Impersonals, passives, and impersonal pronouns: Lessons from Lithuanian

Abstract

This study examines the properties of VoiceP and impersonal pronouns by contrasting two constructions in Lithuanian: the ‐ma/‐ta impersonal and the canonical passive. I argue that, while these two constructions overlap morphologically, they are syntactically distinct. The ‐ma/‐ta impersonal is related to the ‐no/‐to construction in Polish and in Ukrainian. Although it patterns with the Ukrainian ‐no/‐to passive in allowing an auxiliary, it behaves like an active VoiceP with a null projected initiator in a thematic‐subject position, a pattern found in the Polish ‐no/‐to impersonal and other impersonals crosslinguistically. I show that the Lithuanian passive lacks a syntactically realized initiator and selects for a type of Voice without a specifier. I also analyze the properties of the impersonal pronoun of the ‐ma/‐ta impersonal, demonstrating that it is a bare N that lacks inherently specified ɸ features (number, gender, and person) and has no case. This finding supports existing proposals that treat impersonal pronouns in different languages as defective.

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

“…These impersonals are similar to short passives (i.e. without by -phrases): both constructions lack a projected initiator in syntax (Šereikaitė 2022). However, the v in impersonals licenses accusative, while the assignment of accusative in Lithuanian passives is impossible 23 .…”

Impersonal morphosyntax in generative grammar

“…Let us first look at the tree in (10a) for a transitive impersonal construction. The details of impersonal syntax vary across the literature, but a common idea is that impersonal verbal morphology is housed in an Impersonal head along the verbal spine (e.g., D’Alessandro (2007); McCloskey (2007); Akkuş (2021); Šereikaitė (2022)). In (10a), this is a flavour of Voice—i.e., that the impersonal morpheme encodes a relationship between the action or state and participants (see Šereikaitė (2022)).…”

“…Many authors include a [human] feature in their analysis of impersonal pronouns (e.g., Hoekstra (2010) for West Modern Frisian Malamud (2012) for English and German and Šereikaitė (2022) for Lithuanian). Though many impersonal constructions imply the unspecified agent is human, see, for example, Legate et al.…”

“…With null impersonals, much literature has been devoted to providing evidence that there is a syntactically projected impersonal DP and distinguishing the constructions from passives (e.g., Legate (2014); Legate et al. (2020); Šereikaitė (2022)). Sometimes these impersonal constructions are translated as passives in other languages, which could lead to some confusion about their syntax.…”