Noncanonical Passives: A Typology of Voices in an Impoverished Universal Grammar

Literature Cited

1. Aissen J. 1989. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 17:673–711
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aissen J. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity versus economy. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 21:435–83
   [Google Scholar]
3. Akkuş F Variable embedded agent in Sason Arabic. J. Linguist.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Arka IW. 2003. Balinese Morphosyntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
5. Arka IW. 2008. Voice and the syntax of = a/-a verbs in Balinese. Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages P Austin, S Musgrave 70–89 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Arka IW, Kosmas J. 2005. Passive without passive morphology? Evidence from Manggarai. The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems IW Arka, M Ross 87–117 Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Arka IW, Manning CD. 1998. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: a new perspective. Proceedings of the International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference (LFG98) M Butt, T Holloway King Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Baker M. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Parameters Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
9. Baker M, Johnson K, Roberts I 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguist. Inq. 20:219–51
   [Google Scholar]
10. Béjar S, Rezac M. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguist. Inq. 40:35–73
    [Google Scholar]
11. Billings L, Maling J. 1995. Accusative-assigning participial -no/-to constructions in Ukrainian, Polish, and neighboring languages: an annotated bibliography. Parts 1 and 2. J. Slav. Linguist. 3:177–217396–430
    [Google Scholar]
12. Blevins JP. 2003. Passives and impersonals. J. Linguist. 39:472–520
    [Google Scholar]
13. Borsley RD, Tallerman M, Willis D 2007. The Syntax of Welsh Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
14. Bowers J. 2010. Arguments as Relations Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
15. Brittain J. 1999. The distribution of the conjunct verb form in Western Naskapi and related morpho-syntactic issues PhD Thesis, Meml. Univ. Nfld., St. John's Can:.
16. Bruening B. 2001. Syntax at the edge: cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
17. Bruening B. 2005. The Algonquian inverse is syntactic: binding in Passamaquoddy Unpubl. Ms., Univ. Del., Newark http://udel.edu/∼bruening/Downloads/SyntacticInversion2.pdf
18. Bruening B. 2009. Algonquian languages have A-movement and A-agreement. Linguist. Inq. 40:427–45
    [Google Scholar]
19. Bruening B, Tran T. 2015. The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese. Lingua 165:133–72
    [Google Scholar]
20. Büring D. 2004. Crossover situations. Nat. Lang. Semant. 12:23–62
    [Google Scholar]
21. Burzio L. 1986. Italian Syntax Dordrecht: Neth.: Reidel
22. Charnavel I. 2019. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
23. Cheng LLS. 2006. Decomposing Bantu relatives. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 36) C Davis, AR Deal, Y Zabbal 197–215 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Chomsky N. 1980. On binding. Linguist. Inq. 11:1–46
    [Google Scholar]
25. Chomsky N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik R Martin, D Michaels, J Uriagereka 89–155 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
26. Chung S. 1976. On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. Subject and Topic CN Li 57–99 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
27. Cole P, Hermon G, Yanti 2008. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118:1500–53
    [Google Scholar]
28. Collins C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8:81–120
    [Google Scholar]
29. Comrie B. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion: the impersonal passive. Grammatical Relations P Cole, JM Saddock 47–58 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
30. Conners TJ. 2008. Tengger Javanese PhD Thesis, Yale Univ New Haven, CT:
31. Dahlstrom A. 1986. Plains Cree morphosyntax PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif Berkeley:
32. Durie M. 1985. A Grammar of Acehnese on the Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
33. Eythórsson T. 2008. The new passive in Icelandic really is a passive. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers E Thórhallur 173–219 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
34. Feng SL. 1995. GB-theory and the passive construction in Chinese. Stud. Chin. Linguist. 1:1–28
    [Google Scholar]
35. Feng SL. 2012. Empty operator movement in Chinese passive syntax. Festschrift for Professor Fang Li LJ Wang 117–36 Beijing: Beijing Lang. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
36. Fitch WT, Hauser MD, Chomsky N 2005. The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications. Cognition 97:179–210
    [Google Scholar]
37. Guilfoyle E, Hung H, Travis L 1992. Spec of IP and spec of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 10:375–414
    [Google Scholar]
38. Haspelmath M. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Stud. Lang. 14:25–72
    [Google Scholar]
39. Henderson B. 2006. Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu. Syntax 9:275–87
    [Google Scholar]
40. Henderson B. 2011. Agreement, locality, and OVS in Bantu. Lingua 121:742–53
    [Google Scholar]
41. Huang CTJ. 1999. Chinese passives in comparative perspective. Tsing Hua J. Chin. Stud. 29:423–509
    [Google Scholar]
42. Jaeggli O. 1986. Passive. Linguist. Inq. 17:587–622
    [Google Scholar]
43. Jeoung H. 2017. On the number of voices in Madurese. J. Southeast Asian Linguist. Soc. 10:16–35
    [Google Scholar]
44. Jónsson JG. 2009. The new impersonal as a true passive. Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax A Alexiadou, J Hankamer, T McFadden, J Nuger, F Schäfer 281–306 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
45. Klaiman MH. 1992. Inverse languages. Lingua 88:227–61
    [Google Scholar]
46. Kroeger P. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
47. Kula NC, Marten L. 2010. Argument structure and agency in Bemba passives. Bantu Languages K Legère, C Thornell 115–30 Cologne, Ger: Rüdiger Köppe
    [Google Scholar]
48. Lavine JE. 2013. Passives and near-passives in Balto-Slavic. Non-Canonical Passives A Alexiadou, F Schäfer 185–212 Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
49. Lavine JE, Freidin R. 2002. The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. J. Slav. Linguist. 10:253–89
    [Google Scholar]
50. Lawler JM. 1977. A agrees with B in Achenese: a problem for Relational Grammar. Grammatical Relations P Cole, JM Saddock 219–48 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
51. Legate JA. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88:495–525
    [Google Scholar]
52. Legate JA. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese Cambridge, MA: Academic
53. Legate JA Case out of Universal Grammar. On the Place of Case in the Grammar E Anagnostopoulou, D Mertyris, C Sevdali Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
54. Legate JA, Akkuş F, Šereikaitė M, Ringe D Forthcoming. On passives of passives. Language
    [Google Scholar]
55. Li C. 2007. Evolution of the bei constructions in Chinese. J. Chin. Linguist. 35:98–127
    [Google Scholar]
56. Mahajan A. 1995. Active passives. Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 13) R Aranovich, W Byrne, S Preuss, M Senturiapp 286–301 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Malchukov A, Siewierska A. 2011. Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective Philadelphia: Benjamins
58. Maling J. 2006. From passive to active: syntactic change in progress in Icelandic. Demoting the Agent: Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena B Lyngfelt, T Solstad 197–223 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
59. Maling J, Sigurjónsdóttir S. 2002. The new impersonal construction in Icelandic. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 5:97–142
    [Google Scholar]
60. Marantz A. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics G Westphal, B Ao, HR Chae 234–53 Columbus: Dep. Linguist., Ohio State Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Marten L, van der Wal J 2014. A typology of Bantu subject inversion. Linguist. Var. 14:318–68
    [Google Scholar]
62. McCloskey J. 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective RD Borsley, I Roberts 241–83 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
63. McCloskey J. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. Elements of Grammar L Haegeman 197–235 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
64. McCloskey J. 2007. The grammar of autonomy in Irish. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 25:825–57
    [Google Scholar]
65. McKinnon T, Cole P, Hermon G 2011. Object agreement and ‘pro-drop’ in Kerinci Malay. Language 87:715–50
    [Google Scholar]
66. Mohanan T. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
67. Ndayiragije J. 1999. Checking economy. Linguist. Inq. 30:399–444
    [Google Scholar]
68. Nolan B. 2006. The passives of modern Irish. Passivization and Typology: Form and Function W Abraham 132–64 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
69. Noonan M. 1994. A tale of two passives in Irish. Voice: Form and Function B Fox, PJ Hopper 279–311 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
70. Ó Sé D. 2006. Agent phrases with the autonomous verb in modern Irish. Ériu 56:85–115
    [Google Scholar]
71. Oxford W. 2019. The Algonquian inverse: syntax or morphology? Paper presented at the Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Meeting Vancouver, Can: June 1–3
72. Perlmutter DM, Postal PM. 1984. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. Studies in Relational Grammar DM Perlmutter, C Rosen Vol 281–125 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
73. Pitteroff M. 2015. Non-canonical middles: a study of personal let-middles in German. J. Comp. Ger. Ling. 18:1–64
    [Google Scholar]
74. Postal P. 1986. Studies of Passive Clauses Albany: SUNY Press
75. Reinhart T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation London: Croom Helm
76. Richards N. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics I Paul, V Phillips, L Travis 105–16 Stud. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 49 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
77. Rizzi L. 1990. Relativized Minimality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
78. Ruys EG. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguist. Inq. 31:513–39
    [Google Scholar]
79. Sato Y. 2012. Successive cyclicity at the syntax–morphology interface: evidence from Standard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese. Stud. Linguist. 66:32–57
    [Google Scholar]
80. Schachter P. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above?. Subject and Topic CN Li 493–518 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
81. Schachter P. 1996. The Subject in Tagalog: Still None of the Above UCLA Occas. Pap. Linguist. 15 Los Angeles: Dep. Linguist., UCLA
82. Sigurðsson EF, Stefánsdóttir B. 2014. ‘by’-Phrases in Icelandic new impersonal passive. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 20:1311–20
    [Google Scholar]
83. Sigurðsson EF, Wood J. 2020. On the implicit argument of Icelandic indirect causatives. Linguist. Inq. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00384
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
84. Sigurðsson HA. 2011. On the new passive. Syntax 14:148–78
    [Google Scholar]
85. Sneddon JN. 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar London/New York: Routledge
86. Sobin NJ. 1985. Case assignment in Ukrainian morphological passive constructions. Linguist. Inq. 16:649–62
    [Google Scholar]
87. Šereikaitė M. 2020a. Active existential voice in Lithuanian: remarks on Burzio's Generalization. Linguist. Inq. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00392
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
88. Šereikaitė M. 2020b. Voice and case phenomena in Lithuanian morphosyntax PhD Thesis, Univ Pa., Philadelphia:
89. Tan TL, Kühlert N. 2019. The double duty of the Sakha “passive.” Abstract presented at the 5th Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic (Tu+5) Newark, DE: Febr. 8–9
90. Thorne DA. 1993. A Comprehensive Welsh Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
91. Ting J. 1998. Deriving the bei-construction in Mandarin Chinese. J. East Asian Linguist. 7:319–54
    [Google Scholar]
92. van Urk C. 2013. Visser's Generalization: the syntax of control and the passive. Linguist. Inq. 44:168–78
    [Google Scholar]
93. Voskuil J. 1996. Comparative Morphology: Verb Taxonomy in Indonesian, Tagalog, and Dutch The Hague: Holland Acad. Graph.
94. Wechsler S, Arka IW. 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: an argument structure based theory. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 16:387–442
    [Google Scholar]
95. Yang C. 2016. The Price of Linguistic Productivity Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
96. Yanti J. 2010. A reference grammar of Jambi Malay PhD Thesis, Univ Del., Newark: