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