Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T09:23:33.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The analysis of passives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Robert Freidin
Robert Freidin*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In current transformational theory, the active–passive relation is not accounted for by the Passive transformation. Furthermore, transformational accounts of passive sentences run into serious problems with respect to the derivation of truncated passives. It is demonstrated here that the active–passive relation can be captured in the lexicon without a Passive transformation, and that such a solution does not involve the problems created by a transformational account. An interpretive rule for handling the synonymy of actives and passives—necessary whether or not passives are transformationally derived—is proposed. Lastly, it is shown how passives may be directly generated by the phrase-structure rules; this analysis is not susceptible to the criticisms given by Chomsky 1957 for a phrase-structure account of passives.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 384 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by 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

References

Bartsch, Renate, and Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Relative adjectives and comparison. UCLA, unpublished.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1968. Adjectives and adverbs in English. MIT, unpublished.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. The theory of complementation in English syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., 50–118. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P., 184–221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., 232–286. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and structure preserving transformations. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1970. Interpretive semantics and the syntax of English complement constructions. Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1975. Review of Semantic interpretation in generative grammar, by Jackendoff, Ray. Lg. 51. 189–205.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1969. Some rules of semantic interpretation for English. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., and Postal, Paul M. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1969. On the inappropriateness of rule features. Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, 85–93.Google Scholar
Kimball, John. 1972. Cyclic and linear grammars. Syntax and semantics, vol. 1, ed. by Kimball, John, 63–80. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1971. Passive resistance. Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 149–163.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1964. Constituent structure. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P.; & Partee, B. H. 1968. Integration of transformational theories on English syntax. Los Angeles: Linguistics Dept., UCLA.Google Scholar