Article published in:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2016
Edited by Jenny Audring and Sander Lestrade
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 33] 2016
► pp. 1–13

Dutch impersonal passives

Beyond volition and atelicity

| Delft University of Technology
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.
Keywords: impersonal passive, unaccusativity, Dutch, volitionality, telicity, attested examples
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
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 21 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.33.01bel
References
Achard, M.
2009 “The distribution of French intransitive predicates”. Linguistics 47:3.513–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beliën, M.
2012 “Dutch manner of motion verbs: Disentangling auxiliary choice, telicity, and syntactic function”. Cognitive Linguistics 23:1.1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Riet Vos.
2015 Verbs and verb phrases (Volume 11). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. & H. Harley
2005 “Existential impersonals”. Studia Linguistica 59:1.46–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Dowty, D.
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.3:547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn
1997 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
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
Kraak, Albert & Willem G. Klooster
1968 Syntaxis. Culemborg: Stam-Kemperman.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
1999 “Virtual reality”. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29:2.77–103.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollmann, T.
1970 “Passieve zinnen en het geïmpliceerd logisch subject”. Studia Neerlandica 21.34–50.Google Scholar
Primus, B.
2011 “Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives”. Lingua 1211.80–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
van Schaik-Rădulescu, M.
2011 “(Non-)homogeneity in Dutch impersonal passives of unaccusatives”. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XIII:1.63–83.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A.
1992 “Praxis of linguistics: Passives in Dutch”. Cognitive Linguistics 3:3.301–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie
1988 Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface. (= CSLI-88-123) Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Full-text

Dutch impersonal passives
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Johansson, Annika & Gudrun Rawoens
2019. A corpus-based contrastive study of impersonal passives in Swedish and Dutch. Languages in Contrast 19:1 ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 april 2022. 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.