Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- 10 Words and Features
- 11 Pronouns
- 12 Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
- 13 Functional Architecture of Adjectival Phrases
- 14 Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases
- 15 Analyzing Tenselessness
- 16 Voice
- 17 Coordination
- 18 Clause Types
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
16 - Voice
from Part II - Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- 10 Words and Features
- 11 Pronouns
- 12 Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
- 13 Functional Architecture of Adjectival Phrases
- 14 Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases
- 15 Analyzing Tenselessness
- 16 Voice
- 17 Coordination
- 18 Clause Types
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses phenomena associated with the Voice head responsible for introducing external arguments in a sentence. We suggest that Voice is not a special type of functional head, but rather has a set of properties that are shared by other functional heads: e.g., whether the head is present or absent, whether it requires a specifier, assigns case, or introduces a thematic interpretation. The defining feature of Voice is that it is the highest argument-introducing head, sitting at the boundary between the verb phrase and the inflectional domain. We also highlight some of the challenges in cross-linguistic comparison of Voice phenomena, including the fact that the Voice head may be realized in various forms, including affixes, light verbs, reflexive pronouns, and sets of phi-features. We argue that a precise understanding of Voice can lead to a more fine-grained set of questions that can be applied to other phenomena in syntax, and that uncovering more details about the properties of what is and isn’t attributable to Voice can help us identify the fundamental building blocks that languages use to express the presence, absence, and interpretation of arguments in general.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 500 - 536Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Ackema, P., and Schoorlemmer, M.. 1995. Middles and nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 173–197.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122(3): 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., and Doron, E.. 2012. The syntactic construction of two non-active voices: Passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 48: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., and Schäfer, F.. 2013. Non-Canonical Passives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., and Sevdali, C.. 2014. Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., and Schäfer, F.. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E., and Sevdali, C.. 2015. Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case. Language 91(2): 442–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arad, M. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, G., and MacDonald, J. E.. 2021a. A guide to understanding SE constructions: Where they come from and how they are connected. In Armstrong, and MacDonald, (eds.), 1–30.Google Scholar
Armstrong, G., and MacDonald, J. E. (eds.). 2021b. Unraveling the Complexity of SE. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2012. On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: Evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Bobaljik, J. D.. 2017. On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In Coon, J., Massam, D., and Travis, L. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 111–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I.. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 219–251.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 2012. Deletion versus pro-forms: An overly simple dichotomy? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(2): 381–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basilico, D. 2017. Russian -sja as a verbalizer. In Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 62–69. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Biggs, A., and Embick, D.. 2022. On the event-structural properties of the English get-passive. Linguistic Inquiry 53(2): 211–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M., and Cowper, E.. 2013. Inflectional shells and the syntax of causative have. In Luo, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J., and Branigan, P.. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple case checking. In Johns, A., Massam, D., and Ndayiragije, J. (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging Issues, 47–77. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense, vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Broadwell, G. A. 2006. A Choctaw Reference Grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, B., and Tran, T.. 2015. The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese. Lingua 165: 133–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, V. 2017. A Reexamination of the Philippine-Type Voice System and Its Implications for Austronesian Primary-Level Subgrouping. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2): 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, J. 2019. Building verbs in Chuj: Consequences for the nature of roots. Journal of Linguistics 55(1): 35–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H., and Matthewson, L.. 2009. Issues in Salish syntax and semantics. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(4): 1097–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 1997. Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological identity. Studia Linguistica 57(3): 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 355–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2010. Localism Versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ershova, K. A. 2019. Syntactic Ergativity in West Circassian. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.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, 173–219. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, R., and Harley, H.. 2004. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Slabakova, R. and Kempchinsky, P. (eds.), Aspectual Inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Folli, R., and Harley, H.. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, R., and Harley, H.. 2013. The syntax of argument structure: Evidence from Italian complex predicates. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 93–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, L. 2019. A syntactic interpretation of the applicative-causative syncretism. Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali / Working Papers in Linguistics and Oriental Studies 5: 107–134.Google Scholar
Grestenberger, L. 2016. More span-conditioned allomorphy: Voice morphology in Classical Greek. In Hammerly, C. and Pricket, B. (eds.), North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 46, vol. 3, 1–10. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Grestenberger, L. 2018. Deponency in finite and nonfinite contexts. Language 94(3): 487–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddican, B. 2007. The structural deficiency of verbal pro-forms. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 539–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. 2001. How to stay accusative in insular Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68: 1–14.Google Scholar
Hale, K., and Keyser, S. J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K., and Keyser, S. J.. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. 2019. Aspects of the morphophonology of the verb in Latin and in German and English. Linguistic Inquiry 50(1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harðarson, G. R. 2018. Forming a compound and spelling it out. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 24(1): 11.Google Scholar
Hardy, D. E. 1994. Middle voice in Creek. International Journal of American Linguistics 60(1): 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, B. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface: A-movement and morphological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32: 1033–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2008. On the causative construction. In Miyagawa, S. and Saito, M. (eds.), Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Giannakidou, A. and Rathert, M. (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, 321–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2017. The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I., and Gallego, Á. J. (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H., and Noyer, R.. 2000. Formal versus encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalisations. In Peeters, B. (ed.), The Lexicon-Encyclopedia Interface, 349–374. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14(1): 25–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M. (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2016. Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale. Lingua Posnaniensis 58(2): 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1999. Chinese passives in comparative perspective. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 29(4): 423–509.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y.-H. A.,, and Li, Y.. 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, P. 2012. Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Jerro, K. 2017. The causative–instrumental syncretism. Journal of Linguistics 53(4): 751–788.CrossRefGoogle 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, 281–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2006. A unified analysis of passives, anticausatives and reflexives. In Bonami, O. and Hofherr, P. C. (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, vol. 6, 201–225. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 770–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, I. 2016. Form and Meaning in the Hebrew Verb. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Kastner, I. 2017. Reflexive verbs in Hebrew: Deep unaccusativity meets lexical semantics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 75. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.299.Google Scholar
Kastner, I. 2019a. Templatic morphology as an emergent property: Roots and functional heads in Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 571–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, I. 2019b. The Valence of Voice: Hebrew Morphosyntax at the Interfaces. Ms., Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2010. A note on auxiliary alternations and silent causation. In Kayne, R. S. (ed.), Comparisons and Contrasts, 146–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Key, G. 2013. The Morphosyntax of the Turkish Causative Construction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Keyser, S., and Roeper, T.. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 381–416.Google Scholar
Kim, L. 2014. The Syntax of Lexical Decomposition of Predicates: Ways of Encoding Events and Multidimensional Meanings. PhD thesis, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 2012. Samoan ergativity as double passivization. In Brugé, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., and Poletto, C. (eds.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 7, 168–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32: 593–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1994. On external arguments. In Functional Projections: UMass Working Papers in Linguistics, 103–130. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, L. I. 2011. Voice typology. In Song, J. J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 368–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1993. Lexical and productive causatives in Japanese: An examination of the theory of paradigmatic structure. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 15(1): 1–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. 2008. The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(4): 833–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3): 357–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–391.Google Scholar
Lavine, J. E., and Babby, L. H. 2019. A new argument for the lexical underspecification of causers. Linguistic Inquiry 50(4): 803–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A. 2012a. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88(3): 495–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A. 2021. Noncanonical passives: A typology of voices in an impoverished Universal Grammar. Annual Review of Linguistics 7(1): 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A., Akkuş, F., Šereikaitė, M., and Ringe, D.. 2020. On passives of passives. Language 96(4): 771–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lekakou, M. 2005. In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated: The Semantics of Middles and Its Crosslinguistic Realization. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Lundin, K. 2003. Small Clauses in Swedish: Towards a Unified Account. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Maling, J., and Sigurjónsdóttir, S.. 1997. The “new passive” in Icelandic. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 21(2): 378–389.Google Scholar
Maling, J., and Sigurjónsdóttir, S.. 2002. The “new impersonal” construction in Icelandic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 97–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, 113–151. Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Matushansky, O. and Marantz, A. (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, F. 2019. Non-culminating accomplishments. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(8): e12346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, F. 2020. Aspectual differences between agentive and non-agentive uses of causative predicates. In Bar-Asher Siegal, E. and Boneh, N. (eds.), Perspectives on Causation, 257–294. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, F., and Demirdache, H.. 2020. Partitive accomplishments across languages. Linguistics 58(5): 1195–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. 2009. The structure of (un) ergatives. In Chung, S., Finer, D. L., Paul, I., and Potsdam, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, 125–135. London, Ontario: Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Laboratory, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax–Morphology Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. 2022. Reflexive clitics are verbal, not pronominal. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 67(3): 328–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medova, L. 2009. Reflexive Clitics in the Slavic and Romance Languages: A Comparative View from an Antipassive Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2): 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2012. Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskal, B. 2015. Domains on the Border: Between Morphology and Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Myler, N. 2013. On coming the pub in the North West of England: Accusative unaccusatives, dependent case and preposition incorporation. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2–3): 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myler, N. 2014. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Myler, N. 2016. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myler, N., and Mali, Z.. O. 2021. Two places for causees in productive Isixhosa morphological causatives. Syntax 24(1): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. 2013. Approaches to deponency. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(6): 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, L. 2020. Causees are not Agents. In Bar-Asher Siegal, E. A. and Boneh, N. (eds.), Perspectives on Causation: Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 2017 Workshop, 349–394. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Y. 2022. Turkish causatives are recursive: A response to Key 2013. Linguistic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oikonomou, D., and Alexiadou, A.. 2022. Voice syncretism crosslinguistically: The view from Minimalism. Philosophies 7(1): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, W. 2019. Inverse marking and Multiple Agree in Algonquin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(3): 955–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, W. 2024. Probe specification and agreement variation: Evidence from the Algonquian inverse. Linguistic Inquiry 55(3): 489–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M., and Postal, P. M.. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In Perlmutter, D. M. and Rosen, C. (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar, vol. 2, 81–128. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, M. 2015. Non-canonical middles: A study of personal let-middles in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18(1): 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. 2006. Case as Agree marker. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77: 71–99.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2017. Antipassives. In Coon, J., Massam, D., and Travis, L. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 308–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C., and Sag, I.. 1987. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 2010. Edge-Based Model-Theoretic Syntax: A Study of (Mostly) English Object Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranero, R. 2021. Identity Conditions on Ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2019. Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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. 2017. Romance and Greek medio-passives and the typology of voice. In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I., and Gallego, Á. J. (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 129–151. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, E. F. 2017. Deriving Case, Agreement and Voice Phenomena in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, E. F., and Wood, J.. 2012. Case alternations in Icelandic “get”-passives. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(3): 269–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, E. F., and Wood, J.. 2021. On the implicit argument of Icelandic indirect causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 52(3): 579–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, A., and Ho, H. T.. 2008. The comparative syntax of passive structures in Chinese and Vietnamese. In Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, vol. 2, 825–841. East Asian Studies Center, Ohio State University Columbus.Google Scholar
Simpson, A., and Ho, H. T.. 2013. Vietnamese and the typology of passive constructions. In Simpson, A. and Ho, H. T., Linguistics of Vietnamese, 155–184. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spathas, G., Alexiadou, A., and Schäfer, F.. 2015. Middle voice and reflexive interpretations: afto-prefixation in Greek. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(4): 1293–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreng, B. 2001. Little v in Inuktitut: Antipassive revisited. Linguistica Atlantica 23: 155–190.Google Scholar
Spreng, B. 2010. On the conditions for antipassives. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(7): 556–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreng, B. 2012. Viewpoint Aspect in Inuktitut: The Syntax and Semantics of Antipassive. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Sybesma, R. 2021. Voice and little v and VO–OV word-order variation in Chinese languages. Syntax 24(1): 44–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šereikaitė, M. 2021. Active existential in Lithuanian: Remarks on Burzio’s Generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 52(4): 747–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 2010. Unintentionally out of control. In Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., and Madariaga, N. (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations, 283–302. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoms, G. 2010. “Verb floating” and VP-ellipsis: Towards a movement account of ellipsis licensing. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 10: 255–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollan, R. 2018. Unergatives are different: Two types of transitivity in Samoan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 35. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.223.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. 2010. Variability in the case patterns of causative formation in Romance and its implications. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3): 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, M. 2019. Absolutive promotion and the condition on clitic hosts in Choctaw. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 1145–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, M. 2020. Argument Structure and Argument-Marking in Choctaw. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Tyler, M. 2021. Two kinds of external possession in Mississippi Choctaw. Syntax 24(1): 78–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volpe, M. J. 2005. Japanese Morphology and Its Theoretical Consequences: Derivational Morphology in Distributed Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Wallace, K. 2013. A Concatenative Approach to Semitic Templatic Morphology. Ms., New York University. Available on lingbuzz/002299.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2011. Icelandic let-causatives and case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87: 1–52.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2014. Reflexive -st verbs in Icelandic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4): 1387–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2016. How roots do and don’t constrain the interpretation of Voice. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 96: 1–25.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2023. Icelandic Nominalizations and Allosemy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J., and Marantz, A.. 2017. The interpretation of external arguments. In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I., and Gallego, Á. J. (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 255–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, J., and Sigurðsson, E. F.. 2014. “Get”-passives and case alternations: The view from Icelandic. In Santana-LaBarge, R. E. (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 493–503. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15(1): 181–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, A. D., and Gluckman, J.. 2020. Voice reversals and syntactic structure: Evidence from Hittite. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 120. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1164.Google Scholar
Yuan, M. 2018. Dimensions of Ergativity in Inuit: Theory and Microvariation. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Yuan, M. 2021. Diagnosing object agreement vs. clitic doubling: An Inuit case study. Linguistic Inquiry 52(1): 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., and Thráinsson, H.. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(4): 441–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zombolou, K. 2004. Verbal Alternations in Greek: A Semantic Approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Zombolou, K., and Alexiadou, A.. 2013. The canonical function of deponent verbs in Modern Greek. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Luschützky, H. C., and Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 331–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, F., and Kittilä, S.. 2019. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
- 1
- Cited by