Passivesein Romanian and Spanish: A subject cycle

Abstract

In this article, we discuss passive se constructions in Romanian and Spanish. We argue that there is a projected implicit external argument in passive se constructions in both languages based on an available inalienable possession interpretation of body parts. These constructions, however, differ from each other in one important way: Romanian passive se allows a ‘by’-phrase, while Spanish passive se shows severe restrictions. Moreover, we illustrate that in Old Spanish, passive se freely allowed ‘by’-phrases. Thus, Modern Romanian reflects an earlier stage of Spanish. We propose a linguistic cycle to explain these differences, where Spanish and Romanian are at different stages of that cycle. The approach offers an explanation for a general pattern within Romance, where ‘by’-phrases are initially grammatical with passive se, but then become ungrammatical over time, a pattern to date that has not yet been explained. It also offers a thereotical account for why some languages do not develop passive se constructions.

Grammatical Object Passives in Yucatec Spanish

“…If a null pronoun is a full DP, it can bind an anaphor in object position but deficient pronominal elements may not. MacDonald and Maddox (2018) claim that impersonal and passive SE constructions have a pronoun with a "D" feature capable of saturating the external argument introduced by the Voice head. This pronoun may be co-referential with a possessor of a body part object.…”

SE in Spanish

“…Passive SE constructions have been examined in many different works, among them Fernández Ramírez (1957 [1986]), Hatcher (1957), Contreras (1973), Molina Redondo (1974), Manteca (1976), De Mello (1978), Havertake (1980), Cano Aguilar (1981, Trujillo (1988), Campos (1989), De Kock & Gómez Molina (1990), Hernández Sacristán (1991), De Miguel (1992, Gómez Torrego (1992), Devís (1993), Raposo & Uriagereka (1996), Omori (1997), Ricós (1998), Mendikoetxea (1999Mendikoetxea ( , 2008Mendikoetxea ( , 2012, Saab (2014), MacDonald & Maddox (2018 and Dobrovie-Sorin ( 2021), as well as the authors cited in §7.5 above and who have tried to unify passive and impersonal SE.…”

East and West of The Pentacrest

“…In the spirit of Belletti (1982), we assume that the se morpheme of Imp se constructions itself spells out T. This contrasts with several approaches to a variety of se constructions which assume that se spells out Voice (see Armstrong, 2011;Basilico, 2010;Folli & Harley, 2005;and MacDonald, 2017 for aspectual se (Asp se ), Alexiadou et al, 2006;Kempchinsky, 2004;MacDonald, 2017;MacDonald & Maddox, 2018;and Schäfer, 2008 for anti-causative se (AntiC se ), and MacDonald, 2017;MacDonald & Maddox, 2018 for passive se (Pass se )). 2 Limiting our discussion to a comparison between Imp se and Pass se , consider one reason to treat se as spelling out Voice in Pass se : there appears to be no accusative case in Pass se .…”

“…In contrast to Pass se , we assume that se itself spells out T in Imp se . Moreover, we assume that there is a projected implicit non-referential pro in Spec,Voice, following (MacDonald, 2017;MacDonald & Maddox, 2018;Mendikoetxea, 2008). Our proposal is in ( 7).…”

“….Dobrovie-Sorin (1998: 424) observes that (17b) in Romanian is grammatical. See MacDonald &Maddox (2018) for one approach to its grammaticality in Romanian.…”