Edge-Based Clausal Syntax: A Study of (Mostly) English Object Structure

5. Passivization Targets: I

5 Passivization Targets: I 5.1 The Adequacy of Simple 2 Object Restrictions This chapter focuses on the issue of what active clause DPs can ‘‘feed’’ the existence of passive clauses, more precisely, what active clause DPs can correspond to the final 1s of grammatical periphrastic passive (and middle) clauses. It might seem that via condition (4.62), the question for middles has already been answered. But there is more to say, specifically involving the relations of middles to pseudopassives and to the second objects of ditransitives. Given the characterization of passive clauses and the definitions in (4.8), the question of the phrases that ‘‘feed’’ passivization to a significant degree reduces to the question of what constituents can head periphrastic or synthetic passive prepassive arcs.1 Descriptive and theoretical accounts of English passives, where I largely focus on the periphrastic variety, invariably begin with the subclass linked to single object clauses. As documented in chapter 2, these are the clauses of Array 0, Arrays 1 and 2 having been shown to be incompatible with both periphrastic and nonperiphrastic passivization of their single objects. Under the basic assumptions of this study, Array 0 passivized objects are 2 objects. One might generalize that state of a¤airs to the informal condition in (5.1a) or even to (5.1b). (5.1) a. The only English objects that passivize are 2 objects; that is, all English (periphrastic) prepassive arcs are 2 arcs. b. The only objects that passivize in any NL are 2 objects; that is, all (periphrastic) prepassive arcs in every NL are 2 arcs. Moreover, not only might one propose (5.1a,b), these assumptions are in e¤ect traditional ideas; for instance, only (5.1a) could possibly justify Curme’s (1931, 99) direct conceptual leap from the existence of English pseudopassives (i.e., prepositional passives; see below) like That territory has long been fought over to his otherwise unargued conclusion that ‘‘so that the object is no longer a prepositional object but a direct object of the compound verb,’’ an idea taken over, as touched on below, in most Barrel A treatments of pseudopassives. Condition (5.1b), hence (5.1a) as well, was also accepted in early RG work like Perlmutter and Postal 1977, 1983 and Postal 1982 and is explicit in the derivative LexicalFunctional Grammar of Bresnan 1982b (see esp. p. 20). The idea also was built into the view of passives in most of Postal 1986, but then abandoned in the final section chiefly on the basis of data from Quechua. Postal 1985, written contemporaneously with Postal 1986, also rejected the restriction to 2 object targets, on the basis of facts from the French se faire passive construction. Acceptance of (5.1) represented a continuation of RG assumptions like this: (5.2) Perlmutter and Postal 1983, 17 ‘‘Our claim is that the RN of every passive clause in any human language has a nominal bearing the 2-relation and the 1-relation in successive strata.’’ (emphasis added) Promulgation of this idea appears to me in retrospect as an overly conservative refusal to abandon an a priori concept. Not only did evidence of the excessively restrictive character of (5.2) emerge after the publication of Perlmutter and Postal 1977, 1983, reasons for rejecting it were actually available before these papers were written. In a paper for Perlmutter and Postal’s 1974 Linguistic Institute class (which represented the earliest public airing of RG ideas), Huber (1974) observed that German arguably has passives of 3 objects, as also noted in such traditional grammars as Curme 1922 [1952, 297]. Thus, Huber discussed what he called ‘‘a peculiar passive construction’’ that, in contrast to the standard periphrastic passive of 2 objects that uses the auxiliary werden, uses one of several other main verbs including bekommen, erhalten, or kriegen. Huber’s examples indicate that in this construction, the passivized phrase is a 3 object.2 (5.3) a. Bekamen Sie das Geld drahtlich angewiesen? became you the money by-wire transferred ‘Was the money wired to you?’ b. Jedermann erhielt 15 Patronen zugezählt. everyone got 15 cartridges dealt-out ‘Everyone was dealt out 15 cartridges.’ 198 Chapter 5 c. Ich kriege meine Mühe redlich bezahlt. I get my trouble honestly paid ‘I am well paid for my trouble.’ More recently, this construction type is mentioned by Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998, 224–226), Müller (1995...