Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T12:35:15.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Passives and their meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ronald W. Langacker  and
Pamela Munro
Ronald W. Langacker
Affiliation:
University of California San Diego
Pamela Munro
Affiliation:
University of California Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes an underlying representation for passive sentences in Mojave and in Uto-Aztecan, and explores the broader issues that arise in extending the analysis to other languages and incorporating it in linguistic theory as a substantive language universal. In the introduction, this underlying representation is presented and discussed in relation to previous analyses of the passive. It is claimed specifically that passive sentences in Mojave and Uto-Aztecan are basically impersonal, and derive from structures in which a clause with unspecified subject is embedded as subject complement to the predicate be. Agentive phrases, when they occur, are said to derive from an external source, and are not considered an intrinsic part of the passive construction. The Uto-Aztecan evidence, primarily comparative and diachronic, is presented in §1. It is argued that reflexive constructions commonly assume passive function because both involve ‘non-distinct’ arguments, of which coreferential and unspecified arguments are special cases. The concept of non-distinct arguments receives considerable support from various syntactic changes that occurred in Uto-Aztecan. The Mojave evidence, primarily synchronic, is presented in §2. In §3, a variety of related issues are treated, including potential problems in extending the analysis to English, the source of by-phrases, the nature and status of unspecified arguments, the semantic claims implied by the proposed underlying representation, and the relationship between passive and perfective constructions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1975 , pp. 789 - 830
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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

Benveniste, É. 1952. La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 48.52–62.Google Scholar
Bouton, Lawrence F. 1973. Some reasons for doubting the existence of a passive transformation. In Kachru et al., 70–84.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1968. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4.109–127.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davis, John F. 1973. A partial grammar of simplex and complex sentences in Luiseño. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. (MIT dissertation.) Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 6.22–42.Google Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1973. The Isthmus of Anaphor (and Idiomaticity). Stanford Occasional Papers in Linguistics 3.25–34.Google Scholar
Grimes, Joseph E. 1964. Huichol syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Kinsuke. 1968. The passive construction in English. Lg. 44.230–243.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1973. Uto-Aztecan morphophonemics, II. MS.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Roderick A. 1973. Syntactic compression and semantic change. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 232–241.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B., et al. (eds.) 1973. Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois 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, 149–162.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1970. Review of Spanish case and function, by Goldin, Mark G. Lg. 46.167–185.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1972. Review of Meaning and the structure of language, by Chafe, Wallace L. Lg. 48.134–161.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1973. Predicate raising: some Uto-Aztecan evidence. In Kachru et al., 468–491.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1974a. Movement rules in functional perspective. Lg. 50.630–664.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1974b. Passive, impersonal, reflexive, and unspecified argument constructions in Uto-Aztecan. (To be published as Non-distinct arguments in Uto-Aztecan. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.)Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1970. A grammar of Diegueño: the Mesa Grande dialect. (UCPL 66.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 1973. Re-analysis and elaboration in Yuman negatives. Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 5.36–62. San Diego: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 1974. Topics in Mojave syntax. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Nagy, William. 1974. Figurative patterns and redundancy in the lexicon. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1972. The insertion of idioms. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 294–302.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Orešnik, Janez. 1973. Language-particular rules and explanation in syntax. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul, 419–459. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Platero, Paul R. 1974. The Navajo relative clause. IJAL 40.202–246.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1972. Act. Semantics of natural language, 2nd edition, ed. by Davidson, Donald & Harman, Gilbert, 70–126. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1930. Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean language. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65.1–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1973. On the semanto-syntactic configuration ‘possessor of an act’. In Kachru et al., 836–853.Google Scholar