitteroff, M. & Alexiadou, A. 2012. The Properties of German sl-middles. In Proceedings of WCCFL 29, 214-222. Cascadilla Press. Pitteroff, M. & F. Schäfer, to appear. The argument structure of reflexively marked anticausatives and middles: Evidence from datives. In Proceedings of NELS 43. Pitteroff, M. 2014. Non-canonical lassen-middles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart. Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ramchand, G. 2011. Licensing of Instrumental Case in Hindi/Urdu Causatives. Nordlyd 38, 49-85. Schäfer, F. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives. External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Linguistics Today 126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schäfer, F. 2012. Two types of external argument licensing - the case of causers. Studia Linguistica 66.2: 128-180. Spathas, G., A. Alexiadou & F. Schäfer. To appear. Middle Voice and reflexivization: aftoprefixation in Greek. NLLT. Steinbach, M. 2002. Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sundaresan, S. 2013. In support of an articulated v layer: insights from Tamil. Talk given at Little v workshop, University of Leiden, October 25-26, 2013. Szatmári, P. 2004. Das heterogene ‘sich lassen’. Beiträge zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft 17. Hamburg: Buske. Taraldsen, K. T. 1983. Parametric Variation in Phrase Structure: A Case Study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø. Wood, J. 2011. Icelandic let-causatives and case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87: 1-52. Wood, J. 2013. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, NYU. Wood, J. 2014. Contextual Allosemy: Modal Passives and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Talk given at CGSW 29, University of York, September 26-27, 2014. Wurmbrand, S. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wurmbrand, S. 2004. Two types of restructuring: Lexical vs. functional. Lingua 114:8. 9911014. Wurmbrand, S. 2007. How complex are complex predicates? Syntax 10:3. 243-288. Wurmbrand, S. 2013a. The features of voice. Talk given at Little v workshop, University of Leiden, October 25-26, 2013. <http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/wurmbrandhandout.pdf>. Wurmbrand, S. 2013b. Complex predicate formation via voice incorporation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut. <http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001968>. 16 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 Appendix A Reviewing the arguments against an embedded Voice A.1 Control into purpose/rational clauses Argument: no syntactically active implicit argument in let-passives; the unexpressed causee cannot control (1a), while the implicit agent in verbal passives can (1b) (examples and judgments are taken from Enzinger 2010). (1) a. Der Dirigenti ließ Raimondij die gesamte Arie wiederholen [ohne PROi/j the conductor let Raimondi the whole aria repeat without PRO eine Pause zu machen]. a pause to make ‘The conductor made Raimondi repeat the whole aria without making a break.’ b. Der Dirigenti ließ die gesamte Arie von Raimondij wiederholen [ohne The conductor made the whole aria by Raimondi repeat without PROi/*j eine Pause zu machen]. PRO a pause to make ‘The conductor had the whole aria repeated by Raimondi without making a break.’ c. Die gesamte Arie wurde von Raimondii wiederholt [ohne PROi eine the whole aria became by Raimondi repeated without PRO a Pause zu machen]. break to make ‘The whole aria was repeated by Raimondi without making a break.’ o My Proposal: (1b) is not an argument against an embedded Voice, but a prominence effect: In a context where two agents are in principle available, speakers have a very strong tendency to construe the superordinated (overt!) subject as controller. This is true even in the AcI in (1a) (although there is some speaker variation wrt. to the judgements). o Evidence: (2) reflects the judgments elicited by a small questionnaire study carried out at the University of Stuttgart. No speaker had the clear cut difference between AcI and let-passives suggested by Enzinger’s judgments above. (2) a. Der Dozenti lässt die Studentenj den Text übersetzen [ohne PROi/??j ein the prof let the students the text translate without PRO a Wörterbuch zu benutzen]. dictionary to use b. Der Dozenti lässt von den Studentenj den Text übersetzen [ohne PROi/??j the prof lets by the students the text translate without PRO ein Wörterbuch zu benutzen]. a dictionary to use ‘The prof made the students translate the text without using a dictionary.’ Lack of control by implicit causee is a blocking effect due to the prominence of the matrix subject. Crucially, embedded-subject control in AcI is possible if the matrix subject is inanimate ((3); supporting prominence argument): 17 NELS 45 (3) MIT 11/02/2014 a. Die weiblichen Zuschaueri schrien laut auf, [ohne PROi auf the female spectators screamed loud out without PRO on die männlichen Ohren Rücksicht zu nehmen]. the male ears regard to take ‘The female audience screamed out loud, without being considerate of the men’s ears.’ b. Diese Szenei ließ die weiblichen Zuschauerj laut aufschreien, [ohne this scene let the female spectators loud out.scream without PRO#i/j auf die männlichen Ohren Rücksicht zu nehmen]. PRO on the male ears regard to take ‘This scene made the female audience scream out loud, without being considerate of the men's ears.’ o Yet, let-passives are incompatible with inanimate matrix subjects (the same holds for Faire Par causatives, invalidating the argument in Guasti 2006): (4) a. Der Bürgermeister / der drohende Frost lässt die Bauern die Ernte the mayor the threatening frost lets the farmers the harvest früher einholen. earlier in.take b. Der Bürgermeister / *der drohende Frost lässt die Ernte früher The mayor the threatening frost lets the harvest earlier einholen in.take ‘The mayor / the upcoming frost causes the farmers to do the harvest earlier.’ Control in the context of let-passives does not serve as an argument in favor of or against the presence of an implicit argument/embedded Voice. The same argumentation does not extend to let-middles, where only one agent is involved. Control into purpose/rationale clauses should be possible. This is indeed what is found: (5) a. …beschreiben Sie knapp, wie es sich verwenden lässt, um unser …describe you briefly how it REFL use let in.order our Problem zu lösen.20 problem to solve ‘Describe briefly, how it can be used in order to solve our problem.’ b. Wenn es sich verkaufen lässt, ohne zu viel Verlust zu machen, versuche if it REFL sell lets without to much loss to make try 21 ich das. I this ‘If it can be sold without losing to much, I’ll try it.’ c. Der Ritt nach Narnia ist ein Buch der Narnia-Reihe, dass sich lesen the ride to Narnia is a book of.the Narnia-series that REFL read lässt, ohne die anderen zu kennen.22 lets without the others to know ‘‘The Horse and His Boy’ is a book of the Narnia series which can be read without knowing the other books.’ 20 <www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/WS10/ALP3/zettel/u7.pdf> <www.model-kartei.de/forum/7/89130-4-fahrtkosten.html> 22 < http://www.lovelybooks.de/autor/C.-S.-Lewis/Der-Ritt-nach-Narnia-142356770-w/rezension/984637700/> 21 18 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 A.2 Passivizable verbs Argument: certain verbs (mainly verbs of perception and subject experiencer predicates) are legitimate in passives but illegitimate in let-passives (see Petter 1998, Guasti 2006, Enzinger 2010, a.o.). If let-passives embed a passive, it is argued, such gaps are not expected. o My Proposal: there are independent reasons for the unacceptability of these predicates in let-passives. verbs of perception (6) a. Der Polizist ließ den Verbrecher die Beweisfotos sehen. the policeman let the criminal the evidence.pictures see ‘The policeman let the criminal see the pictures of evidence.’ b.*Der Polizist ließ (von dem Verbrecher) die Beweisfotos sehen. the policeman let by the criminal the evidence.pictures see ‘The policeman let the criminal see the pictures of evidence.’ c. Die Beweisfotos wurden (von dem Verbrecher) gesehen. the evidence.pictures became by the criminal seen ‘The pictures of evidence were seen (by the criminal).’ o verbs of perception embedded under lassen disambiguate lassen in favor of the permission/enable reading. o let-passives are incompatible with permissive reading (see Huber 1980, Gunkel 2003, Enzinger 2010). (7) a. Diese Mutter lässt ihre Kinder Eis essen. this mother lets her children ice eat ‘This mother lets her children eat ice-cream.’ b.*Diese Mutter lässt (von ihren Kindern) Eis essen. this mother lets by her children ice eat Intended: ‘This mother lets her kids eat ice cream.’ (8) a. Dieser Ausbilder lässt seine Kadetten Pferdeäpfel essen. this instructor lets his cadets horse.apples eat ‘This instructor makes his cadets eat horse droppings.’ b. Dieser Ausbilder lässt (von seinen Kadetten) Pferdeäpfel essen. this instructor lets by his cadets horse.apples eat ‘This instructor makes his cadets eat horse droppings.’ o The same argumentation accounts for the contrast in (9), observed in Gunkel (2003). (9) a. Mark lässt Peter das Buch behalten. Mark lets Peter the book keep ‘Mark *makes/lets Peter keep the book.’ b.*Mark lässt (von Peter) das Buch behalten. Mark lets by Peter the book keep c. Das Buch wurde behalten (obwohl es ganz zerfleddert war). the book became kept even.though it fully tattered was ‘The book was kept even though it was completely tattered.’ 19 NELS 45 MIT 11/02/2014 psych-verbs (specifically: subject experiencer) (10) a.*Stephen King/der Roman ES lässt Clowns von vielen Erwachsenen fürchten. Stephen King/the novel IT lets clowns by many grown.ups fear Intended: ‘Stephen King / the novel IT makes many grown-ups fear clowns.‘ b. Clowns werden von vielen Erwachsenen gefürchtet. clowns become by many grown-ups feared ‘Clowns are feared by many grown-ups.’ (11) a.*Die Mutter/Ihr gutes Aussehen lässt Maria von vielen Männern lieben. the mother/her good looks lets Mary by many men love ‘The mother/her good looks make Mary be loved by many men.’ b. Maria wird von vielen Männern geliebt. Mary becomes by many men loved ‘Mary is loved by many men.’ o In general, embedded subject-experiencer verbs in analytic causatives seem to be incompatible with a matrix agent. (12) a. Stephen Kings Roman ES lässt heutzutage viele Erwachsene Clowns fürchten. Stephen Kings novel IT lets nowadays many grown-ups clowns fear ‘Stephen Kings novel IT makes many grown-ups fear clowns nowadays.’ b.*Stephen King lässt seine Geschwister Clowns fürchten. Stephen King lets his siblings clowns fear ‘Stephen King makes his siblings fear clowns.’ (13) a. Nur ihr gutes Aussehen lässt Peter Maria only her good appearance lets Peter Mary ‘Only her good looks make Peter love Mary.’ b.*Ihre Mutter lässt Peter Maria lieben. her mother lets Peter Mary love ‘Her mother makes Peter love Mary.’ lieben. love Again, recall the incompatibility of let-passives with inanimate matrix subjects (4). Subject experiencer predicates are out in let-passives for independent reasons. Conclusion None of the (major) arguments advanced against an embedded VoiceP/an embedded implicit agent holds up on closer scrutiny. 20