III. The bigger picture and closing remarks 169
5.1.1. Passivisation asymmetries in ditransitives
Cross-linguistically, and in some cases even intra-linguistically, ditransitives show an asymmetry, where some languages/language varieties allow only one of the objects to passivise, while others allow either of the objects to move to [Spec;TP]. Languages in which only one object allows passivisation, i.e. behaves like a prototypical direct object, are often referred to asasymmetric passive languages. Languages in which both objects can passivise are called symmet-ric passive languages (Alsina and Mchombo, 1993; Anagnostopoulou, 2003;
Baker, 1988b; Bresnan and Moshi, 1993; Citko, 2011, 2014; Haddican, 2019;
Lee, 2005; Marantz, 1993; McGinnis, 2001; Woolford, 1993, a.o.).
Some asymmetric languages include, e.g. American English, Polish, Chichewa, or Danish. The Danish and Polish examples in (3) illustrate asymmetric pas-sives.
‘Jens was given the book.’
b. *Bogen
‘The book was given to Jens.’
(Holmberg and Platzack, 1995, 215, ex. 7.68) (4) a. Han Intended: ‘A job was offered to him.’
(McGinnis, 1998, 73, ex. 24) (5) a. *Jan Intended: ‘Jan was given a book.’
b. Książka
‘A book was given to Jan.’
In Danish, similarly to American English and Chichewa, it is the IO that pas-sivises. In Polish, it is typically the DO that paspas-sivises.2 Asymmetric passives allow only one of the objects to become the passive subject.
Symmetric languages include, e.g. some varieties of British English, Norwe-gian, Swedish (with restrictions), Kichaga. Examples in (6) illustrate a sym-metric passive in Norwegian, where either of the objects can be passivised.
(6) a. Jon
‘Jon was given the book.’
b. Boken
‘The book was given Jon.’
(Holmberg and Platzack, 1995, 215, ex. 7.69) (7) Hani
‘He was given a present.’
a. En
‘A present was given to him.
(Hestvik, 1986, 185, ex. 6b, 6c) Additionally, some languages, e.g. Icelandic, show both symmetric and asym-metric passives, depending on the predicate. For Icelandic verbs with dative-marked IOs and accusative-dative-marked DOs, either of the objects can passivise (Holmberg and Platzack, 1995; Zaenen et al., 1990, a.o.). This is illustrated in (8) and (9).
‘Jón was given books.’
b. Bækurnar
‘The books were given to Jón.’
(Holmberg and Platzack, 1995, 215, ex. 7.67a,b)
2As we discuss later in this chapter, some exceptions exist. Namely, accusative-marked IOs can passivise in Polish. However, even in this case, it is only one object that can become a passive subject. In Polish, if the IO passivises, the DO cannot do so. If the DO passivises, the IO cannot do so.
(9) a. Konunginum king.the.dat
voru were
gefnar given
ambáttir.
slaves.nom.pl
‘The king was given maidservants.
b. Ambáttin slave.the.nom.sg
var was
gefin given
konunginum.
king.the.dat
‘The maidservant was given to the king.’
(Zaenen et al., 1990, 112, ex. 44) In (8) and (9), either of the objects can become a passive subject. The DO, with structural accusative, changes its case to nominative under passivisation, as in (8b) and (9b) The dative-marked IO retains its inherent dative case even when it becomes a passive subject, as in (8a) and (9a). That Icelandic non-nominative arguments, including passivised IOs, can act as subjects has long been established in the literature, starting with Andrews (1976, 1982a, 1990), developing through (Jónsson, 1996; Sigurðsson, 1989; Thráinsson, 1979; Zaenen et al., 1990, a.o.), and later adopted by, e.g. Holmberg and Platzack (1995);
McFadden (2004). We discuss some of the arguments for the subjecthood status of passivised dative IOs in Icelandic in the section to follow.
In Icelandic passives with dative-marked subjects, the retained object is marked with nominative. This is illustrated in (8a) and (9a). These examples also further support our discussion at the end of Chapter 4 where we replaced Burzio’s Generalisation (Burzio, 1986) with the New Descriptive Generalisation (Woolford, 2003), repeated for convenience in (10).
(10) New Descriptive Generalisation (replacing Burzio’s 1986) The object gets nominative Case when there is no (nominative) subject
(Woolford, 2003, 301) Because the inherent dative of the IO is preserved when the IO becomes the passive subject, the retained object of the passive construction receives nomi-native. Note also that, similarly to Polish, Icelandic verbs tend to agree with nominative-marked arguments regardless of their grammatical function (Thráins-son, 2007; Zaenen et al., 1990, e.g.). Thus, in (11), the verb agrees with the nominative-markedbækur ‘books’ - in (11a) with the object, in (11b) with the passive subject. The same is true of (9), where the verb agrees with the DO in (9a) and the passivised subject in (9b).
In contrast to dative-accusative ditransitives, which allow either of the objects to passivise, Icelandic dative-dative ditransitives allow only the IO to become the subject of a passive. In (11), the verbað skila ‘to return’ marks both of its objects with dative case. Such ‘double dative’ predicates are not very common in Icelandic; however, Jónsson (2000, 94) records around 30 of such verbs, includ-ing, e.g.að blóta‘to sacrifice’,að heita ‘to promise’,að miðla‘to communicate’,
að redda ‘to get, fix’, að skila ‘to return’, að slaka ‘to pass’,að úthluta ‘to dis-tribute, award’, að spá ‘to predict’, að valda ‘to cause’. With these predicates, only the IO can be passivised, as in (11a), not the DO, as in (11b).
(11) a. Jóni Jón.dat
var was
skilað returned
bókunum.
books.the.dat
(Icelandic)
‘Jón was returned the books.’
b. *Bókunum books.the.dat
var was
skilað returned
Jóni.
Jón.dat Intended: ‘The books were returned to Jón.’
(Holmberg and Platzack, 1995, 215, ex. 7.67c,d) Similarly to passive dative subjects of dative-accusative ditransitives, passive dative subjects of dative-dative predicates are bona fide subjects. Focusing on the more productive dative-accusative predicates, we demonstrate their subject-hood in the section to follow. Note also that in contrast to dative-accusative predicates, which realise the retained object in passives with nominative, the retained object of dative-dative predicates is marked with dative. The dative case is preserved due to its lexical character. Only structurally case-marked, i.e. accusative, objects get nominative in passives with dative subjects. Thus, the examples in (11) do not provide counterexamples to (10). Also, because no nominative-marked argument is present, the verb in (11) receives default third person features.
(A)symmetries similar to those listed in (3)-(11) also appear in languages with prototypical applicatives, i.e. languages which overtly mark their verbs with applicative suffixes. In these languages, we distinguish between asymmetric applicatives andsymmetric applicatives (e.g. Alsina and Mchombo, 1993;
Bresnan and Moshi, 1993). In asymmetric applicatives, only the applied object shows true object properties, e.g. passivises, object agreement, or incorporation into the verb. In contrast, in symmetric applicatives either object, applicative or non-applicative, can passivise or agree with the verb. For example, in Kichaga, in (12), any of the objects of the applicative construction can passivise. In Chichewa, in (13), only the applied object can passivise.
(12) a. M-kà` 1-wife
n-˝a-˝ı-lyì-í-ò
FOC-1S-PR-eat-AP-PAS
k-ély-â.
7-food
(Kichaga)
‘The wife is being benefited/adversely affected by someone eating the food.’
b. K-élyá 7-food
k-˝ı-lyì-í-ó
7s-PR-eat-AP-PAS
` m-kà.
1-wife
‘The food is being eaten for/on the wife.’
(Bresnan and Moshi, 1993, 50-51, ex. 5)
(13) a. Atskík¯ana 2-girls
a-na-gúl-ír-idw-á
2S-PST-buy-AP-PAS-FV
mphâtso 9-gift
(ndí by
chítsîru) 7-fool (Chichewa)
‘The two girls were bought a gift (by a fool).’
b. *Mphâsto 9-gift
i-na-gúl-ír-idw-á
9S-PST-buy-AP-PAS-FV
átsík¯ana 2-girls
(ndí by
chítsîru).
7-fool Intended: ‘A gift was bought for two girls by a fool.’
(Alsina and Mchombo, 1993, 23, ex. 7) Summing up, cross-linguistically, we observe differences in the syntactic be-haviour of various types of objects. Some objects are more prototypical in that they allow passivisation/movement. In contrast, some objects disallow A-movement. Multiple syntactic accounts for this asymmetry have been proposed over time; we discuss some briefly in Section 5.1.3. However, before we turn to accounts of (a)symmetries in passives, we show evidence that Polish dative IOs differ from Icelandic dative IOs with regard to passivisation in that Polish dative IOs cannot passivise while Icelandic dative IOs can.