Dutch impersonal passives
Beyond volition and atelicity
Dutch impersonal passives are often considered to be only compatible with atelic volitional verbs, such as werken ‘work’, lachen ‘laugh’, and zwemmen ‘swim’. Two recent corpus studies, however, argue that a wider range of verbs is compatible with the construction, presenting examples of attested impersonal passives with telic and non-volitional verbs. This paper lends further support to this view, by providing an exploratory study of the frequencies of different intransitive verbs appearing in the construction, as well as a discussion of the telicity of attested impersonal passives with vallen ‘fall’ and sterven ‘die’. The paper concludes that also with these telic non-volitional verbs, the impersonal passive merely conveys the occurrence of the type of act described by the verb, without specifying whether this occurrence is constituted by a single or multiple events, or whether it involves one or more participants.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Types of verbs claimed to be compatible with the Dutch impersonal passive
- 3.Frequencies of individual intransitive verbs occurring in the impersonal passive
- 4.
Analyzing the telicity of impersonal passives with vallen ‘fall’ and sterven ‘die’
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
-
References
References (19)
References
Achard, M. 2009. “The distribution of French intransitive predicates”. Linguistics 47:3.513–558. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beliën, M. 2012. “Dutch manner of motion verbs: Disentangling auxiliary choice, telicity, and syntactic function”. Cognitive Linguistics 23:1.1–26. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Riet Vos. 2015. Verbs and verb phrases (Volume 11). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carnie, A. & H. Harley. 2005. “Existential impersonals”. Studia Linguistica 59:1.46–65. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cornelis, Louise & Arie Verhagen. 1995. “Does Dutch really have a passive?” Linguistics in the Netherlands 1995, ed. by M. den Dikken and K. Hengeveld, 49–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Haan, Sies. 2000. “Heeft het Nederlands echt geen passief?” Samengevoegde woorden ed. by Hans den Besten, Els Elffers and Jan Luif, 111–124. Amsterdam: Leerstoelgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.3:547–619. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kirsner, Robert S. 1976. “On the subjectless ‘pseudo-passive’ in Standard Dutch and the semantics of background agents”. Subject and topic ed. by C. N. Li, 385–415. New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kraak, Albert & Willem G. Klooster. 1968. Syntaxis. Culemborg: Stam-Kemperman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W. 1999. “Virtual reality”. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29:2.77–103.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perlmutter, D. 1978. “Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis”. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society ed. by J.J. Jaeger, A.C. Woodbury, F. Ackerman, C. Chiarello, O.D. Gensler, J. Kingston, E.E. Sweetser, H. Thompson and K.W. Whistler, 157–190. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pollmann, T. 1970. “Passieve zinnen en het geïmpliceerd logisch subject”. Studia Neerlandica 21.34–50.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Primus, B. 2011. “Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives”. Lingua 1211.80–99. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Es, G.A. 1970. “Plaats en functie van de passieve constructie in het syntactisch systeem van het Nederlands”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 861.127–156, 213–233.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Hout, Angeliek. 1996.
Event semantics of verb frame alternations: A case study of Dutch and its acquisition
. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Schaik-Rădulescu, M. 2011. “(Non-)homogeneity in Dutch impersonal passives of unaccusatives”. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XIII:1.63–83.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verhagen, A. 1992. “Praxis of linguistics: Passives in Dutch”. Cognitive Linguistics 3:3.301–342. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zaenen, Annie. 1988. Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface. (= CSLI-88-123) Stanford: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Johansson, Annika & Gudrun Rawoens
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.