Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-10T19:36:13.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Passives of Passives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Julie Anne Legate ,
Faruk Akkuş ,
Milena Šereikaitė  and
Don Ringe
Julie Anne Legate*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Faruk Akkuş*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Milena Šereikaitė
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Don Ringe*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
[jlegate@ling.upenn.edu]
[akkusf@sas.upenn.edu]
[dringe@sas.upenn.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Perlmutter and Postal (1977 and subsequent) argued that passives cannot passivize. Three prima facie counterexamples have come to light, found in Turkish, Lithuanian, and Sanskrit. We reexamine these three cases and demonstrate that rather than counterexemplifying Perlmutter and Postal's generalization, these confirm it. The Turkish construction is an impersonal of a passive, the Lithuanian is an evidential of a passive, and the Sanskrit is an unaccusative with an instrumental case-marked theme. We provide a syntactic analysis of both the Turkish impersonal and the Lithuanian evidential. Finally, we develop an analysis of the passive that captures the generalization that passives cannot passivize.

Keywords

passiveimpersonalvoiceevidentialTurkishLithuanianSanskrit

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 771 - 818
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Thank you to the Language referees and editors, whose detailed comments led to improvements throughout. Thank you to all those who discussed (subsets) of this material with us. Thank you to George Cardona for discussion of Sanskrit data (although the analysis is our own), and thank you to our consultants. We had ten primary Turkish consultants, ranging in age from mid-twenties to early forties, four from Bitlis, and one each from Adıyaman, Bursa, Denizli, Hatay, Isparta, and Mersin. We had two additional Turkish consultants, in their thirties, from Bitlis and İzmir, whose grammar is systematically different; we discuss their grammar when relevant. We had eight Lithuanian consultants, five in their late twenties, three in their late thirties to forties, six from Vilnius and Kaunas, two from Šiauliai. Glossing follows Leipzig conventions (https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php), with these additions: act: active, aor: aorist, cm: compound marker, ger: gerund, nact: nonactive.

References

Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2018. Features of person: From the inventory of persons to their morphological realization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/11145.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk. 2021. (Implicit) argument introduction, voice and causatives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation, to appear.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 491–539. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006090432389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena; and Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Schäfer, Florian; and Spathas, Giorgos. 2014. Delimiting voice in Germanic: On object-drop and naturally reflexive verbs. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 44. 1–14.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1994. On the interpretation of Lithuanian constructions with neuter passive participles. Linguistica Baltica 3. 7–11.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas, Geniušienė, Emma, Girdenis, Aleksas, Nijolė, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Dalija, Adelė, Valeckienė; and Valiulytė, Elena. 1997. Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard. 1980. The syntax of surface case. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–32.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon W. 1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3. 297–341. DOI: 10.1007/BF00401689.10.1007/BF00401689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373–415. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178442.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle; and Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 219–51. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178625.Google Scholar
Biktimir, Tuvana. 1986. Impersonal passives and the -arak construction in Turkish. Studies in Turkish linguistics, ed. by Slobin, Dan Isaac and Zimmer, Karl, 53–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorkmann, Bronwyn M., and Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2019. Checking up on (φ-) Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50. 527–69. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blain, Eleanor, and Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 2006. The evidential domain hypothesis. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of WSCLA XI) 19. 12–25.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2003. Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39. 472–520. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226703002081.10.1017/S0022226703002081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, John. 2010. Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014311.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16. 1–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, George. 1976. Subject in Sanskrit. The notion of subject in South Asian languages, vol. 2, ed. by Verma, Manindra K., 1–38. Madison: University of Wisconsin, South Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2019. Locality and logophoricity: A theory of exempt anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190902100.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995a. Dynamics of meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226104515.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995b. The variability of impersonal subjects. Quantification in natural languages, ed. by Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara H., 107–43. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_6.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Everaert, Martin, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. Bare phrase structure. Government and binding theory and the minimalist program, ed. by Webelhuth, Gurt, 383–439. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim von, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo, 506–69. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 521–81. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178596.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8. 81–120. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. Grammatical relations, ed. by Cole, Peter and Saddock, Jerrold M., 47–58. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Alessandro, Roberta. 2007. Impersonal si constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1993. Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifier approach. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini. 2015. The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: The progressive to imperfective shift. Semantics and Pragmatics 8:14. DOI: 10.3765/sp.8.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1998. Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 399–437. DOI: 10.1162/002438998553806.10.1162/002438998553806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71. 75–102.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 1998. Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect) 32. 41–72.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 2006. Semantic and syntactic patterns in Swedish passives. Demoting the agent: Passive, middle and other voice phenomena, ed. by Lyngfelt, Benjamin and Solstad, Torgrim, 21–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.96.10.1075/la.96.04engCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenger, Paula. 2018. How impersonal does one get? A study of man-pronouns in Germanic. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21. 291–325. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-018-9101-0.10.1007/s10828-018-9101-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma Š. 2006. Passives in Lithuanian (in comparison with Russian). Passivization and typology: Form and function, ed. by Abraham, Werner and Leisiö, Larisa, 29–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.68.05genCrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Leland, and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1977. Infinitival double passives in Turkish. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 7. 65–79.Google Scholar
Gronemeyer, Claire. 1997. Evidentiality in Lithuanian. Lund University Working Papers in Linguistics 46. 93–112. Online: https://journals.lub.lu.se/LWPL/article/view/2450.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/11073.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14. 25–72. DOI: 10.1075/sl.14.1.03has.10.1075/sl.14.1.03hasCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich. 2010. On the impersonal pronoun men in Modern West Frisian. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13. 31–59. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-010-9036-6.10.1007/s10828-010-9036-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 533–64. DOI: 10.1162/002438905774464322.10.1162/002438905774464322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2010. The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish: A case of incorporation in T. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, ed. by Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian, and Sheehan, Michelle, 200–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511770784.006.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2001. On the paradigm of the oblique mood in Lithuanian and Latvian. Linguistica Baltica 9. 69–86.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 531–74. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178404.Google Scholar
İnce, Atakan. 2006. Pseudo-sluicing in Turkish. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 111–26.Google Scholar
Ingason, Anton Karl, Nowenstein, Iris Edda; and Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2016. The voice-adjunction theory of agentive ‘by‘-phrases and the Icelandic impersonal passive. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 97. 40–56.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 587–622. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178510.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Safir, Kenneth J.. 1989. The null subject parameter and parametric theory. The null subject parameter, ed. by Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Safir, Kenneth J., 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 39–76. DOI: 10.1007/BF00233713.10.1007/BF00233713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1980. Passive is phrasal (not sentential or lexical). Lexical grammar, ed. by Hoekstra, Teun, van, Harry Hulst, der, and Moortgat, Michael, 181–214. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Predicate formation rules in universal grammar. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 4. 123–38.Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna. 2001. The Polish passive and impersonal in lexical mapping theory. Proceedings of the LFG '01 Conference, 163–83. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/6/pdfs/lfg01kibort.pdf.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2013. Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua 125. 7–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.003.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knecht, Laura Ellen. 1985. Subject and object in Turkish. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2001. Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. Long-distance reflexives, ed. by Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and James Huang, C.-T., 197–226. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Scrambling, subscrambling and case in Turkish. Word order and scrambling, ed. by Karimi, Simin, 125–155. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758403.ch6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 187–237. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187.10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26. 877–924. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-008-9054-0.10.1007/s11049-008-9054-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 357–88. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00001.10.1162/LING_a_00001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262028851.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2006. Is there a passive evidential strategy in Lithuanian? Chicago Linguistic Society 42. 41–55.Google Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2010. Mood and a transitivity restriction in Lithuanian: The case of the inferential evidential. Baltic Linguistics 1. 115–42. Online: http://www.balticlinguistics.uw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/full_texts/BL1_Lavine.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88. 495–525. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0069.10.1353/lan.2012.0069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward L., 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511897696.003.10.1017/CBO9780511897696.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2017. An implicit projected argument in Spanish impersonal-and passive-se constructions. Syntax 20. 353–83. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12146.10.1111/synt.12146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malamud, Sophia A. 2013. (In)definiteness-driven typology of arbitrary items. Lingua 126. 1–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.003.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, and Siewierska, Anna. 2011. Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan. 2010. Unpassives of unaccusatives. Hypothesis A/hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, ed. by Gerdts, Donna B., Moore, John C., and Polinsky, Maria, 275–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium) 4(2). 201–25. Online: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol4/iss2/14.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 153–97. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006465130442.10.1023/A:1006465130442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. by Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 241–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511586279.009.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2007. The grammar of autonomy in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 825–57. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-007-9028-7.10.1007/s11049-007-9028-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James, and Hale, Kenneth. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 487–533. DOI: 10.1007/BF00417057.10.1007/BF00417057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1. 105–46. DOI: 10.1075/livy.1.06mcg.10.1075/livy.1.06mcgCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1995. Summing up suffixaufnahme. Double case: Agreement by suffixaufnahme, ed. by Plank, Frans, 451–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 35–82. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35.10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2014. On the short life cycle of external arguments in passive derivations. Leipzig: University of Leipzig, ms.Google Scholar
Murphy, Andrew. 2014. Stacked passives in Turkish. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (Topics at InfL) 92. 263–304. Online: https://www.philol.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/Fakult%C3%A4t_Philo/Linguistik/Forschung/LAB/LAB_92/LAB92_09_murphy.pdf.Google Scholar
Nakipoglu-Demiralp, Mine. 2001. The referential properties of the implicit arguments of impersonal passive constructions. The verb in Turkish, ed. by Erguvanlı, Eser, Taylan, , 129–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Szendröi, Krista. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 671–714. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671.10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John A. 1982. Some passives not characterized by universal rules: Subjectless impersonal. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics (Grammatical relations and relational grammar) 26. 59–92. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1811/81456.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1994. Another look at Lithuanian impersonal passives. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24. 347–60.Google Scholar
Ostler, Ostler Nicholas David. 1979. Case-linking: A theory of case and verb diathesis applied to Classical Sanskrit. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/ostler79.pdf.Google Scholar
Özkaragöz, İnci. 1980. Evidence from Turkish for the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 6. 411–22.Google Scholar
Özkaragöz, İnci. 1986. Monoclausal double passives in Turkish. Studies in Turkish linguistics, ed. by Slobin, Dan Isaac and Zimmer, Karl, 77–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.8.05ozkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özsoy, Ayşe Sumru. 2009. Argument structure, animacy, syntax and semantics of passivization in Turkish: A corpus-based approach. Corpus analysis and variation in linguistics, ed. by Kawaguchi, Yuji, Minegishi, Makoto, and Durand, Jacques, 259–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkiz. 2005. Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1982. Syntactic representation, syntactic levels, and the notion of subject. The nature of syntactic representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 283–340. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-7707-5_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal, Paul M.. 1977. Toward a universal characterization of passivization. Berkeley Linguistics Society 3. 394–417. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v3i0.2266.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal, Paul M.. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. Studies in relational grammar, vol. 2, ed. by Perlmutter, David M. and Rosen, Carol, 81–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the inter-pretability of features. Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, ed. by Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy K., 262–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel, and Schäfer, Florian. 2019. Implicit control crosslinguistically. Language 95. 136–84. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0016.10.1353/lan.2019.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2017. Antipassive. The Oxford handbook of ergativity, ed. by Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane, and Travis, Lisa deMena, 308–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.13.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2013. That's not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30. 491–500. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2013-0015.10.1515/tlr-2013-0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2011. Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives. Lingua 121. 80–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.009.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezac, Milan, and Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2016. The ways of referential deficiency: Impersonal on and its kin. Bayonne: CNRS-IKER, ms. Online: https://www.iker.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/rezac_jouitteau.impersonal.pdf.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2012. Lardil ‘case stacking’ and the timing of case assignment. Syntax 16. 1–35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00169.x.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110883718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501–57. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178501.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 267–310. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178538.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2017. Romance and Greek medio-passives and the typology of Voice. The verbal domain, ed. by D'Alessandro, Roberta, Franco, Irene, and Gallego, Ángel J., 129–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198767886.003.0006.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 445–79. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178550.Google Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2020a. Voice and case phenomena in Lithuanian morphosyntax. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2020b. Active existential in Lithuanian: Remarks on Burzio's generalization. Linguistic Inquiry, Just accepted. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00392.10.1162/ling_a_00392.10.1162/ling_a_00392.10.1162/ling_a_00392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2017. Deriving case, agreement and voice phenomena in syntax. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2585/.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1994. Null arguments in a theory of economy of projection. Functional projections (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 17), ed. by Benedicto, Elena and Runner, Jeffrey, 179–208. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 2004. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114. 255–76. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00030-5.10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00030-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 2006. Economy, agreement and the representation of null arguments. Arguments and agreement, ed. by Ackema, Peter, Brandt, Patrick, Schoorlem-mer, Maaike, and Weerman, Fred, 35–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199285730.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spraunienė, Birutė, Auksė, Razanovaitė; and Jasionytė, Erika. 2015. Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive. Voice and argument structure in Baltic, ed. by Holvoet, Axel and Nau, Nicole, 323–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 2002. Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und Expressivität. Berlin: Akademie.10.1515/9783050080178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, Tamisha L., and Kühlert, Niels. 2019. The double duty of the Sakha ‘passive’. Abstract for the 5th Workshop on Turkic and languages in contact with Turkic (Tu+5). Online: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.udel.edu/dist/1/9450/files/2019/12/Tu5-Deanonymised.pdf.10.3765/ptu.v5i1.4768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höskuldur, Thráinsson. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1982. The impersonal passive in Lithuanian. Berkeley Linguistics Society 8. 508–24. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v8i0.2067.Google Scholar
Tonyalı, Nil. 2015. Non-structural datives in Turkish. Istanbul: Bogaziçi University master's thesis.Google Scholar
Vaikšnoraitė, Elena. 2015. Case and non-verbal predication: The syntax of Lithuanian control clauses. Leiden: Leiden University master's thesis.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe. 2013. Visser's generalization: The syntax of control and the passive. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 168–78. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00124.10.1162/LING_a_00124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1950. Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2006. Grammatical evidentiality in Lithuanian (a typological assessment). Baltistica 36. 33–49.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1987. Implicit arguments, the binding theory, and control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 151–80. DOI: 10.1007/BF00166581.10.1007/BF00166581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2014. Reflexive -st verbs in Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 1387–1425. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9243-y.10.1007/s11049-014-9243-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 27–68. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178964.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. The Merge condition: A syntactic approach to selection. Minimalism and beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, ed. by Kosta, Peter, Franks, Steven L., Radev-Bork, Teodora, and Schürcks, Lilia, 139–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi, and Shimamura, Koji. 2017. The features of the voice domain: Actives, passives, and restructuring. The verbal domain, ed. by d'Alessandro, Roberta, Franco, Irene, and Gallego, Ángel J., 179–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198767886.003.0008.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2016. The price of linguistic productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan; and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 441.ndash; 83. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133285.10.1007/BF00133285CrossRefGoogle Scholar