Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:26:57.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 20 - The Voice Domain in Germanic

from Part III - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Artemis Alexiadou  and
Florian Schäfer
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we will discuss the core Voice alternations in Germanic languages. Different Voice alternations have in common that the argument structure of the underlying verb, in particular the semantic and syntactic properties of the verb’s external argument, are manipulated and this often goes along with changes in the morpho-syntax of the verb or the verbal phrase. In Section 1, we discuss inner-Germanic variation in the formation of analytic eventive and adjectival passives. In Section 2, we discuss the Mainland Scandinavian s-passives and in Section 3 we discuss noncanonical get-passives and related constructions. In Section 4, we turn to the morpho-syntactic variation in anticausative formation. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss how dispositional statements known as generic middles are realized across the Germanic languages.

Keywords

passive ‘eventive’passive ‘adjectival’get-passives-passiveparticipleimplicit argumentDP-movementexpletiveanticausativemiddle
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 461 - 492
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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.)

References

Abraham, W. 1986. “Unaccusatives in German,” GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 28: 1–72.Google Scholar
Ackema, P. and Schoorlemmer, M. 2006. “Middles.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III. Oxford: Blackwell: 131–203.Google Scholar
Ackema, P. and Sorace, A. 2017. “Auxiliary Selection.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom072.Google Scholar
Å̊farli, T. A. 1992. The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Å̊farli, T. A. 2009. “Passive participle agreement in Norwegian dialects,” Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49: 167–181.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2012. “Non-canonical passives revisited: Parameters of non-active voice,” Linguistics 50: 1079–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., and Sevdali, C. 2014a. “Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 1–34.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Gehrke, B., and Schäfer, F. 2014b. “The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited,” Lingua 149: 118–138.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., and Schäfer, F. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., and Schäfer, F. 2018. “Passive.” In Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H., Patel-Grosz, P., and Yang, C. (eds.), ‘Syntactic Structures’ 60 Years On. The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Schafer, F. 2013 “Non-canonical passives.” In Alexiadou, A. and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Non-canonical Passives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I. 1989. “Passive arguments raised,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–252.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den 1985. “The Ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and German.” In Toman, J. (ed.), Studies in German Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris: 23–64.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., and Vos, R. 2015. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2013. “By-Phrases in Passives and Nominals,” Syntax 16: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. 2014. “Word Formation is Syntactic: Adjectival Passives in English,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–52.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2005. “A smuggling approach to the passive in English,” Syntax 8: 81–120.Google Scholar
Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. 2001. Semi-Lexical Categories: The Content of Function Words and the Function of Content Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 2006. “Semantic and syntactic patterns in Swedish passives.” In Lyngfelt, B. and Solstad, T. (eds.), Demoting the Agent – Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, M. 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, T. 2008. “The New Passive in Icelandic really is a passive. In Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 173–219.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, T. and Thráinsson, H. 2017. “Variation in oblique subject constructions in Insular Scandinavian.” In Thráinsson, H., Heycock, C., Petersen, H., and Hansen, Z. (eds.), Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 54–90.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. and Putnam, M. T. 2014. “The emergence of middle voice readings with and without agents,” The Linguistic Review 31: 193–240.Google Scholar
Fagan, S. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions: A Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. 1986. On the Middle Construction in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fox, D. and Grodzinsky, Y. 1998. “Children’s passive: A view from the by phrase,” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 311–332.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Z. 1982. “Indefinite agent, passive and impersonal passive. A functional study,” Lingua 58: 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddican, W. and Holmberg, A. 2012. “Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 189–212.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2002. Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-Positions: Cross-Linguistic Variation in the Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1985. “The get passive and Burzio’s Generalization,” Lingua 66: 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2016. The canonical goal passive in Dutch and its dialects. Ms., lingbuzz/003105.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax ‐ Generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2001. “How to stay accusative in insular Germanic,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68: 1–14.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2001. “Expletives and Agreement in Scandinavian Passives,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 85–128.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. 1986. “Passive,” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 2009. “The new impersonal as a true passive.” In Alexiadou, A., Hankamer, J., McFadden, T., Nuger, J., and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, M. 2006. “On argument displacement in English and Scandinavian,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77: 1–69.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2007. “On the relation between morphology and syntax.” In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford University Press: 209–238.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2007. “Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 770–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingvall, E. 2007. (De)composing the middle: A Minimalist Approach to Middles in English and Swedish. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. “Severing the external argument from its verb.” In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 109–137.Google Scholar
Laanemets, A. 2009. “The passive voice in written and spoken Scandinavian.” In Fryd, M. (ed.), The Passive in Germanic Languages. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49: 144–166.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lekakou, M. 2005. In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated: The Semantics of Middles and Its Cross-linguistic Realization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H. 1996. “The theory of complex predicates and the Norwegian få ‘get’,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 76–91.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B. 2016. “The role of tense-copying and syncretism in the licensing of morphological passives in the Nordic Languages,” Studia Linguistica 70: 180–220.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B., Corley, M., Tungseth, M., Sorace, A., and Ramchand, G. 2016. “Anticausatives are semantically reflexive in Norwegian but not in English,” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. and Solstad, T. 2006. “Perspectives on demotion: Introduction to the volume.” In Lyngfelt, B. and Solstad, T. (eds.), Demoting the Agent – Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–20.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 2001. “Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles,” Lingua 111: 419–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, J. and Sigurjónsdóttir, S. 2002. “The ‘New Impersonal’ construction in Icelandic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 97–142.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2012. “The become = cause hypothesis and the polysemy of get,” Linguistics 50: 1251–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2013. “Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English.” In Alexiadou, A. and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Non-canonical Passives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 21–42.Google Scholar
Nath, H. 2009. “The passive in Soviet Yiddish.” In Fryd, M. (ed.), The Passive in Germanic Languages. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49: 182–199.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, M. 2014. Non-canonical lassen-middles. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, M. 2015. “Non-canonical middles: A study of personal let-middles in German,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18: 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. 2005. “Cross-Germanic Promotion to Subject in Ditransitive Passives – a Feature-Driven Account.” In Vulchanova, M. and Å̊farli, T. A. (eds.), Grammar and Beyond. Essays in honour of Lars Hellan. Oslo: Novus Forlag: 135–161.Google Scholar
Primus, B. 2011. “Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives,” Lingua 121: 80–99.Google Scholar
Reed, L. 2011. “Get-passives,” The Linguistic Review 28: 41–78.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. and Reuland, E. 1993. “Reflexivity,” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti‐)Causatives: External Arguments in Change‐of‐State Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2009. “The Causative Alternation,” Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 641–681.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2012. “The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 213–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, F. and Vivanco, M. 2016. “Anticausatives are weak scalar expressions, not reflexive expressions,” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1.18: 1–36.Google Scholar
Schlücker, B. 2009. “Passive in German and Dutch: The sein / zijn + past participle construction.” In Fryd, M. (ed.), The Passive in Germanic Languages. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49: 96–124.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2004. “Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic.” In Abraham, W. (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 61–103.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2006. “The nom/acc alternation in Germanic.” In Hartmann, J. and Molnárfi, L. (eds.), Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 13–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2011. “On the new passive,” Syntax 14: 148–178.Google Scholar
Steinbach, M. 2002. Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002. “Icelandic case and the structure of events,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2006. Case alternations and the Icelandic passive and middle. Ms., University of Tromsø, available at ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000124.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 2010. “Unintentionality out of control.” In Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., and Madariaga, N. (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2017. “On quantity and quality in syntactic variation studies.” In Thráinsson, H., Heycock, C., Petersen, H. P., and Hansen, Z. S. (eds.), Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 20–52.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H., Jacobsen, J., and Hansen, Z. 2004. Faroese: A Handbook and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Faroe University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wood, J. and Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2014. “Get-passives and Case alternations: The view from Icelandic,” Proceedings of WCFFL 31: 494–503.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2006. “Licensing Case,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18: 175–234.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A. and Maling, J. 1990. “Unaccusative, passive and quirky case.” In Maling, J. and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Modern Icelandic Syntax. San Diego: Academic Press: 137–153.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., and Thráinsson, H. 1985. “Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×