WCCFL 31
Feb. 10, 2013

Miyoko Yasui

1

Sharing Light Verbs between Passive and Active Transitive Verbs
Miyoko Yasui (myasui@dokkyo.ac.jp)
Dokkyo University
1. Introduction
Main question• Active transitive clauses are assumed to involve a light verb (to be represented as v) that makes
available to the verbal root: (i) accusative Case and (ii) external argument position.
• Do we need to posit other types of verbal heads to account for the behaviors of various types of passives, unaccusatives and so on?
• Yes: Hasegawa (2001, 2004), Hoshi (1999, 2011), i.a. assume several types of the passive morphemerare consisting of the binary features pertaining to (i) and (ii).
• No: I will argue that rare is non-distinct from s(uru) and its phonetically null counterpart with respect
to (i) and (ii).
My claim: an extension of the approach by Jaeggli (1986) and Baker, Johnson and Roberts (1989)• The 'absorption' of Case and external θ-role is due to a designated nominal element available in eachlanguage. Specifically, it is the past participial ending (to be represented as –EN) in English and anempty pronominal (pro) in Japanese.
2. Transitives with a Non-thematic Subject (Tr-NS)• If rare and s(uru) share properties (i) and (ii), why do they typically constitute distinct constructions?
• Specifically, rare always has a non-thematic subject, while s(uru) and its phonetically null counterpart typically have a thematic subject. BUT a non-thematic subject is also possible with the latter under certain conditions.
• (1a) and (2a) are typical transitive sentences with a thematic/agentive subject, while (1b) and (2b) arenormally interpreted as: someone/something other than the subject undertook the action (Inoue 1976,Oehrle and Nishio 1981, Miyagawa 1989, Kageyama 1993).
(1) a. John-ga Mary-no
NOMkomaku-oyabu(k)-i-ta.

[agentive transitive]

GEN eardrum-ACC rupture-TR-PAST'John ruptured Mary’s eardrum.'b. John-ga

komaku-oyabu(k)-i-ta.

[Tr-NS]NOM eardrum-ACC rupture-TR-PAST'John had his eardrum ruptured.'(2) a. Isha-ga

kanzya-no

keccho-o tekishutu-si-ta.

[agentive transitive]

doctor-NOM patient-GEN colon-ACC removal-DO-PAST'The doctor removed the patient’s colon.'b. Kanzya-ga

keccho-o tekishutu-si-ta.

patient-NOM colon-ACC removal-DO-PAST'The patient had his colon removed.'[Tr-NS]WCCFL 31
Feb. 10, 2013

Miyoko Yasui

2• In the Tr-NS construction, the subject needs to be ‘included’ in the event expressed by the verb,
typically being the (inalienable) possessor of the object: John's eardrum in (1b) and the patient'scolon in (2b).
• The verbal root is native Japanese yabuk in (1b) and (4a), and Sino-Japanese tekishutu in (2b).
• If the root is native Japanese, the Tr-NS construction is possible if it allows the transitivity alternation as shown in (3) and (4b).
(3)

John-nokomaku-ga

yabuk-e-ta.

[intransitive]

GEN eardrum-NOM rupture-INTR-PAST(4) a. John-gaie-o‘John’s eardrum ruptured.’ya(k)-i-ta.

NOM house-ACC burn-TR-PASTb. John-no ie-ga[Tr-NS]‘John had his house burnt down.’

yak-e-ta.

GEN house-NOM burn-INTR-PAST[intransitive]‘John’s house burnt down.’• Pure transitives like hum (step-on) cannot form a Tr-NS construction as in (5c); the subject is interpreted as agentive irrespective of the presence of the possessor as shown in (5a,b).
(5) a. John-ga Mary-no asi-o hum-da.
NOM GEN foot-ACC step-on-past‘John stepped on Mary foot.’b. John-ga asi-o hum-da.
NOM GEN foot-ACC step-on-PAST

c. *John-noasi-ga‘John stepped on his own foot.’

hum-da.

[no intransitive counterpart]GEN foot-NOM step-on-past• The Sino-Japanese roots in the Tr-NS constructions in (2b) and (7a) lack the intransitive counterparts as in (6a) and (7c) (Tsujimura 1990). Instead, they can form 'passive' nominals without overt
passive morphology as in (6b) and (7b) (cf. Ono 1997).
(6) a. *Kanzya-no keccho-ga tekishutu-si-ta.
patient-GEN colon-NOM removal-DO-PAST
b. Isya'*The patient’s colon removed.'niyoru keccho-no tekishutu

doctor bycolon-GEN removal(7) a. Isya-ga John-no
doctor-NOM
b. John-ga

ha-ochiryo-si-ta.

ha-ga

chiryo-sita.

GEN tooth-NOM treatment-DO-PASTniyoru ha-no

doctor by'removal of a colon by a doctor'[agentive transitive]

GEN tooth-ACC treatment-DO-PAST

ha-oc. *John-no[passive nominal]

chiryo-si-ta.

NOM tooth-ACC treatment-DO-PAST

d. Isya[no intransitive counterpart]chiryotooth-GEN treatment'The doctor treated John's tooth.'[Tr-NS]'John had his tooth treated.'[no intransitive counterpart]'*John's tooth treated.'[passive nominal]'treatment of a tooth by a doctor.'• Descriptive Generalization on Tr-NS
The Tr-NS construction is possible with those verbal roots that need not syntactically realize an
external argument: native Japanese verbs forming transitive/intransitive pairs and Sino-Japaneseroots allowing the 'passive' interpretation.

WCCFL 31
Feb. 10, 2013

Miyoko Yasui

33. Transitives and Indirect Passives• The existence of Tr-NS shows that the subject of a transitive predicate headed by s(uru) and its
phonetically null counterpart can be non-thematic just like the subject of a passive.
• Another similarity is that rare in indirect passives exhibits properties (i) accusative Case and (ii)external argument.
(8) a. Otoko-ga kodomo-no kao-otata(k)i-ta.

[transitive]

man-NOM child-GEN face-ACC slap-PAST'The man slapped the child's face.'b. Hanako-ga

otoko-nikodomo-no kao-o

Hanako-NOM man-DAT child-GEN

tatak-(r)are-ta[Indirect passive]

face-ACC slap-PAST'Hanako had her/the child's face slapped by the man'(8a) [transitive](8b) [Indirect passive]a---------------- l:vP            1vP
1
1
5?5
1z--DPext v'DPext
v'
1
1
5
1
5 ? [dat]
otoko√P√TATAK-v
otoko-ni√P√TATAK-[v rare]4: [acc][dat] 4
: [acc]DPint<√TATAK> 1DPint<√TATAK>
1%
1%
1
kodomo-no kao-o<------mkodomo-no kao-o<------m
[acc]
[acc]
• In (8a,b), the root √TATAK, being categorized as verbal by v and incorporated into it, licenses [acc]on the internal argument DPint.
• DPext in (8a) is θ-marked in Spec,vP but Case-licensed in Spec,TP.
• It is a standard assumption in Japanese generative grammar (Inoue 1976, McCawley 1972, Kuno
1973, Kuroda 1979, i.a.) that [v rare] by its intrinsic property can license [dat] optionally.

In (8b)[v rare] licenses [dat] on the external argument DPext. Given the absence of overt expletive elements in Japanese, Spec,TP hosts an argument DP that is not θ-related to the root √TATAK.
• The extra DP in Spec,TP of indirect passive is interpreted as being indirectly affected by the event
expressed by vP.

Similarly, a non-thematic subject in Spec,TP of Tr-NS is interpreted as being

responsible for the event expressed by vP (Inoue 1976:61).

Unlike direct passives and transitives,

indirect passives and Tr-NSs are marked in that they require these extra semantic interpretations.
4. Direct and Possessor Passives• All languages have direct passives. Indirect/exclusive passives are cross-linguistically rarer thanpossessor passives, the latter being attested in Mandarin, Cantonese, Taiwanese and Korean(Shibatani 1990: 328-329, Huang 1999, Washio 1993, 1995).
• Possessor passives are like direct passives and unlike indirect passives (Shibatani 1990:326-328,Hasegawa 2007, Kubo 1990) in that:− the adversative meaning is absent− an agent ni-phrase is not necessary and interchangeable with niyotte: (9a), (10a), (11a)− an agent ni-phrase cannot be the antecedent of zibun: (9b), (10b), (11b)WCCFL 31
Feb. 10, 2013(9)

Miyoko Yasuia. John-ga (Mary-ni/niyotte) hidoku
byNOMtatak-(r)are-ta.

4[Direct passive]

violently slap-PASS-PAST'John was slapped violently by Mary.'b. Johni-ga

Maryj-ni zibuni/*j-no heya-de tatak-(r)are-ta.
by self-GEN

NOM

room-at slap-PASS-PAST'Johni was slapped by Maryj in hisi/*herj room.'(10) a.

Johni-ga *(Mary-ni)/*niyotte Tom-oDAT/byNOMtatak-(r)are-ta.

[Indirect passive]

ACC slap-PASS-PAST'John had Tom slapped by Mary.' b. Johni-ga Maryi-ni
NOMzibuni/j-no heya-de Tom-o

DAT self-GENhouse-attatak-(r)are-ta.

ACC slap-PASS-PAST'Johni had Tom slapped by Maryj in hisi/herj house.'(11) a.

Johni-ga (Mary-ni/niyotte) kao-obyNOM

tatak-(r)are-ta.

[Possessor passive]

face-ACC hit-PASS-PAST'John was slapped in the face by Mary.' b.

Johni-ga Mary-ni zibuni/*j-no heya-de kao-o
NOMby self -GENtatak-(r)are-ta.

room-in face-ACC hit-PASS-PAST'John was slapped in the face by Mary in his i/*herj room.'
• Following Jaeggli (1986) and Baker, Johnson, and Roberts (1989)), I claim that unmarked passives(i.e., direct and possessor passives) involve v with properties (i) accusative Case and (ii) externalargument position, and one designated nominal that functions to cancel out (i) and (ii): the past participle ending –EN in English and empty pronominal pro in Japanese.
• An important question has been why the designated nominal 'absorbs' accusative Case and externalθ-role, which are canonically assigned to distinct elements (Bowers 2010, Collins 2005).
• v canonically selects a verbal root phrase (√P) by 1st Merge and DPext by 2nd Merge.
• –EN needs to merge with v as early as or prior to its introduction into syntax due to its morphologically bound nature. Since it is nominal rather than verbal, it counts as v's external argument even if itmerges with v before the verbal root (√P).
• -EN, being part of the verbal amalgam, is syntactically invisible, allowing DPint to move intoSpec,TP via the edge of vP (cf. m(orphological)-merger in Matushansky 2006): vP of English passive is a weak phase.
• Since –EN is an external argument, a by-phrase should be an adjunct; the so-called θ-transmission
between –EN and a by-phrase is on a par with clitic doubling (c.f. Anagnostopoulou 2006 and references cited therein).
(12) John was hit by Mary.
 2v
DP ==> v-EN
1-EN

[Direct Passive in English]
:vP
1
51
√P
√HIT-v-EN[acc]/Aext       
1
4[acc] <-mz DPint<√HIT>
1John

WCCFL 31Feb. 10, 2013

Miyoko Yasui

5(9a) John-ga Mary-ni/niyotte hidoku tatak-(r)are-ta.
[Direct Passive in Japanese]NOM
by violently slap-PASS-PASTvP:531√P√TATAK-[v rare]-pro[v rare] pro
1 4[acc] <> [acc]/Aext z DPint<√TATAK>1John• DPint in (9a) is θ-marked within vP but Case-licensed in Spec,TP.
• The accusative and external θ-role of the root-v amalgam are assigned to (or absorbed by) pro.
• Since pro is the external argument in (9a), the ni/niyotte phrase is an adjunct, being optional andunable to antecede the reflexive zibun.
• Like –EN, pro is m-merged with rare and syntactically invisible, allowing DPint to move into
Spec,TP; vP of Japanese direct passive is a weak phase.
• The amalgam of the root and rare can license [acc] and [dat].

Pro 'absorbs' [acc] in the direct pas-sive (9a), and [dat] in the possessor passive (11a).
• In (11a), the head of DP int bears [acc], and the non-head moves into Spec,TP for Case/EPP reasons.
(11a)Johni-ga (Mary-ni/niyotte) kao-otatak-(r)are-ta.
[Possessor Passive in Japanese]
NOM
byface-ACC hit-PASS-PASTvP:
5[dat] / Aext
31
√P
√TATAK-[v rare]-pro :pro[v rare]1
4: [acc] / [dat]<m 
1DPint<√TATAK>11
3
1z DP
kao-o <------m
1
[acc]
John
• Since pro is an external argument, the ni/niyotte phrase is an adjunct, being optional and unable toantecede the reflexive zibun.
• Like –EN, pro m-merged with rare is syntactically invisible, allowing DPint to move into Spec,TP;
vP of Japanese possessor passive is a weak phase.
5. Transitives with a Non-thematic Subject (Tr-NSs) and Passives• Tr-NSs like (13) are quite close in meaning to possessor passives like (14), but are different in disallowing an agent-phrase.
• Tr-NSs resemble indirect passives like (15) in the extra semantic interpretations on Spec, TP.
(13) John-ga(*Mary-ni/niyotte) komaku-oby

NOMby[Tr-NS]=(1b)

eardrum-ACC rupture-TR-PAST 'Johni had hisi eardrum raptured.'(14) John-ga (Mary-ni/niyotte) komaku-oNOMyabu(k)-i-ta.

yabuk-(r)are-ta.

[Possessor Passive]

eardrum-ACC rupture-PASS-PAST'Johni had hisi eardrum raptured by Mary.'(15) John-ga Mary-ni Tom-no komaku-o
NOMDATyabuk-(r)are-ta.

GEN eardrum-ACC rupture-PASS-PAST'John had Tom's eardrum ruptured by Mary.'[Indirect Passive]WCCFL 31Feb. 10, 2013

Miyoko Yasui• The head of DP int in (13) is Case-licensed by the root-v amalgam.

6

Since the root itself does not

require an external argument (Descriptive Generalization on Tr-NS on page 1), the non-head ofDPint (DP*) can move into Spec,vP, where it picks up a non-thematic interpretation ascribable tothe functional head v. The non-head ends up in Spec,TP for Case/EPP reasons.
• In (14), the head and non-head of DP int are Case-checked in the same manner.

Since the exter-nal θ-role is 'absorbed by pro, the non-head does not pick up any semantic role within vP otherthan the possessor of the head of DP int.
• In (15), both the internal and external θ-roles are discharged within vP, and an extra DP that will
fill Spec,TP (DP*) picks up a non-thematic interpretation ascribable to rare.
• DP*s in (13) and (15) are interpreted as being responsible for and affected by the event expressedby vP, respectively.
(13) [Tr-NS]
vP5v'4   :1√P√YABUK-v
1
4: [acc]
1DPint<√YABUK> 11 4
11 DP*komaku-o
1
1 1[acc]
1z John:1z------ -m(14) [Possessor Passive]vP:
5[dat]/Aext
1√P√YABUK-[v rare]-pro :14: [acc] /[dat] < m1DPint <√YABUK> 1131
1 DP komaku-o <-- m
1 1[acc]z John(15) [Indirect Passive]
TP5DP*.......
a----------------- l1vP
1[dat] ? 51DPextv'1
15? [dat]
Mary-ni√P√YABUK-[v rare]
4: [acc]
DPint<√YABUK>
1#1
Tom-no komaku-o <------m[acc]6. Concluding Remarks• The passive morpheme rare and the transitive light verbs in Japanese constitute parallel constructions under certain conditions since they share properties (i) and (ii) stated in Introduction.
• They constitute distinct constructions since rare in its unmarked usages (i.e., direct and possessorpassives) involves the designated nominal pro, which is on a par with –EN in English passives.
• The marked usages of the passive morpheme rare (i.e., indirect passive) and of the transitive lightverbs (i.e.,Tr-NS) require a non-thematic interpretation ascribable to them.
• It is predicted that Germanic and Romance languages, which use past participles for passives, allow
unmarked passives but disallow marked passives since their passives necessarily involve the nominal–EN.

WCCFL 31
Feb. 10, 2013

Miyoko Yasui

References
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2006) Clitic doubling. In M. Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) The
Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Blackwell.
Baker, M., K. Johnson, and I. Roberts (1989) Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inauiry 20:219-251.
Bowers, J. (2010) Arguments as relations. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press.
Collins, C. (2005) A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax:81–120.
Hasegawa, N. (2004) The possessor raising construction: transitivization, causative, and experiencer.
Scientific approaches to language 3: 35-74. Kanda University of International Studies.
_____ (2007) Nihongo no zyudobun to little v no sosei (Japanese passive and the features of the littlev). Scientific approaches to language 6: 13-38. Kanda University of International Studies.
Hoshi, H. (1999) Passives. In N. Tsujimura (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. pp. 191-235.
Blackwell.
_____ (2011) Four types of passives in Japanese. handout at CJTL 5.
Huang, C.-T. James (1999) Chinese Passives in Comparative Perspective. Tsing Hua Journal ofChinese Studies 29, 423-509.
Inoue, K. (1976) Henkei bunpo-to nihongo (Transformational grammar and Japanese) Part I.
Taishukan.
Jaeggli, O. (1986) Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17:587-622.
Kageyama, T. (1993) Bunpo to gokeisei (Grammar and word formation). Hituzi Shobo.
Kratzer, A. (1996) Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.)
Phrase structure and the lexicon, pp.109-137. Kluwer.
Kubo, M. (1990) Japanese passives. Ms., MIT.
Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1979) On Japanese Passives. In G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M. Muraki (eds.),
Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue, Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Matushansky, O. (2006) Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37:69-109.
McCawley, Noriko Akatsuka (1972) On the Treatment of Japanese Passives. In P. M. Perenteau, J. N.
Levi, and G. C. Phares (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago LinguisticSociety, 256-270.
Miyagawa, S. 1989. Paradigmatic structures and the causatives. In Syntax and semantics 22,
pp.111-145.
Oehrle, R. T. and H. Nishio. (1981) Adversity. Coyote papers 2. University of Arizona LinguisticCircle.
Ono, N. (1997) Externalization and event structure. In T. Kageyama (ed.) Verb Semantics andSyntactic Structure, pp.149-176. Kurosio Publisher.
Shibatani, M. (1990) The languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press.
Tsujimura, N. (1990) The unaccusativity hypothesis and noun classification. Linguistics 28: 929-957.
Washio, R. (1989-1990) The Japanese Passive. The Linguistic Review 6, 227-263.
_____ (1993) When causatives mean passive. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2, 45-90.
_____ (1995) Interpreting voice: a case study in lexical semantics. Kaitakusha.

7