Unmarked Passives – Evidence from German let

Unmarked Passives – Evidence from German let-middles and let-passives1
Marcel Pitteroff
University of Stuttgart
1.
Introduction
Generally, argument alternations such as verbal passives require morphological marking
that differentiates them from the corresponding active sentence (e.g., Haspelmath 1990;
Kiparski 2013). This is shown in (1b) for German, where the passive contrasts with the
active in its use of the auxiliary werden ‘become’ and a past/passive participle.
(1)
a. Peter las
den
Peter read the.ACC
‘Peter read the novel.’
Roman.
novel
b. Der
Roman
wurde
the.NOM novel
became
‘The novel was read.’
gelesen.
read.PARTICIPLE
(active)
(passive)
Unmarked passives are claimed not to exist. This generalization has lead to numerous
theoretical accounts of passives in which “passive morphology” (i.e. passive participial
morphology) was attributed some core function in the derivation of passives (see, e.g.,
Baker, Johnson and Roberts 1989, but also Haider 1984, 1986b, a.o.).
In this paper, I provide evidence in support of the existence of unmarked passives in a
very well defined domain. Empirically, my argument is based on two constructions in
German that involve the causative predicate lassen ‘let’: the German equivalent of the
Romance Faire Par construction in (2a) (henceforth let-passive), and the so-called letmiddle in (2b) (cf. Fagan 1992, Kunze 1996, Pitteroff & Alexiadou 2012, Pitteroff 2014).
1
This paper has profited from numerous discussions with a number of people. I would like to thank
Artemis Alexiadou, David Embick, Terje Lohndal, Heidi Harley, Florian Schäfer, Giorgos Spathas, Jim
Wood, Susi Wurmbrand, and the audiences at NELS 45, the University of Leipzig, and NTNU Trondheim
where versions of this paper have been presented for helpful and stimulating comments.
Marcel Pitteroff
(2)
a. Der
Lehrer ließ den
Roman
the
teacher let
the
novel
‘The teacher had the novel be read.’
lesen.
read.INF
(let-passive)
b. Der
Roman
lässt
the
novel
lets
‘The novel reads well.’
lesen.
read.INF
(let-middle)
sich
REFL
gut
well
In neither construction is the embedded external argument overtly realized. I will argue,
however, that the external argument introducing projection VoiceP (cf. Kratzer 1996) is
nevertheless present in the infinitival complement, and that this VoiceP is identical to the
one involved in verbal passives. Let-middles and let-passives are thus evidence that
passive morphology in German must be dissociated from Voice, as its absence in (2)
would otherwise be unexpected. This conclusion provides independent support for
analyses of passives à la Bruening (2012), where passive morphology is located in a
functional projection on top of Voice. Such approaches not only have the ability to derive
unmarked passives, but also make the correct predictions concerning where they should
be found: in restructuring infinitives (cf. Wurmbrand 2001, 2004, 2013).
The paper proceeds as follows: in Section 2 I provide arguments against a bare vPanalysis of (2) and in favor of the presence of an embedded VoiceP. In Section 3, I
discuss from Bruening (2012) an approach that is compatible with the conclusion from
Section 2: passive morphology must be dissociated from Voice. Section 4 illustrates that
the infinitival complement in let-passives and let-middles involves a restructuring
infinitive. I then show how this fact interacts with the dissociation of Voice and passive
morphology in order to derive a morphologically unmarked passive argument
constellation. Section 5 concludes.
2.
An embedded VoiceP
2.1
The issue
Pylkkänen (2008) proposes a three-way classification of causatives, depending on the
size of the complement of the causative predicate/morpheme: root-embedding, vPembedding and phase (=Voice)-embedding causatives.2 Causatives of the type in (2a),
where the embedded external argument (i.e. the causee) is missing, have predominantly
been treated as lacking such an argument altogether. In other words, they are classified as
vP-embedding causatives in Pylkkänen’s typology, lacking the external argument
introducing projection VoiceP (see Taraldsen 1983 for Norwegian; Burzio 1986 for
Italian; Folli and Harley 2007 for Romance Faire Par causatives in general; Enzinger
2010 for German; Tubino Blanco 2011, Harley 2013, 2014 for Hiaki indirect causatives;
2
Pylkkänen works in a Distributed Morphology framework, where the syntax operates with categoryneutral Roots. These Roots are identified as verbs, nouns, adjectives etc. by the immediate environment
they appear in (cf. Marantz 1997; i.e. n0 identifies its complement as nominal, v0 as verbal, etc). I adopt this
perspective in this paper.
Unmarked Passives
Wood 2011 for Icelandic; Key 2013 for Turkish).3 The advantage of such an approach is
obvious: under the assumption that passives require the presence of a Voice projection,
the absence of an embedded VoiceP in let-passives (and let-middles) entails that no
embedded passive is involved, and thus, no passive morphology is expected to surface.
I will now provide a number of arguments in favor of the presence of an embedded
VoiceP in these constructions.
2.2
Arguments for an embedded VoiceP
2.2.1
Voice Adjuncts
One test for the presence of an implicit argument/VoiceP in passives is the possibility to
introduce the suppressed agent as an adjunct by-phrase (3). (4) shows that in cases where
no implicit argument is involved – such as anticausatives (4a) or dispositional middles
(4b) – a by-phrase is infelicitous.
(3)
Das Buch wurde
von
Martin gelesen.
the book became by
Martin read
‘The book was read by Martin.’
(4)
a. Die
Tür
öffnete
sich (*von Martin).
the
door opened
REFL by Martin
‘The door opened by Martin.’
(anticausative)
b. Das Buch liest sich (*von Kindern) gut.
the book reads REFL by children well
‘The book reads well.’
(dispositional middle)
As is well known, let-passives allow the realization of the agent as a by-phrase, patterning
with passives rather than anticausatives or middles (5a). (5b) shows that unlike the
‘canonical’ dispositional middle (4b), let-middles also permit by-phrases (see Fagan
1992, Kunze 1996, Pitteroff & Alexiadou 2012, Pitteroff 2014 for German, Broekhuis
and Corver to appear, Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2006 for Dutch).
(5)
3
a. Hans ließ
die Tür
(von Martin) öffnen.
Hans let
the door by
Martin
open
‘Hans had Martin open the door.’
b. Das Buch lässt sich (von Kindern) gut
the
book lets
REFL by
children well
‘The book can be read well by children.’
lesen.
read
To be precise, Folli and Harley (2007), following Guasti (1993, 2006), treat Faire Par causatives as
embedding a nominalized infinitive. I list them here as they claim that no VoiceP is present in the
infinitival complement, in agreement with all other authors mentioned.
Marcel Pitteroff
Defendants of a vP-embedding approach to (5) explain the acceptability of by-phrases by
treating them as event modifiers/vP-adjuncts. It seems, however, that such an account
overgenerates: what prevents the attachment of an agentive by-phrase to the middle in
(4b) or the anticausative in (4a), for that matter?4
Under the assumption, then, that by-phrases are indicative of the presence of Voice
(e.g. Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2006, 2015, Lyngfelt and Solstad 2006; see
also Collins 2005, Bruening 2012), the acceptability of (5a,b) strongly suggests that the
infinitival complement in let-passives and let-middles projects a VoiceP.
Another type of adjunct that arguably targets the Voice projection is anti-assistive
selbst ‘self’, illustrated in (6) (Hole 2002, Spathas, Alexiadou & Schäfer to appear).
(6)
a. 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))
b. Die Blaubeeren wurden
selbst geflückt.
the blueberries became self
picked
‘The blueberries were picked on one’s own.’
(6a) means (roughly) that the cook picked the blueberries himself, and no one assisted
him in doing this (for a more thorough discussion of the semantics of anti-assistive
modifiers, see the literature mentioned above and the references therein). Crucially, antiassistive selbst ‘self’ does not need an overt agent DP, but can occur in passives (6b),
suggesting that the licensing factor is the presence of an (agentive) VoiceP. If antiassistive selbst modifies Voice, and the infinitival complement in let-passives and letmiddles lacks this projection, one would expect this modifier to be unacceptable in these
constructions – contrary to fact (7)-(8). (9) shows that anti-assistive selbst cannot occur in
contexts where an (agentive) VoiceP is missing (i.e. anticausatives and middles).
4
Furthermore, what are the restrictions that allow only some languages to have such an agentive vPmodifier? As Wood (2011) shows, Icelandic causatives without overt causee disallow the addition of a byphrase (the same is true for the corresponding Turkish causatives (Jaklin Kornfilt, p.c.)):
(i) a. Þeir
létu mig
byggja húsið.
(Icelandic; Wood 2011)
they
let me
build
house.the
‘They made me build the house.’
b. Þeir létu
byggja húsið
(*af mér).
they let
build
house.the
by me
INTENDED: ‘They made the house get built by me.’
Arguably, a by-phrase is acceptable in Icelandic let-passives if it denotes a property-like expression. Einar
Freyr Sigurðsson, p.c., finds (ii) acceptable.
(ii) Jón
lét opna hurðina af fagaðila
John
let open the.door by professional
‘John has a professional open the door.’
I leave it open what this entails for the syntax of Icelandic let-passives. I would like to stress, however, that
the Icelandic counterpart of (5a) is unacceptable. Thus, even if the restriction above is indicative of a vPadjunct (as argued in Dotlačil and Šimík 2013 for the by-phrase in Czech retroactive infinitives), the fact
that it does not hold in German supports the analysis of let-passives as embedding a VoiceP.
Unmarked Passives
(7)
a. Der Lehrer
hat die Prüfungsaufgabe
(von seinen Schülern) immer
the teacher has the examination.question by his
students always
selbst auswählen lassen.
self
pick
let
‘The teacher has always made his students pick the exam questions
themselves.’
b. Ich
lasse selbst aussuchen, was gegessen wird. 5
I
let
self
pick
what eaten
becomes
‘I let people choose for themselves what will be eaten.’
(8)
a. Schmuckstücke, die
nicht nur
einzigartig und originell sondern
Pieces.of.jewelry that
not
only unique
and
fancy
but
auch typgerecht sind, lassen sich am
besten selbst herstellen. 6
also 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.7
the many new changes
let
REFL at.the best
self discover
‘The many new changes can be best discovered oneself.’
(9)
a. So
ein Schmuckstück
stellt
sich leicht (*selbst) her.
such a piece.of.jewelry produces REFL easily self
prt
‘Such a piece of jewelry can easily be produced by oneself.’
b. Diese Tür öffnete
sich (*selbst).
this door opened
REFL self
Intended: ‘Someone opened the door himself.’
Agent-oriented modifiers like bewusst ‘consciously’ or absichtlich ‘intentionally’ are
also used to test for the presence of an implicit argument/VoiceP (see, e.g., Key 2013 for
the claim that an agent-oriented modifier can target the causee only if the infinitival
complement projects a VoiceP). Such modifiers are hard to find in (let-) middles due to
their semantics (see Lekakou 2005 for discussion), but they are not unacceptable (10).
(10)
5
a. Die
ansonsten typische
erdig grüne Holznote lässt sich nur
the
otherwise characteristic earthy green wood.flavor lets
REFL only
unbewusst
wahrnehmen.8
unconsciously notice
‘The otherwise characteristic, earthy, green, wooden flavor can only be
noticed unconsciously.’
<http://www.9monate.de/community/thread/Archiv-Kinderernaehrung-Erfahrungen-und
Tipps/Untergewicht? threadId=13162154>
6
< http://www.katrin-und-frank.de/2011/05/>
7
<http://www.dynasite.de/dynasite.cfm?dsmid=76745&dspaid=587223>
8
< http://www.parfumo.de/Benutzer/Imel/Kommentare/10>
Marcel Pitteroff
b. Die Blase
entleert sich reflexartig und lässt sich nicht bewusst
the bladder empties REFL as.a.reflex and lets REFL not consciously
kontrollieren.9
control
‘The bladder empties as a reflex and cannot be controlled consciously.’
c. Aber dieses Gefühl lässt sich nicht absichtlich
herbeiführen.10
but
this
feeling lets
REFL not
intentionally bring.about
‘But this feeling cannot be brought about intentionally.’
The situation for let-passives is more complex. To understand why this is the case, one
has to keep in mind that adjuncts in let-passives are ambiguous: they can be interpreted as
modifying the matrix or the embedded event (11).11
(11)
Der Lehrer ließ den Text zweimal lesen.
the teacher let the text twice
read
i. ‘Twice did the teacher make someone read the text’
(2 causing events)
ii.‘The teacher made someone read the text twice.’
(1 causing, 2 reading events)
As a consequence, an agent-oriented modifier in a let-causative should in principle be
able to modify the matrix or the embedded external argument. Yet, even in let-causatives
where the causee is overtly realized, an agent-oriented modifier has the very strong
tendency to modify the matrix agent ((12a); see Siloni (2011), who shows the same for
French causatives). A “low-scope” interpretation is only possible if the matrix subject
cannot be construed as the target of the modifier. This is exemplified in (12b), where the
matrix subject is inanimate.
(12)
a. Der Psychologe ließ Martin das Auto absichtlich zerkratzen.
the psychologist let Martin the car intentionally scratch
i. ‘The psychologist intentionally made his patient scratch the car.’
ii.??‘The psychologist made his patient scratch the car intentionally.’
b. Der Neid
ließ die Schüler absichtlich
teure
Autos zerkratzen.
the jealousy let the students intentionally expensive cars scratch
i.*‘Jealousy intentionally made the students scratch expensive cars.’
ii. ‘Jealousy made the students scratch expensive cars intentionally.’
The contrast between (12a) and (12b) suggests a prominence effect. Where possible, an
agent oriented modifier picks the more prominent agent, i.e. the matrix subject, rather
than the causee. Modification of the embedded agent is only possible where modification
9
<http://www.special-harninkontinenz.de/service/glossar/blasenerkrankungen-blase-harnwege
id74180.html>
10
<http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-9286027.html>
11
This property is evidence against let-causatives as root-selecting. Furthermore, the ambiguity in the
interpretation of adjuncts is often attributed to the restructuring status of this construction.
Unmarked Passives
of the matrix subject is ruled out for independent reasons. Two predictions follow from
this: First, the prominence effect should be even stronger if the embedded agent is covert.
Second, modification of the implicit agent should be possible if the matrix subject is
inanimate. While the first prediction is borne out (13a), the second one is not (13b).
(13)
a. Der Psychologe ließ
das Auto absichtlich
zerkratzen.
the psychologist let
the car
intentionally scratch
i. ‘The psychologist intentionally made someone scratch the car.’
ii.*?‘The psychologist made someone scratch the car intentionally.’
b. *Der Neid
ließ
absichtlich
teure
Autos zerkratzen.
the jealousy let
intentionally expensive cars scratch
‘Jealousy made someone/people scratch expensive cars intentionally.’
(13b), however, does not falsify the prominence argument: the example is ungrammatical
even without the modifier. This is because let-passives, unlike the let-causatives in (12),
are incompatible with an inanimate matrix subject (see Huber 1980 for German; Folli and
Harley 2007 for Romance Faire Par causatives).
What is needed is thus a let-passive with an animate matrix subject which cannot be
or is at least unlikely to be the target of an agent-oriented modifier. (14) provides such a
scenario, and a low interpretation for the modifier is acceptable.
(14)
Gestern ließ
der Hypnotiseur von seinen Gästen unbewusst
ein Auto
yesterday let
the hypnotist
by his
guests unconsciously a car
demolieren.
demolish
i.??‘Yesterday, the hypnotist unconsciously made his guests demolish a car.’
ii. ‘Yesterday, the hypnotist made his guests demolish a car unconsciously.’
(14) shows that once once the prominence effect is neutralized, an agent-oriented
modifier can target the implicit causee. This therefore suggests that the infinitival
complement of let-passives does indeed involve Voice.12
2.2.2
Stem Allomorphy
This argument builds on the observation that certain predicates mark the causative
alternation via stem allomorphy. An example of this is provided in (15).
(15)
12
a. Peter muss das Schiff versenken.
Peter must the ship sink.TRANSITIVE
‘Peter has to sink the ship.’
Pitteroff (2014) argues that the failure of the implicit causee to control into purpose clauses is also a
consequence of the prominence of the matrix subject. Vecchiato (2011) proposes the same for Italian Faire
Par causatives. In support, she advances the English example in (i), where control by the causee is
impossible, even though the infinitival complement clearly involves a passive.
(i) The major had the enemies attacked by General Custer, without informing the government.
Marcel Pitteroff
b. Das Schiff muss versinken.
the ship must sink.INTRANSITIVE
‘The ship must sink.’
In Embick (2010, 2012) stem allomorphy is treated via phonological readjustment rules
(morpheme-morpheme rules in Embick 2012), which are triggered by a morpheme in a
certain local relationship to the Root undergoing the change. Based on Alexiadou,
Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer’s (2006, 2015) analysis of the causative alternation as a
Voice alternation, the sole element to trigger stem allomorphy in the cases above is
Voice.13 (17) provides the syntactic decomposition of causatives and anticausatives, and
(18) the rule that derives the stem allomorphs (I use a simplified readjustment rule here
for the sake of illustration; ‘ ̑ ’ indicates concatenation; see Embick 2010, 2012).
(17)
The syntactic decomposition of causatives and inchoatives
a. [VoiceP Voice [vP v [√P √ROOT ]]]
(causative)
b. [vP v [√P √ROOT ]]
(anticausative)
(18)
Readjustment rule
sink → senk /__ ̑ Voice
(18) entails that the causative stem allomorph is only found in the context of Voice. This
therefore suggests that stem allomorphy in the causative alternation is a Voice diagnostic.
Returning to let-middles and -passives, Pitteroff and Alexiadou (2012) and Pitteroff
(2014) note that in let-middles only a causative stem allomorph is acceptable (19). Based
on the discussion above, this means that the infinitival complement involves Voice.
(19)
Das Schiff lässt sich leicht versenken
/ *versinken.
the ship lets
REFL easily sink.TRANSITIVE / sink.INTRANSITIVE
‘The ship can be sunk easily.’
For let-passives, the argument is again more involved, since the anticausative variant
is acceptable below lassen ‘let’.
(20)
13
a. Peter lässt das Schiff versenken.
Peter lets the ship sink.TRANSITIVE
‘Peter makes someone sink the ship.’
Note that this account does not make use of different flavors of v (as in Harley 1995 and much
subsequent work). The vP involved in the causative is identical to the one in the anticausative – both
introduce an event. Causative semantics are not encoded on a specific syntactic head but read off from the
structure at the CI-interface: i.e. causation equals the combination of a process and a resultant state.
However, Harley (2014) provides a compelling analysis of Hiaki indirect causatives, which also involve an
implicit causee and no passive marking. Her analysis is based on the assumption that agentivity can be split
across vP and VoiceP, such that the former introduces agentive semantics while the latter hosts the
argument. Note, however, that this account requires different flavors of v and is thus not available here. I
leave a detailed comparison of the two approaches for future research.
Unmarked Passives
b. Peter lässt das Schiff versinken.
Peter lets
the ship sink.INTRANSITIVE
‘Peter lets/makes the ship sink.’
However, it can still be shown that let-passives, like let-middles, necessarily embed the
causative variant, supporting the claim that let-passives involve an embedded VoiceP.
Recall that let-passives are incompatible with an inanimate matrix subject (cf. (14)).
Changing the animacy of the matrix subject in (20) leads to ungrammaticality only in the
case of the embedded causative variant (21).
(21)
Der Sturm lässt das Schiff versinken
/*versenken.
the storm lets the ship sink.INTRANSITIVE / sink.TRANSITIVE
‘The storm sinks the ship/makes someone sink the ship.’
(21) thus shows that (20b) is not a let-passive. More specifically, (21) and (22) indicate
that let-passives necessarily embed the causative stem allomorph, thus supporting the
claim that let-passives involve an embedded VoiceP.14
Having shown that the infinitival complement in let-middles and let-passives involves
a VoiceP, it has to be stressed that this VoiceP – although agentive – must not introduce
an argument in its specifier. In other words, the VoiceP in the infinitival complement of
lassen in let-passives and let-middles is identical to the one involved in verbal passives
(see Embick 2004, Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2006, 2015, Schäfer 2008,
Bruening 2012, Harley 2013, a.o. for the claim that verbal passives involve an agentive
but specifierless VoiceP). This then leads us to the morphological issue of this paper.15
3.
Separating passive morphology from Voice
3.1
Passive morphology and Pass
The conclusion from the previous section that let-middles and let-passives embed the
same type of VoiceP as is involved in verbal passives, combined with the observation
that no passive morphology must surface (25), leads to the null hypothesis that passive
morphology in German is not the spell-out of Voice0.
(25)
14
a. Peter lässt das
Buch lesen / *gelesen
(werden).
Peter lets
the
book read.INF / read.PARTICIPLE become
‘Peter makes someone read the book.’
This conclusion is confirmed by the observation that only the causative stem allomorph allows the
addition of a by-phrase typical for let-passives (i). Thanks to Florian Schäfer for pointing this out.
(i)
Peter lässt das
Schiff von Piraten
versenken
/ *versinken.
Peter lets the
ship by pirates
sink.TRANSTIVE /
sink.INTRANSITIVE
‘Peter makes pirates sink the ship.’
15
See also Wilder (1990) for the claim that let-passives embed a passive. Following Baker, Johnson and
Roberts’ (1989) account of passive morphology, he treats the infinitival suffix –en as an argument.
Marcel Pitteroff
b. Das Buch lässt sich
the
book lets
REFL
‘The book reads easily.’
leicht lesen / *gelesen
easily read.INF / read.PARTICIPLE
(werden).
become
Such a dissociation of passive morphology from Voice has been independently proposed
in analyses of verbal passives such as Embick (2004) or Bruening (2012). For the sake of
concreteness I will follow the latter, although nothing hinges on this choice.
Bruening (2012) proposes a syntactic decomposition of verbal passives as in (26) (see
also Wurmbrand 2013; Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2015; Spathas,
Alexiadou & Schäfer to appear).
(26)
Decomposition of passives
[PassP Pass [VoiceP Voice [vP v [√P √ROOT]]]]
Pass0 selects for an unsaturated predicate – a VoiceP that introduces an argument variable
with no DP in its specifier to saturate it. This is exactly the type of VoiceP that is
involved in the infinitival complement of let-middles and let-passives (see section 2).
Pass0 further imposes existential closure over the open external argument variable.
Finally, for Bruening, the Pass-Voice-v sequence is realized as passive morphology.
I propose that (26) can account for a situation where an agentive, yet specifierless
VoiceP does not simultaneously lead to passive morphology: if the latter depends on the
presence of Pass0, it is expected to be absent in contexts where PassP is not projected.16
Of course, where an infinitival complement projects up to TP or CP – as is the case in
most infinitival complements – PassP will necessarily be part of the embedded structure
and passive morphology will surface. In order to find the right context for a potential
unmarked passive, we thus have to look for structurally reduced complements.
Wurmbrand (2001, 2004, 2013) has argued for just such an analysis of restructuring
infinitives (RIs). The proposed explanation for the absence of passive morphology in letmiddles and let-passives would thus find support if it could be shown that their infinitival
complement is a restructuring infinitive. This will be done in the next section.
4.
A restructuring infinitive
Numerous tests have been developed to identify restructuring infinitives (see a.o. Haider
1986a,b, 2003, Fanselow 1989, Wurmbrand 2001, 2004 for German). Due to space
limitations, I only employ two such tests to show that let-middles and let-passives involve
restructuring: remnant topicalization and extraposition (see Wurmbrand 2001 for a
critical discussion of extraposition as a restructuring diagnostic).
Remnant topicalization (also known as verbal complex topicalization; see Haider
1986a,b) involves the topicalization of the matrix and the embedded verb to the exclusion
of any other material belonging to the embedded clause – which, as a consequence, must
I assume that the infinitival morpheme –en is inserted as a default to ensure morphological acceptability,
since German (unlike English) renders bare stems unacceptable.
16
Unmarked Passives
have been scrambled into the matrix clause prior to topicalization. Given that scrambling
is clause-bound, remnant topicalization is only possible in monoclausal, i.e. restructuring
configurations. While non-restructuring infinitives disallow this process (27a), the result
is legitimate in the context of let-passives (27b) and let-middles (27c).
(27)
a. *[zu versenken geplant] hat Peter das Schiff gestern
Nachmittag.
to sink
planned has Peter the ship yesterday evening
‘Yesterday evening, Peter planned to sink the ship.’
b. [versenken lassen] hat
Peter das Schiff gestern
Nachmittag.
sink
let
has Peter the ship
yesterday evening
‘Yesterday evening, Peter made someone sink the ship.’
c. [versenken lassen] hat
sich dieses Schiff ganz
sink
let
has REFL this
ship very
‘It was very easy to sink this ship.’
leicht.
easily
RIs are generally assumed to block extraposition of the infinitival complement. This
is shown in (28b), where long object movement (another restructuring diagnostic
indicated by nominative case on the embedded theme argument; see Wurmbrand 2001) is
incompatible with extraposition.
(28)
a. Gestern wurde
versucht, [den
Traktor
yesterday became tried
the.ACC tractor
‘People tried to repair the tractor yesterday.’
zu reparieren].
to repair
b. *Gestern wurde
versucht, [der
Traktor
yesterday became tried
the.NOM tractor
‘People tried to repair the tractor yesterday.’
zu reparieren].
to repair
Let-passives and -middles also behave like restructuring configurations in disallowing
extraposition of the infinitival complement (29).
(29)
a. *Gestern hat Peter lassen [den Traktor reparieren].
yesterday has Peter let
the tractor
repair
‘Yesterday, Peter had the tractor repaired.’
b. *Am
Anfang
hat sich der Traktor lassen [leicht
at.the beginning has REFL the tractor let
easily
‘At the beginning, it was easy to repair the tractor.’
reparieren].
repair
Wurmbrand (2001, 2004) argues that the mono-clausal properties of RIs derive from
the truncated nature of the infinitival complement. Although in Wurmbrand (2001, 2004)
RIs are argued to be bare vPs, it has recently been shown that RIs in fact project up to
Voice (Wurmbrand 2013, Chung 2004).
Marcel Pitteroff
Thus, the fact that the infinitival complement in let-passives and let-middles involves
Voice (Section 2) and qualifies as an RI lends support to the account of unmarked
passives sketched in section 3: since passive morphology in German is not located in
Voice, but in a higher projection (PassP; or AspP as in Embick 2004), and lassen ‘let’ in
let-middles and let-passives combines with an RI that projects up to Voice but no higher,
the infinitival complement lacks the projection that introduces passive morphology – thus
resulting in a passive argument constellation without morphological marking.
5.
Conclusion
In this paper, I provided evidence for a passive argument constellation in the infinitival
complement of let-passives and let-middles which is, however, morphologically
unmarked. I argued that this strongly suggests that passive morphology in German must
be dissociated from Voice. Support for this claim came from the observation that the
infinitival complement of the two constructions in question qualifies as a restructuring
infinitive – a type of infinitive which has been independently shown to project up to
Voice, but not higher. Thus, although the infinitival complement in let-passives and letmiddles contains the projection that regulates the presence/absence of the external
argument (Voice), it lacks the one that gives rise to passive morphology (Pass).
References
Ackema, Peter & Maaike Schoorlemmer. 2006. Middles. In The Blackwell Companion to
Syntax, Vol. III, eds. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 131‐203. Oxford: Blackwell.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer. 2006. The properties of
anticausatives cross-linguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, ed. M. Frascarelli, 187211. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer. 2015. External
Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: a Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson & Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive Arguments Raised. Linguistic
Inquiry 20: 219-251.
Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver. in prep. Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb phrases,
vol. 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2012. By-Phrases in Passives and Nominals. Syntax 16: 1-41.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Chung, Sandra. 2004. Restructuring and verb-initial order in Chamorro. Syntax 7.3: 199233.
Collins, Chris. 2005. A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English. Syntax 8.2: 81120.
Dotlačil Jakub, and Radek Šimík. 2013. Peeling, structural Case, and Czech retroactive
infinitives. In Proceedings of FDSL 9, eds. Uwe Junghans et al., 105-124. Frankfurt:
Lang.
Unmarked Passives
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic
Inquiry 35.3: 355-392.
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Embick, David. 2012. Contextual conditions on stem alternations: Illustrations from the
Spanish conjugation. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2010, eds. I.
Franco, S. Lusini and A. Saab, 21-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Enzinger, Stefan. 2010. Kausative und perzeptive Infinitivkonstruktionen. Studia
grammatica 70. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Fagan, Sarah. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions: A Study with
Special Reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fanselow, Gisbert. 1989. Coherent infinitives in German. Restructuring vs. IPComplementation. In Syntactic phrase structure phenomena in noun phrases and
sentences, eds. C. Bhatt, E. Löbel and C. M. Schmidt. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics
Today 6, 1-16. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2007. Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure:
On the Nature of Little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197-238.
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1993. Causative and perception verbs. Turin: Rosenberg and
Sellier.
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 2006. Analytic Causatives. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax,
Vol. I, eds. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 142-172. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haider, Haider. 1984. Was zu haben ist und was zu sein hat – Bemerkungen zum
Infinitiv. Papiere zur Linguistik 30: 23-36.
Haider, Hubert. 1986a. Nicht‐sententiale Infinitive. Groninger Arbeiten zur
Germanistischen Linguistik 28:73‐114.
Haider, Hubert. 1986b. Fehlende Argumente: vom Passiv zu kohärenten Infinitiven.
Linguistische Berichte 101: 3-33.
Haider, Hubert. 2003. V-Clustering and Clause Union-Causes and Effects. In Verb
Constructions in German and Dutch, eds. P. Seuren and G. Kempen, 91-126.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of
Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34-57.
Harley, Heidi. 2014. Aggressive Passives – Voice and Implicit Arguments in Hiaki. Talk
at SynSalon, Nov. 17 2014.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. In Studies in
Language 14: 25-72.
Hole, Daniel. 2002. Agentive selbst in German. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung
VI, eds. Graham Katz, Sabine Reinhard & Philip Reuter, 133-150.
Huber, Walter. 1980. Infinitivkomplemente im Deutschen – Transformationsgrammatische Untersuchungen zum Verb lassen. Ph.D. dissertation, Freie Universität
Berlin.
Key, Gregory. 2013. The Morphosyntax of the Turkish Causative Construction. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Arizona.
Marcel Pitteroff
Kiparski, Paul. 2013. Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua 125: 7-32.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In Phrase
Structure and the Lexicon, eds J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kunze, Jürgen. 1996. Plain middles and ‘lassen’ middles in German: Reflexive
constructions and sentence perspective. Linguistics 34: 645-695.
Lekakou, Marika. 2005. In the middle, somewhat elevated. The semantics of middles and
its cross-linguistic realization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.
Lyngfelt, Benjamin. & Torgrim Solstad. 2006. Perspectives on demotion: Introduction to
the volume. In Demoting the Agent – passive, middle and other voice phenomena, eds.
B. Lyngfelt and T. Solstad, 1-20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the
privacy of your own Lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics
Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 2, eds. A. Dimiatridis et al., 201225.
Pitteroff, Marcel & Artemis Alexiadou. 2012. The Properties of German sl-middles. In
Proceedings of WCCFL 29, eds. J. Choi et al., 214-222.
Pitteroff, Marcel. 2014. Non-canonical let-middles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Stuttgart.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti‐)Causatives. External arguments in
change‐of‐state contexts. Linguistics Today 126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Siloni, Tal. 2011. Reciprocal verbs and symmetry. NLLT 30: 261-320.
Spathas, Giorgos, Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer. To appear. Middle Voice and
reflexivization: afto-prefixation in Greek. NLLT.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1983. Parametric Variation in Phrase Stucture: A Case Study.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Tubino Blanco, Mercedes. 2011. Causatives in Minimalism. Linguistics Today 179.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vecchiato, Antonella. 2011. Events in the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Causation.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
Wilder, Chris. 1990. Passive and the German Infinitive. Frankfurter Linguistische
Forschungen 9: 1-31.
Wood, Jim. 2011. Icelandic let-causatives and case. Working Papers in Scandinavian
Syntax 87, 1-52.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004. Two types of restructuring: Lexical vs. functional. Lingua
114:8. 991‐1014.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. Complex predicate formation via voice incorporation.
manuscript, University of Connecticut. <http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001968>.
Marcel Pitteroff
[email protected]