14. Wuppertaler Linguistisches Kolloquium
Ereignisstrukturen
June 2005
The Mystery of the Missing Agent: Reconstructing Passives
Kjell Johan Sæbø and Torgrim Solstad
University of Oslo
ABSTRACT. Contrary to popular opinion, verbal passives in English or German far from
always imply an agent, however loosely the term is understood – often enough, passives
of causative predicates only imply causing events, not causer individuals. This fact has
not been duly appreciated in the vast literature on voice and related phenomena. It raises
challenges for composition and for the question what purpose is served by passive voice.
We draw two conclusions: (i) Event-type subjects and “by” phrases are modifiers, not
arguments, and the event-type pro introduced by passive voice is semantically vacuous;
(ii) Event-type passives fill a semantic gap between inchoatives and agent-type passives
of causative predicates, and they facilitate narrative cohesion by providing event referents
that can unify with already introduced event referents.
1
The Passive Prejudice
They all presuppose that there is an agent, only, (s)he has gone underground
(“the agent does not disappear altogether (for argument structure cannot change)”)
– even since some began to build argument structures (again) (Hale and Keyser,
Kratzer, Marantz, Borer, Harley and Noyer, Pylkkänen), this presupposition has
persisted. It is violated in a moderate and in a radical sense.
2
Prominent Participants
The presupposition that there is an agent is violated in a moderate sense below:
(1) Two sheds were flattened by trees.
(2) The ship’s hull was ripped open by the reef ’s sharp rocks.
(3) The Sphinx has been buried by the desert sand.
(4) His aircraft was hit by flak and broke in two.
Trees, rocks, sand, flak are not agents but they are at least objects (individuals);
we can stretch agency or work with a wider notion of Prominent Participant (pp).
In (1)–(4) there is explicit reference to a pp. Implicit reference to a pp is shown in:
(5) Several trees hit houses and other structures, causing damage to them.
Two sheds were flattened, and several vehicles were crushed.
(6) When the City of Bangor hit the rocks, the hull was ripped open, and …
The implicit Prominent Participant is anchored to the context.
This seems to be important for a pp, not an agent, to be tacitly understood.
3
Event-type Passive
However, in too many cases to be ignored there is no hint of an agent or a pp, and
no evidence that the passive involves reference to any object – contra everyone,
including Kallulli (2005), who appeals to a notion of personification.
It has often been noted that event nominals can figure as subjects of causatives in
the active or in “by” phrases in the passive:
(7) The blows broke his tooth.
(8) This impact formed a crater 1.2 km in diameter.
(9) The skin of the airship was ignited by electrical discharge from the clouds.
We will focus on passives of causatives (including directionals and resultatives)
without “by” phrases.
(10) Before he could grab his parachute, the plane exploded and he was thrown
into the air (?? by someone / something).
(11) As the silk began to stream out, he was flung into the top branches of an oak
tree (?? by somebody / something).
(12) The mate then gave orders that we should lower the starboard boat and tow
her clear of the fire. We had the intention of waiting on board till daylight.
She started exploding down below. Daylight was just about breaking then so
the mate gave orders to take to the boats. Everybody got into the boat, and
when we had all settled down and were ready we let go the lines.
2
a. The lifeboat was immediately swept aft and when under the quarter she
was overturned by a wave.
The next I know I was hanging on to a line attached to the ship,
together with the Chief Engineer and the cook.
b. After we had been washed about a bit we went off one by one.
The Chief Engineer first, the Cook second and myself last.
c. Next I was washed up on the reef.
d. After touching the reef I was washed clean off and back to the ship again.
By that time her side from the Engine-room to No. 5 hold was red-hot.
e. I was carried back to the same rope and was hanging on again.
f. I was washed away from the rope and thrown clear of the reef.
g. I was swimming outside the reef for some time and eventually made into
the reef again and washed ashore.
(13) Portable toilets were knocked over.
As you see, many of these cases involve directionals. But not all do; we also find
resultatives and bare causatives (in English labile-alternating with inchoatives):
(14) Another tooth was loosened in the fight.
(15) The front elevator frame was broken on landing at the end of the 4th flight.
(16) She wandered off stage with the microphone, whose lead thus was tautened.
(17) Metallurgist experts could not explain how the bars had been bent.
(18) Some of us made it through before the ravine was closed.
Some cases, but not all, seem very close to their inchoative-alternant counterparts.
Let us see how a passive resultative can be composed on an agent-type and on an
event-type reading:
(19) A lot of times, the lure can be shaken loose.
(20) The tube has been shaken loose during shipment.
3
Classical composition, combining Sternefeld (1995), Rapp and Stechow (1999),
Pylkkänen (2002), Kratzer (2004); passive and active are nearly equal:
(19T)
λ t ∃e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Agent(x1)(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e) ∧ e ⊂ t
Aspect
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Agent(x1)(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
VoiceP
DP
pro
λ x λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Agent(x)(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
Voice
passive
λ x λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ Agent(x)(e) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
AGENT
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
manner
shake
VP
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
CAUSE
λ e Become(loose(l))(e)
BECOME
λ s loose(l)(s)
Root
loose
DP
the lure
The passive Voice specifier pro introduces a free variable x1 that can be bound by
a by phrase. If it is not, it can be assigned a definite or an indefinite interpretation.
4
The event-type reading differs in eliminating Agent and in pro being semantically
vacuous (as, on account of Aspect, it can and must be):
λ t ∃e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e) ∧ e ⊂ t
Aspect
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
DP
pro
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
Voice
passive
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
manner
shake
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
CAUSE
λ e Become(loose(l))(e)
BECOME
λ s loose(l)(s)
Root
loose
DP
the lure
What we have here is a causative structure without an Agent and with a causing
event modified by the verb shake.
This event could be identified through a by phrase, but that event-type DP must be
a modifier as well, as must in the active an event-type subject DP.1
If e is not identified through a by phrase, it is eventually closed off by Aspect; but
note that generally, Aspect can treat it as a definite (cf. Grønn 2004).
1
That is, on a classical composition; a constraint-based, unification-driven composition scheme, as in recent
DRT (Bende-Farkas and Kamp 2001), might allow a uniform treatment of object-type and event-type DPs.
For an application of such a composition scheme in a related domain, cf. Solstad (2005, forthcoming).
5
Alternative: Pylkkänen’s (2002) ambiguous Voice (≈ our Agent) – meaning either
λ x λ e Agent(x)(e) or λ e1 λ e e = e1.
This can offer a uniform treatment of pro as a free object- or event-type variable,
and of subject or by phrase DPs (the condition e = e3 at AspectP is redundant):
λ t ∃e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ e = e3 ∧ Cause(e1)(e) ∧ e ⊂ t
Aspect
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ e = e3 ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
DP
pro
e3
λ e2 λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ e = e2 ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
Voice
passive
λ e2 λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ e = e2 ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
λ e1 λ e e = e1
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ shake(e) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
manner
shake
λ e ∃e1 Become(loose(l))(e1) ∧ Cause(e1)(e)
CAUSE
λ e Become(loose(l))(e)
BECOME
λ s loose(l)(s)
Root
loose
DP
the lure
There are certain variations on this theme: BECOME can have a surface correlate
(-to in into etc., dynamic accusative in German); manner can be lacking, as in:
(21)
The stern section was rapidly filled with water as it sank.
6
The facts suggest:
• Passive Voice needs AgentP (Agent in a wide sense!) or CauseP
(contra Pylkkänen (2002: 90), who claims that in English, CAUSE and Voice
(≈ Agent) are bundled together into one morpheme, thus necessarily cooccur)
• Unaccusatives (inchoatives) lack Cause
(contra Chierchia 2004 and Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995)
Compromise: Inchoatives do describe a causation but only an internal causation
(the cause is a property inherent in the object); active or passive causatives, on the
other hand, express external causation; cf. Kratzer 2004:
“A commitment to a prominent external cause like an agent or a force of nature would
be contributed by [active] voice.”
– more accurately: … by [active] or [passive] voice.
Although a commitment to a force of nature is discernible in (14), (17), and (18),
we believe the chief motivation for event-type passives lies in one special factor:
Often there is simply no other good way of expressing that there was a causing
event, of describing it, and of linking it to previously introduced event referents.
(22) Eine 25-jährige Smartfahrerin aus Ammerbuch kam heute Nacht gegen
4 Uhr auf der B 28 von der Straße ab und überschlug sich mehrere Male.
Die Frau war von Tübingen in Richtung Unterjesingen unterwegs und kam in
einer Linkskurve von der Fahrbahn ab. Da sie nicht angegurtet war, wurde sie
aus ihrem Fahrzeug geschleudert. Dabei zog sie sich … .
(23) One day, as he was hurrying home from work on his ancient bicycle,
he was run down by a motorist. Jose was badly shaken, and his bicycle
was ground to bits.
Active is no alternative because there is no suitable antecedent for a definite DP.
Possibly, e equals the event described by “überschlug sich”; but this is difficult to
formulate as a definite DP. The definite direct cause event e is covertly bridged to
a previously mentioned event (“von der Fahrbahn abkam”) as an indirect cause.
(22)
a. ? … , schleuderte es / das Ereignis / der Ruck / der Aufprall sie aus …
(23)
a. ? … , and it / the collision ground his bicycle to bits.
Event passive thus belongs in the broader picture of narrative cohesion between
events (cf. Behrens and Fabricius-Hansen 2002): verbally based event anaphora
are flexible, allowing covert bridging to indirect cause events
7
And intransitive construction is no alternative either: The information contained in
“geschleudert” and “ground” gets lost.
(24)
… , flog sie aus ihrem Fahrzeug …
(25)
… , and his bicycle went to bits.
“Transitives” (causatives) seem to offer a greater variation than “intransitives”.
References
Behrens, Bergljot and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (2002) “Connectives in contrast: A
discourse semantic study of Elaboration”, in Hasselgård et al. (eds.) Information
Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Amsterdam, 45–61.
Bende-Farkas, Ágnes and Hans Kamp (2001) Indefinites and Binding: From Specificity
to Incorporation. ESSLLI, Helsinki.
Chierchia, Gennaro (2004) “A Semantics for Unaccusatives and its Syntactic
Consequences”, in Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, and Everaert (eds.), The
Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations at the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Oxford, 22–59.
Grønn, Atle (2004) The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Russian Factual Imperfective.
University of Oslo Dissertation.
Kallulli, Dalina (2005) “Argument Demotion as Feature Suppression”, to appear in
Solstad and Lyngfelt (eds.) Demoting the Agent, Amsterdam.
Kratzer, Angelika (2004) “Building Resultatives”, to appear in Maienborn and WöllsteinLeisten (eds.) Event Arguments in Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse, Tübingen.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport-Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity. Cambridge, Mass.
Pylkkänen, Liina (2002) Introducing Arguments. MIT Dissertation.
Rapp, Irene and Arnim von Stechow (1999) “Fast ‘almost’ and the Visibility Parameter
for Functional Adverbs”, in Journal of Semantics 16, 149–204.
Solstad, Torgrim (2005) “CAUSE and durch: a unified analysis of causatives and
inchoatives”, paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the DGfS, Cologne.
Solstad, Torgrim (forthcoming) Lexikalische Pragmatik: Spezifikation und Modifikation
kausaler Relationen am Beispiel von ‘durch’, University of Oslo Dissertation
Sternefeld, Wolfgang (1995) “Voice Phrases and their Specifiers”, in FAS Papers in
Linguistics 3, 48–85.
8