The Basque impersonal is a detransitivized construction that resembles middles, passives and impersonals. In this construction, the thematic object is the grammatical subject, which bears absolutive case and triggers absolutive agreement, and the auxiliary selected is izan ‘be’. At the same time, there is an implicit agent that is syntactically active even though it is not realized as an ergative argument with corresponding ergative agreement. In this article, we compare the Basque impersonal with the middle, the passive of languages like English, and subject-suppressing impersonals (as in Polish), and we show that it is more similar to the passive and subject-suppressing impersonals, given that (i) in the Basque impersonal, the event is instantiated, (ii) it can be used with more predicate classes, and (iii) it allows dative-marked second objects, among other properties. Similarly, like in English-type passives and subject-suppressing impersonals, the implicit agent of the Basque impersonal is syntactically active, as it can license agent-oriented modifiers and control adjunct purpose clauses. Nevertheless, there are other properties in which these constructions differ; for instance, the implicit agent must be interpreted as human, unlike in passives, and the grammatical subject cannot be other than 3rd person, something attested neither in passives nor in subject-suppressing impersonals. In light of this distribution, we consider the Basque impersonal to be located somewhere in between middles, passives and subject-suppressing impersonals as far as its syntactic properties are concerned.
The aim of this article is to provide an analysis of Basque impersonals (Albizu 1997, 2001; Ortiz de Urbina 1989, 1991, 2003, ). In using the term “impersonal” we refer to a detransitivized or valence decreased construction such as (1b), which alternates with a transitive counterpart as illustrated in (1a).
Several properties of the voice alternation in (1) deserve special attention. First of all, the transitive sentence in (1a) involves two arguments, agent and theme, marked by ergative and absolutive case respectively, whereas the impersonal in (1b) involves a sole argument marked by absolutive case. This argument is not the agent but the theme, as in (1a), the transitive counterpart of (1b). Second, Basque exhibiting a systematic auxiliary alternation, the auxiliary selected in (1a) is *edun ‘have’, i.e., the auxiliary attested in transitive clauses, whereas the auxiliary selected in (1b) is izan ‘be’, the auxiliary attested in intransitive clauses. Third, the inflected auxiliary form in (1a) agrees with both the ergative and the absolutive arguments, whereas the auxiliary form in (1b) shows only absolutive agreement.
Constructions similar to the one in (1b) have been described and analyzed in Basque under the label of “mediopassives” (Brettschneider 1979; de Rijk 2008; Ortiz de Urbina 2006; Rezac 2009) and “middles” (Berro and Fernández 2019; Urrestarazu 2019). Actually, (1b) can be taken as an example of a Basque middle, as discussed by Berro and Fernández (2019). Nevertheless, this example is due not to a particular middle-voice mechanism, as in English, but to a more general mechanism that is not as restrictive as in English and English-like middles, i.e., ‘type I middles’ in Ackema and Schoorlemmer’s (2005) typology. In this typology, two types of middles are distinguished crosslinguistically, ‘type I’ and ‘type II’ middle, with the former being much more restrictive than the latter, both syntactically and semantically. As will be shown, Basque impersonals share some properties with type I middles, as the thematic object is the grammatical subject and the implied agent cannot be formally represented as an adjunct. However, many other properties exhibited by Basque impersonals are also attested in canonical passives, showing that Basque goes beyond the behavior of ‘type I middles’ in the abovementioned typology. Crucially, in Basque impersonals, as generally in passives, there is an implicit agent that is syntactically active. Hence, this syntactically active implicit argument can license i) the PRO subject of purpose clauses; ii) agent-oriented adverbial modifiers; iii) agent-oriented instrumental and comitative phrases; and iv) secondary predicates.
Still, Basque impersonals show a property that distinguishes them from canonical passives. Firstly, Basque impersonals lack the counterpart of an English by-phrase, i.e., a demoted agent expressed by a postposition (Zuñiga and Kittilä 2019). This being the case, Basque impersonals would be akin to agentless passives. Secondly, Basque impersonals show a person restriction on the subject, as 1st and 2nd person subjects are not allowed. Finally, the demoted agent must be interpreted as an indefinite human, another restriction that passives are not subject to. If canonical passives are subject to these restrictions, then contemporary Basque impersonals cannot be regarded as passives. Nevertheless, with respect to some other properties, Basque impersonals behave similarly to passives. Particularly, they are strikingly similar to Romance reflexive-marked passives (see Mendikoetxea 1999, 2012 for Spanish and Cabredo-Hofherr 2017 for an overview of other Romance languages). In any case, the same construction used to be more similar to canonical passives in previous stages of the language, given that demoted agents marked by postpositions were allowed and there was no person restriction on the theme, as shown by Irigoyen (1992), Zulaika (1998) and Ortiz de Urbina (2006). This construction was termed “mediopassive” in Ortiz de Urbina’s (2006).
Last but not least, Basque impersonals seem to be similar to subject-suppressing impersonals (Blevins 2003), attested in Balto-Finnic and Balto-Slavic languages, among others. These impersonals have usually been analyzed under the “(impersonal) passive” label. However, as argued by Blevins, passives and impersonals must be distinguished from one another. First of all, impersonals can be built not only on transitive verbs but also on unergatives and unaccusatives. Secondly, the suppressed subject is interpreted as indefinite and human. Thirdly, the subject cannot be expressed by an oblique phrase. As argued by Blevins (2003), Polish -no/-to constructions (Kibort 2004) are impersonals of this type (similar constructions are also attested in other Slavic languages (Siewierska 1988)). As shown by Kibort (2004), these apparently subjectless constructions show that the implicit subject is, paradoxically, syntactically active as it can: i) license a reflexive anaphor; ii) control on purpose clauses; and iii) license agent-oriented adverbial modifiers, among other things. As we will see, all these properties are met in Basque impersonals (although licensing of anaphors needs some discussion). However, there is a crucial distinction between subject-suppressing impersonals of the Polish type and Basque impersonals: the former are valence-preserving constructions (for instance, impersonals built on transitive verbs retain the direct object) whereas the latter are detransitivized constructions with a theme subject (apart from the implicit but syntactically active subject). In this regard, Basque is closer to English passives than to Polish impersonals.
The article is structured as follows. In Section 1.1 we present some background information on Basque, and in Section 1.2 we provide some definitions of the main constructions discussed in the study. In Section 2 Basque impersonals are compared to middles, particularly with regard to their aspectual interpretation and modality (Section 2.1), auxiliary selection (Section 2.2), compatible verb classes (Section 2.3) and the anti-double object condition (Section 2.4). In Section 2.5 we provide an interim summary. In Section 3 we present the properties of Basque impersonals that are shared by passives (Section 3.1) and those that are not (Section 3.2), and we provide a second interim summary (Section 3.3). In Section 4, we explore a non-standard strategy to circumvent a non-third person subject restriction. In Section 5 we present the properties of subject-suppressing impersonals and compare them to Basque impersonals. We start with the main distinction (Section 5.1) and continue with the shared properties (Section 5.2). Finally, a third interim summary is provided (Section 5.3). Section 6 discusses the main results of the study, and in Section 7 we present our main conclusions.
1.1 Some preliminaries regarding Basque
Basque is an ergative language in terms of both case and agreement marking (Dixon 1979, 1994). The subject of a transitive or unergative verb is marked by ergative case and agreement whereas the subject of an unaccusative verb and a transitive object is marked by absolutive case and agreement. In addition, Basque is a language with auxiliary alternation as it selects the intransitive auxiliary (izan ‘be’) with unaccusative verbs whereas it selects the transitive auxiliary (*edun ‘have’) with transitives, unergatives and ditransitives. Regarding case and agreement, it is a split-intransitive language (Laka 1993; Levin 1983; Ortiz de Urbina 1989; Pineda and Berro 2020). Hence, subjects of unergative verbs are marked by ergative case and agreement and not by absolutive. Unaccusative, unergative and transitive verbs and their corresponding arguments are exemplified in (2a), (2b) and (2c) respectively:
As can be seen in (2b), the only argument of the unergative verb is marked by ergative case and agreement, thus being distinguished from the only argument of the unaccusative verb in (2a), which is marked by absolutive case and agreement instead. Note that the auxiliary selected in the sentence including the unergative verb is the transitive auxiliary *edun ‘have’, also selected in the transitive sentence in (2c).
Additionally, Basque shows not only absolutive and ergative agreement but also dative agreement. In a construction including a dative-marked phrase, dative agreement is mandatory (leaving aside dialectal variation). In (3a) we present a sentence including an extra-thematic dative and a theme marked by absolutive. The intransitive auxiliary izan ‘be’ shows agreement with both the absolutive and the dative. (3b) shows a ditransitive construction involving a dative-marked goal. The transitive auxiliary contains dative agreement with this third argument.
Although canonically considered a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) language (de Rijk 1969; Ortiz de Urbina 1989, 2019; and others), Basque has a rather flexible word order at the clausal level. For instance, depending on the information structure, the order of constituents may vary as exemplified in (4) for the canonical ditransitive sentence in (3b).
Finally, Basque has been analyzed as a three-way pro-drop language, given that the ergative-, absolutive- and dative-marked arguments can be silent, as in (5) (see Duguine 2008, 2013 for an alternative analysis to the pro-drop approach).
1.2 Some definitions
This study deals with the alternation shown in the Basque examples in (1), repeated here as (6), focusing on the detransitivized construction in (1b). This construction is mainly known as “impersonal” in Basque linguistics.
We aim to compare the impersonal in (1b)/(6b) to three types of constructions: middles, passives and subject-suppressing impersonals. In this section we will briefly present and describe the main properties of each of these constructions.
Firstly, we will focus on the similarities and differences between Basque impersonals and middles. We regard as middles constructions where the patient is realized as a subject, the agent cannot be formally expressed and the sentence requires some kind of modal modification, such as an adverb. We are thus referring to constructions of the type illustrated in (7a) and (7b) (Keyser and Roeper 1984).
The English middle in (7a) has three main properties. First, the logical object is the syntactic subject of the construction. Second, the logical subject is absent and has an arbitrary interpretation. Third, the proposition lacks a specific time reference and is usually accompanied by modal modifiers such as easily (Levin 1993). The English middle type has been classified as a “type I middle” by Ackema and Schoorlemmer (2005). As we will see, Basque impersonals share some properties with the English middle, but are nevertheless closer to the Romance middle type, classified as “type II middle” by the same authors and exemplified by the Spanish example in (7b). This middle type shares the first two properties just mentioned. However, it is not as restricted as the English middle in (7a). For instance, it does not require the presence of a modal modifier such as fácilmente ‘easily’, among other properties we will present in Section 2.1.
Secondly, the next construction under consideration are passives. An English passive construction is shown in (8b), which alternates with its active variant in (8a).
In the active sentence in (8a), there is a transitive verb with two arguments, i.e., the subject (Bill) and the object (ship). Its passive counterpart in (8b) is a detransitivized construction in which the subject corresponds to the object of the active sentence. In this regard, the object of the active version is said to have been promoted to subject. Additionally, the subject of the active has been demoted to an oblique marked with the preposition by. These are the properties of prototypical passives for authors such as Kulikov (2010) or Zuñiga and Kittilä (2019: 83–84), among many others. However, for other authors, such as Keenan and Dryer (2007: 342), the presence of an agent phrase is not a definitional aspect of a passive, as many languages have passives that do not admit agent phrases. Thus, these authors make a distinction between the “non-basic passives” seen in English and “basic passives”, which do not allow agent phrases. Passives disallowing agent phrases have also been labeled “agentless passives”. As for the definitional properties of passives, some authors consider subject demotion (or just deletion) to be the a central property of passives, given that there are languages that have passives involving subject demotion without object promotion (Comrie 1977). We will return to this issue when discussing subject-suppressing impersonals. Another property of passives relates to the particular morphology shown in the inflected verb. In English, for instance, the passive is formed by a periphrasis that involves the auxiliaries be or get along with the past participle form of the verb, i.e., it is a periphrastic passive, contrasting with strict morphological passives as in Latin or Ancient Greek (Keenan and Dryer 2007).
Basque impersonals behave similarly to passives in some respects. On the one hand, Basque impersonals are also detransitivized constructions, as the grammatical subject of the impersonal corresponds to the object of its transitive counterpart, and the auxiliary selected is izan ‘be’, rather than *edun ‘have’. On the other hand, Basque impersonals cannot express the logical subject as an oblique. Thus, if Basque constructions such as (1b) or (6b) were considered passives, they would be of the basic type in Keenan and Dryer’s (2007) typology (agentless passives), or “non-prototypical passives” as in Zuñiga and Kittilä (2019).
As for dedicated morphological marking, Basque has neither a particular morphological passive voice marking nor a specific periphrasis. In this regard, Basque impersonals resemble intransitive constructions, as the lexical verb involved, whether transitive or intransitive, is accompanied by the same auxiliary that is attested in any analytic intransitive verbal form. Hence, an impersonal such as (9a), a form of the transitive verb erosi ‘buy’, shows the same morphological shape as that attested in an intransitive sentence involving an unaccusative verb such as erori ‘fall’ (9b).
If a dedicated morphology is needed for a construction to be a passive, as discussed in the literature – see for instance Haspelmath (1990) – then (9a) cannot be considered a passive. If no dedicated morphology is needed, most of the properties attributed to passives are also attested in Basque impersonals. It is worth noting that the absence of a morphological exponent does not seem to be restricted to impersonal constructions. Actually, Basque verbs manifesting the inchoative/causative alternation such as hil ‘kill, die’ – “lexical causatives” in Comrie’s (1989) terms – do not show any morphological exponent. We therefore briefly discuss this alternation, as it will be also discussed later in this study, along with the impersonals presented in (1b) and (9a).
Verbs of the type illustrated in (10) are also known as labile or ambitransitive verbs (Creissels 2014; Dixon 1994; Haspelmath 1993; Kulikov and Lavidas 2014). As defined by Kulikov and Lavidas (2014: 1), “the term ‘labile’ refers to verbs or verbal forms that can show valency alternation, i.e., changes in syntactic pattern, with no formal change in the verb. Very often (but not always), the term labile is only employed to refer to verbs or verbal forms that can be employed both transitively and intransitively.”
In particular, the lability shown by these verbs is patient-preserving lability, as in similar English instances such as John broke the glass/The glass broke. From this perspective, it could be said that the transitive verb hil ‘kill’ can be also used in an intransitive alternant meaning ‘die’ in which the agent is absent and the patient is preserved. As Creissels (2014: 919) points out, this alternation is “semantically comparable to causative and anticausative derivations”. In this study, we will use the terms “causative” and “inchoative” to refer to the transitive and intransitive alternants of these (labile) verbs, respectively. These are the terms favored by Basque grammarians when referring to the alternation attested in (10) – see for instance, Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 592), Oyharçabal (2003), Ormazabal (2008), Berro (2015) and Berro et al. (2018). For a brief discussion on the place that Basque occupies within the typology of causative/inchoative alternations, based on Haspelmath (1993) and Nichols et al. (2004), see Berro et al. (2018: 8–10); and regarding not only patient-preserving lability as in (10) but also agent-preserving lability, see Zuñiga and Fernández (2021: 636 and fn9).
Finally, the last construction explored in this study is the subject-suppressing impersonal in Blevins’ (2003) terms, exemplified here by Polish -no/-to constructions – see also Siewierska (1988), Kibort (2004) and Kulikov (2010).
The Polish impersonal is a construction that suppresses the syntactic subject (Blevins 2003). In this regard, the subject is demoted as in passives. However, as we can see, the object retains its accusative marking and, moreover, does not trigger agreement (Blevins 2003: 491), as we would expect from subjects. Thus, this suggests that the object is not really promoted in Polish -no/-to constructions. In addition, according to Blevins, the verbal form used in this construction is transitive.
Subject-suppressing impersonals like the one in (11) are attested not only in Balto-Slavic but also in Balto-Finnic and Celtic languages. However, there is no consensus among researchers on the typological characterization of (11) and similar constructions. It has been considered both a variant of the passive (an impersonal passive, as it does not have a subject) and a non-passive construction with an indefinite human agent – see Kibort (2004: 245–255) for an overview and discussion. It is worth pointing out that constructions such as (11) have been discussed in the literature in order to determine whether the definitional properties of passives include object-to-subject promotion or are limited to subject-to-oblique demotion. For those who treat (11) as an impersonal passive, only subject-to-oblique demotion is definitional (Comrie 1977). On the other hand, these constructions have been regarded as non-prototypical passives by Zuñiga and Kittilä (2019: 84–85), in particular non-promotional passives, because they lack object-to-subject promotion, and impersonal passives, because they lack a subject.
Here we will follow Blevins (2003) in distinguishing subject-suppressing impersonals from passives. There are three properties relevant to that distinction. Firstly, these impersonal constructions are insensitive to the argument structure of the verb and can be formed not only with transitive verbs but also with unaccusatives and unergatives. Secondly, the suppressed subject is interpreted as an indefinite human. Thirdly, agent obliques are not licensed. As we will see, Basque impersonals share these three properties. However, they are not transitive constructions, as shown by, among other things, the intransitive verbal morphology; rather, they seem to be detransitivized constructions. Moreover, Basque impersonals do have a grammatical subject as long as the only (absolutive) argument of an intransitive construction can be considered a subject. Hence, unlike in Polish, in Basque impersonals there are two subjects: on the one hand, the subject of the intransitive construction (the logical object) and, on the other, the suppressed subject (the logical subject). In this regard, as we have noted, Basque impersonals are akin to agentless passives. Still, impersonals built on unergatives and unaccusatives do not show any subject, since the only argument, be it ergative or absolutive, is suppressed in those cases.
In a nutshell, the most significant property shared by Basque impersonals and subject-suppressing impersonals has to do with the indefinite human nature of the suppressed agent. That said, Basque impersonals contrast with prototypical passives in that animals and meteorological phenomena can be the agent in passives but not in Basque impersonals or Blevin’s impersonals.
2 Basque impersonals in comparison to middles
In this section, we will explore the similarities and differences between Basque impersonals and middles of the type illustrated in (7). As we saw in Section 2.1, in Basque a given labile verb like hil ‘kill/die’ can occur in three different morphosyntactic contexts: a causative construction (12a), an inchoative construction (12b) or an intransitive construction that is nonetheless interpreted agentively (12c), a construction we have termed “impersonal”.
As we mentioned in Section 1.2, the inchoative and impersonal variants are morphologically similar. In fact, they would be ambiguous if the modifiers berez ‘by themselves’ and zapata honekin ‘with this shoe’ were not included. In both constructions, the grammatical subject – which corresponds to the logical object – has absolutive case and is cross-referenced by absolutive agreement markers in the auxiliary, in this case izan ‘be’ (cf. 12a). Additionally, no logical subject bearing ergative case is present, nor are there ergative agreement markers on the auxiliary (cf. 12a). The thematic interpretations of (12b) and (12c) are different, however. In (12b) no agent is implied, i.e., the spiders have died or die without the volitional implication of an agent. In contrast, in (12c) it is understood that someone deliberately has killed or kills the spiders.
The potential ambiguity of the examples in (12b) and (12c) only arises if the predicate in question is labile, i.e., if it allows both the causative and the inchoative variants. In other verbs that only accept the transitive variant, the intransitive variant can only be interpreted as an impersonal, that is, in such a way that an implicit arbitrary agent is understood to initiate the process undergone by the logical object.
In modern Basque syntax this construction has been classified as impersonal (Albizu 1997, 2001; Berro et al. 2021; Ortiz de Urbina 1989, 1991, 2003, ), and more recently as middle (Urrestarazu 2019; see also Berro and Fernández 2019). It would be easy to argue that sentences like (12c) or (13b) are really middles. Middles are often regarded as intransitive predicates with an implicit agent which – unlike passives – show no special morphology in English (e.g., Keyser and Roeper 1984) – although some other languages such as Greek show special middle morphology. (14b) is a pertinent example. Regarding the implicit agent, middles would be similar to passives, differing from them in not exhibiting special morphology (see Section 2.1).
Sentences like (12c) and (13b) would naturally fit into the class of middles given that, as we have mentioned, they show no special morphology – thus apparently resembling inchoatives – but are interpreted agentively, like passives. In what follows, we will compare the Basque construction (12c) with middles, considering the tests and features often attributed to middles in the literature.
Middles have been defined as constructions that include a particular set of syntactic and semantic features. Schäfer (2006: 183) states that in middles (i) the grammatical subject corresponds to the thematic or internal object; (ii) the agent is demoted and has an arbitrary interpretation; and (iii) the aspectual interpretation of the sentence is non-episodic, that is, it has a generic or stative interpretation. Additionally, other properties of middles that have been reported are (iv) their necessary co-occurrence with a certain kind of modal adverb; (v) their restriction to particular verb classes; (vi) the impossibility of their occurring in the imperative or progressive; and in some languages (vii) their selection of the have auxiliary (Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2005; Keyser and Roeper 1984). As can be seen, middles have sometimes been argued to be quite restrictive in terms of the syntactic and semantic environments licensing them. Nevertheless, the cross-linguistic picture seems to be rather complex, and in several languages the constructions giving rise to middles have been shown to be more permissive (Lekakou 2005). For instance, Ackema and Schoorlemmer (2005) draw a distinction between what they call “type I middles”, which fulfill all the conditions mentioned above, and “type II middles”, which fulfill some but not all of those conditions. English has type I middles, whereas Romance languages like Spanish and French have type II middles. As will be shown in the following subsections, Basque patterns with Romance languages in having what Ackema and Schoorlemmer term “type II middles”. On the basis of our scrutiny of those conditions in Basque, we will conclude that the middle is best regarded as a particular semantic notion – not a particular morphosyntactic construction – and that the impersonal is a construction that is more broadly used in the language.
2.1 Aspectual interpretation and modality
One of the core properties that is usually mentioned in the literature about middles is that they are generic sentences and do not describe a specific event (i.e., they are non-eventive or stative) (see, among others, Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2005; Keyser and Roeper 1984; Levin 1993). In fact, according to Lekakou (2005), middles are generic dispositional ascriptions that predicate of a subject a set of properties that are not necessarily instantiated in a particular event. As a consequence, middles cannot normally be accompanied by temporal or spatial modifiers that locate the event at a particular time and place. Compare (15) and (16).
In Basque, generic sentences require imperfective aspectual morphology on the verb (the suffix -ten). If the verb shows perfective morphology, the sentence is interpreted episodically. As shown in (12c) and (13b), the impersonal construction analyzed in this article can occur with both imperfective and perfective morphology. Therefore, examples similar to (16a) and (16b) would be grammatical in Basque.
In the examples in (17), the inflected verbal forms include the perfective marker (-i in (17a) and -tu in (17b)) and have a temporal (17a) or a spatial (17b) modifier. Thus, the interpretation is eventive. Contrary to what happens in the English middle, in Basque impersonals the event is actually instantiated.
Another property of middles that is often discussed concerns modality. In languages having type I middles, like English, German or Dutch, some sort of modification of modality facilitates or is even a necessary condition for a middle (Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2005).
In this kind of middle, modification usually involves potentiality, that is, the ability of the implied subject to carry out or perform the action denoted by the verb. By contrast, in other languages having more permissive middles (i.e., type II middles) like French or Spanish, modal modification is not necessary at all, and if such modification is an option, the modality may be of another type, such as prescriptive (Fagan 1992). For instance, the examples in (20) can be interpreted as expressing either potential or prescriptive modality.
In the prescriptive modality interpretation, the middle would express that everybody performs the action denoted by the predicate, and that it is something that should be done.
This is also the case with Basque. The impersonal in Basque does not necessarily require a modal adverb or a modal verb in order to have a generic stative interpretation, and when it has such an element the sentence can have either a potential, a prescriptive or even an epistemic interpretation. The prescriptive modal interpretation arises mainly, but not necessarily, in the context of deictic adverbs like honela ‘like this’. The potential and epistemic interpretations, on the other hand, are easily but not necessarily obtained with the adverb erraz ‘easily’.
The epistemic interpretation focuses on the fact that the event denoted by the predicate occurs frequently and is therefore likely to take place.
2.2 Auxiliary selection
Another aspect that distinguishes Basque impersonals from middles in languages that have type I middles and auxiliary selection, such as Dutch and German, is that in Basque impersonals it is always the auxiliary izan ‘be’ that is selected.
As explained at the beginning of this section, examples like (12b) and (12c) are ambiguous without certain modifiers – recall the modifiers berez ‘by themselves’ and zapata honekin ‘with this shoe’. For instance, (22) shows that, in the presence of erraz ‘easily’, an intransitive sentence is ambiguous between an inchoative and an impersonal interpretation. Similarly, the English sentence in (22b) is ambiguous between a generic inchoative and a middle interpretation, as pointed out by Ackema and Schoorlemmer (2005: 137).
Nevertheless, not all languages have morphologically similar inchoatives and middles. For example, Dutch, a language that distinguishes unaccusatives and unergative verbs by means of the auxiliary selected (see, e.g., Ackema 1999; Hoekstra 1984; Hoekstra and Mulder 1990), has the auxiliary hebben ‘have’ in middles and the auxiliary zijn ‘be’ in inchoatives (23). In German too, as shown by Cabredo-Hofherr (1997) (see also Lekakou 2005), middles select haben ‘have’ and not sein ‘be’ (24). Thus, in both Dutch and German, middles pattern with unergatives in terms of auxiliary selection (Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994, 2005: 161–162; Lekakou 2005: 38).
The example in (23b) shows that the middle reading of the structure is compatible with the auxiliary hebben ‘have’ but ungrammatical with zijn ‘be’. Crucially, in (23b) the interpretation involves an implied logical subject. By contrast, (23b) requires zijn ‘be’ rather than hebben ‘have’, and its interpretation does not imply a logical subject. Ackema and Schoorlemmer (2005) argue that (23b) is actually a middle, whereas (23c) is a generic inchoative.
As mentioned in Section 1.1, Basque is also a language which distinguishes unaccusatives and unergatives by means of auxiliary selection: broadly speaking, unaccusatives select izan ‘be’ whereas transitives and unergatives select *edun ‘have’ (see, e.g., Levin , and for a more recent approach, Pineda and Berro ). As in Dutch and German, Basque inchoatives behave both morphologically and syntactically like unaccusatives and combine with the same auxiliary, namely, izan ‘be’. However, Basque impersonals take izan ‘be’ and, thus, contrary to what happens in Dutch/German middles, they pattern not with unergatives but rather with unaccusatives and inchoatives.
Note that the unaccusative and unergative distinction is even more marked in Basque than in Dutch, as it involves not only auxiliary selection but also case marking and agreement: subjects of unaccusatives are marked by absolutive case and show absolutive agreement on the auxiliary, whereas subjects of unergatives are marked by ergative case and are cross-referenced by ergative agreement on the auxiliary, as seen in (25a) above and (26a) below. The potential unergative-like impersonal structure shown in (26b) below, with an ergative subject, ergative agreement and the auxiliary edun ‘have’, is ungrammatical in Basque, with no dialectal exceptions. The Basque counterparts to Ackema and Schoorlemmer’s Dutch examples in (23b) and (23c) are shown in (26a) and (26b) respectively.
2.3 Compatible verb classes
In this section, we will consider the predicates that are compatible with the formation of impersonals in Basque. We will pay attention, on the one hand, to the argument structure of the verbs (i.e., valency and logical subject theta role); and on the other, to the aspectual properties of the verb classes (i.e., whether they belong to the activity, accomplishment, achievement or stative class). Regarding the former, Basque impersonals are compatible with transitive verbs (see Berro and Fernández 2019), although they can also be formed with unergatives and unaccusatives (see Section 5). This includes verbs that only allow the causative variant such as legeztatu ‘legalize’, atxilotu ‘arrest’ (27), transfer of possession verbs like saldu ‘sell’, erosi ‘buy’, bidali ‘send’ and banatu ‘distribute’ (28), communication predicates like irakurri ‘read’, creation predicates like pastela egin ‘make a cake’ (29) and labile verbs that allow both the causative and the inchoative variants (30).
All predicates that express some type of change, such as activities (31a), accomplishments (31b) and achievements (31c) can freely form an impersonal in Basque.
In contrast, statives show more variation. Perception predicates, like ikusi ‘see’ (32), are compatible with this construction, but other kinds of stative verbs like those involving some sort of psychological or cognitive state seem to be more reluctant to allow the impersonal (33b). For instance, stative transitive predicates like jakin or ezagutu ‘know’ are not compatible with this construction.
Thus, the Basque impersonal allows more predicate classes than middles in languages like English and German (type I middles in Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2005), given that only activities and accomplishments are argued to be grammatical in the middles of those languages (Fagan 1992). Once again, Basque patterns with Romance languages like Spanish and French, and Greek (Lekakou 2005).
Basque impersonals also allows more interpretations than type I middles in terms of the thematic interpretation of the implicit logical subject. There is an agentivity condition in middles stating that the logical subject must be an agent (see Ackema and Schoorlemmer [2005: 174] and references cited there), like in the predicates seen in (35). As a consequence, predicates that have logical subjects with other roles, such as a perceiver or an experiencer (36), are not compatible with the middle.
Basque is more permissive than English in this regard. The Basque construction sometimes allows implicit logical subjects with an experiencer interpretation, such as in psychological change of state verbs like ahaztu ‘forget’ or gogoratu ‘remember’, where the logical subject is an experiencer and the logical object is interpreted as the stimulus.
Note that the external argument in the transitive personal construction in (37a) bears ergative case. This seems to be an important aspect, given that psychological predicates with an experiencer logical subject bearing any case other than ergative are not always accepted in the impersonal construction. For instance, stative psychological verbs that have a dative experiencer argument in the personal form do not form good impersonals.
The exceptionality of examples like (39) is not related to the stative nature of the predicate. In fact, stative psych verbs where the experiencer takes ergative case and the stimulus is absolutive, like gorrotatu ‘hate’ (40a), can form an impersonal (40b) (see Fernández et al. 2020 for a recent overview of psychological predicates in Basque).
Thus, we can conclude that even though the Basque impersonal construction is more permissive than the middle in other languages like English, not every kind of predicate with any kind of logical subject is allowed. As has been shown, impersonals are better with verbs denoting a change – although some statives are also acceptable – and there is a restriction regarding the case of the implicit logical subject. To form an impersonal, the case that would be assigned to the implicit subject argument must be ergative. In predicates requiring a dative subject argument, the impersonal construction is not generally allowed.
2.4 The anti-double-object condition
Another important property of Basque impersonals is the possibility of including a second internal argument. In this regard, Basque impersonals do not seem to be subject to the anti-double-object condition observed in middles (Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2005). Compare the double object construction in (41a) to its middle counterpart in (41c).
In (41c), the middle construction includes the theme as a subject and the goal as the second logical object. The sentence is ill-formed. Nor does the construction improve when the subject is the goal and not the theme (41d).
As can be seen in (42a), Basque also has double object constructions (Elordieta 2001). However, contrary to English middles, Basque impersonals can introduce the second internal argument without leading to ungrammaticality (42b).
Note that in the impersonal, izan ‘be’ is the auxiliary selected and that the second logical subject retains its dative case and agreement.
2.5 Interim summary
As a summary we provide the properties of Basque impersonals in Table 1, contrasting them with the properties of type I middles.
|Properties||Type I middles||Basque impersonal|
|The subject is the internal argument||✓||✓|
|The external argument is formally absent and has an arbitrary interpretation||✓||✓|
|Only generic (stative) interpretation||✓||✗|
|Necessary modal modification||✓||✗|
|Only potential modality||✓||✗|
|Have auxiliary selection in auxiliary alternation languages||✓ (in Dutch or German)||✗|
|Very restricted verb classes||✓||✗|
As can be seen, Basque impersonals share with type I middles the fact that the grammatical subject corresponds to the logical subject of the verb and that the logical subject has an arbitrary interpretation. As for the other diagnostics, the Basque impersonal construction is much more permissive. Taking into account that the properties assigned to the middle form a subset of all the possible instances that can be built with the Basque impersonal, we will take the middle to be a particular semantic interpretation obtained in a syntactic structure – the impersonal – that is more broadly used in the language. In this sense, we agree with previous work on the topic, such as Lekakou (2005), Ackema and Schoorlemmer (2005) and Fábregas and Putnam (2014).
3 Basque impersonals in comparison to passives
Thus far we have shown that Basque impersonals cover a wider range of instances than English-type middles, i.e., type I middles in Ackema and Schoorlemmer’s (2005) typology. In this section, we will explore some properties of Basque impersonals that seem to match up with those of passives, thus departing from the behavior of type I middles. In particular, the implicit agent of Basque impersonals is syntactically active and not inert, as in type I middles. In this respect, Basque impersonals behave like passives. Still, this behavior in itself does not allow us to consider them prototypical passives (Kulikov 2010; Zuñiga and Kittilä 2019). In fact, other properties exhibited by Basque impersonals depart from those of passives in languages like English, such as the impossibility for the agent to be overtly marked by an instrumental phrase (similar to a by-phrase). As explained in Section 1.2, in this respect Basque impersonals could be considered instances of agentless passives. However, there are two other properties that separate the constructions under consideration from passives of any kind, to wit, the person restrictions of the grammatical subject, as it can only be 3rd person, and the obligatory human interpretation of the implicit logical subject. In the latter respect, Basque impersonals are closer to subject-suppressing impersonals (Blevins 2003) (see Section 5).
We will start this section by discussing three properties of English-type passives that are not attested in Basque impersonals: (i) the potential overt realization of the agent in a by-phrase; (ii) the absence of a person restriction on the grammatical subject; and (iii) the absence of an obligatory human interpretation of the implicit logical subject. We will then explore the properties shared by English-type passives and Basque impersonals, mainly those related to the syntactic behavior of the implicit argument (Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2005; Bhatt and Pancheva 2005 and references therein), namely (i) control of the subject of a rationale/purpose clause; (ii) licensing of the agent-oriented adverbs; (iii) licensing of agent-oriented secondary predicates; (iv) control of the subject of adjunct clauses; and (v) licensing of instrumental/comitative phrases.
3.1 Where Basque impersonals diverge from passives
3.1.1 Absence of an overt agent as an oblique
In English, inchoatives are distinguished from passives in the incompatibility of the former (43b) but not the latter (43a) with overt by-phrases (see, among others, Bhatt and Pancheva 2005; Keyser and Roeper 1984: 406; Roeper 1987).
Basque inchoatives behave exactly the same as English inchoatives. This is exemplified in (44), a structure with the inchoative variant of the labile verb hondoratu ‘sink’ including an overt agent marked by an instrumental postposition is ungrammatical.
The presence of an overt agent has been also explored in connection with impersonals. As pointed out by Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 611–612, 2006: 773), Basque impersonals do not allow overt agents to be present. Basque has both morphologically overt case marking and verbal agreement, so if an agent were present, it would appear as a nominal marked by ergative case and cross-referenced by ergative agreement. Also, the auxiliary used in such cases would be the transitive one (*edun ‘have’). However, in the structures under scrutiny, neither ergative case nor ergative agreement is attested. In fact, as already mentioned in the introduction (Section 1), Basque impersonals show a detransitivized structure, or at least an intransitive structure, and are therefore accompanied by an intransitive auxiliary (izan ‘be’) that does not license ergative agreement morphology at all.
Moreover, an overt agent marked by an instrumental (or any other) postposition is equally ungrammatical. For instance, the sentence in (44) could also be considered impersonal if there was an implicit agent. Nevertheless, even if interpreted as an impersonal, Example (44) would be ungrammatical because of the presence of the adpositional phrase. As Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 611–612) concludes, in Basque impersonals the agent argument must be implicit (see also Berro and Fernández 2019; Brettschneider 1979: 381; Urrestarazu 2019).
In earlier stages of the language, instances of an animate agent marked by an instrumental phrase such as (44) are attested (Ortiz de Urbina 2006: 773) (for a discussion of demoted agents, see particularly Section 3.2 of his article). As can be seen in (45a) and (45b) below, in such cases the agent is explicitly marked by an instrumental postposition. Both examples are from Leizarraga’s Basque translation of the New Testament (XVI. Century, Classical Basque).
Thus, these examples presumably represent an earlier (prototypical) passive that is no longer available in Basque (see Section 6 for further discussion). As can be seen, (45a) and (45b) show overt agents marked by an instrumental (see Altuna 1987; Irigoyen 1992; Zulaika 1998: 780; also Ortiz de Urbina 2006, Section 3.2 and references therein for discussion). The expression of the agent by an optional adpositional phrase is significant crosslinguistically, as many languages with passives express it in such a way. As observed in the literature, the agent can be expressed by an instrumental, locative (as in English by) or genitive (for further details, see Kazenin 2001; Keenan 1985; Keenan and Dryer 2007; Siewierska 1984, 2013 and others). Thus, the marking of the agent by the instrumental postposition in earlier stages of the language, as in Classical Basque, seems to follow the typological tendency of those languages that allow the agent to be marked by an adposition. Considering Basque historical data, we can tentatively say that Basque has shifted from an earlier (prototypical) passive construction to a new construction that we have labeled “impersonal” and whose syntactic analysis departs from that of passives. In fact, two relevant properties of Basque impersonals are not attested in earlier Basque impersonals: the ban on the overt expression of the agent in an adpositional phrase, and the person restriction on the grammatical subject, as will be shown in Section 3.1.2. Even if the agent phrase were not essential in order to characterize a construction as passive, as claimed by Keenan and Dryer (2007: 342–345) and others (see Section 1.2), Basque shows that the possibility of agent phrases to be expressed by an adposition existed in earlier stages of the language, but is no longer available.
3.1.2 Person restrictions
An important property that distinguishes Basque impersonals from passives of any type has to do with the nature of the subject: contemporary Basque impersonals do not allow first or second person subjects, whereas passives do. Hence, examples including first or second persons are necessarily inchoatives, as seen in (46).
Here Basque impersonals clearly depart from passives in general, as the latter do not show any restriction in this respect. This does not hold for earlier stages of Basque, however, as detransitivized instances with a non-third person subject are attested starting in the earliest written documents, as seen, for instance, in texts by Bernard Etxepare (1545) (Altuna 1987); Lazarraga (1564–1567) (Mounole 2014 ) or Joannes Leizarraga (1571) (Zulaika 1998: 779–784), among others (see Irigoyen 1992; Ortiz de Urbina 2006; Zulaika 1998 for more classical examples and discussion).
Leaving aside historical data, we have not identified any instances of impersonals including a non-third person subject in corpora of contemporary Basque, in particular the Contemporary Reference Prose (EPG) corpus (Sarasola et al. 2001–2007) and the Corpus of Contemporary Basque (ETC) (Sarasola et al. 2016). As native speakers of Basque we ourselves do not accept impersonals of this sort as grammatical. Although Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 588–589) admits that non-third person subject impersonals are extremely scarce relative to third person subjects, he offers several examples, including the two reproduced ones in (49a) and (49b).
As Ortiz de Urbina points out, the first interpretation of these examples would be colloquial reflexive, i.e., ‘You don’t know yourself’ (49a) and ‘From there I can’t see myself’ (49b) (see also Ortiz de Urbina 1988). Two other examples provided by Ortiz de Urbina are from Irigoyen (1992) – (50a) and (50b) – while a third– (50c) – is from a poem by Txirrita, a beloved Basque improviser (Mujika 2016).
Notwithstanding these examples offered by Ortiz de Urbina, as far as we can tell, impersonals including non-third person subjects are considered grammatical in the literature only by Gaminde (2006: 95) when referring to Western Basque. He even claims that this structure is “commonly used” and “alive and well” in that dialect. He provides the examples reproduced in (51a)–(51d), here adapted to Standard Basque.
In our view, Gaminde’s claim should be taken with a grain of salt. The Western Basque speakers we have consulted, specifically from the localities of Getxo, Urduliz and Armintza (hence speakers of Uribe Kosta Basque), Leioa (Txorierri Basque) and Lekeitio (Lea Artibai Basque), do not regard all or even most of Gaminde’s examples as grammatical. Furthermore, it is quite suspicious that there is no mention of this in any other dialectological work such as those by Zuazo (2004, 2008, 2013, 2015, among many others. According to Zuazo (p.c.), utterances like these would be rare in Western Basque or any other dialect. Hence, their existence is questionable to say the least.
That said, there is a non-standard strategy that allows speakers to circumvent the non-third person restriction discussed here, that is, the dative marking of the subjects, as in ikusten zait ‘one can see me’ and ikusten zaizu ‘one can see you’ (Ortiz de Urbina 1988, 2003, ). Although more research is needed in order to understand the nature and range of this strategy, we will present and discuss some provisional results regarding this in Section 4.
18.104.22.168 A note on anti-animacy
As we have just shown, Basque impersonals require the grammatical subject to be third person, a feature that separates Basque impersonals from passives and makes them similar to middles. Apart from that, as reported by Berro and Fernández (2019), the impersonal construction is much more frequent in the corpora when the grammatical subject is inanimate, although inanimacy is not a necessary condition to form an impersonal. This is a tendency that generally affects all verbs forming the impersonal, and Basque does not seem to be alone in this regard. For instance, the lack of animacy has been observed to be a favoring factor in the spread of the Spanish reflexive-marked passive (over the periphrastic passive) in its diachronic evolution (Cabañas 2006).
Like in other languages, animacy has some special effects in Basque in certain predicates that allow the causative alternation. For example, in the verbs that require an agentive theme in the inchoative variant, such as in ezkutatu ‘hide’, the presence of an inanimate theme triggers the interpretation involving an implicit agent, that is, the reading that arises in an impersonal. This is illustrated in (52a)–(52c) below.
As can be seen, ezkutatu ‘hide’ is a labile verb that allows both the causative and the inchoative variants. Crucially, to be inchoative, the theme must be animate (52b), given that the interpretation of the verb requires an agentive argument. If the theme is inanimate, as in (52c), the only interpretation available is one in which an implicit agent has performed the action denoted by the verb. Other labile verbs that also show this effect are sartu ‘come in/put in, insert’ and atera ‘come out/take out’.
3.1.3 Obligatory human logical subject
The second property distinguishing Basque impersonals from passives of any type is the obligatory human interpretation of the implicit logical subject. As shown by Rodet (1992) and more recently by Berro et al. (2021), the implicit subject of Basque impersonals must be interpreted as a human agent, even in those cases where the transitive (personal) variant of the verb allows an inanimate causer. For instance, a labile verb like hondoratu ‘sink’ can have an animate causer or an animate agent as a logical subject in its causative variant (53a). The impersonal variant (53b), in contrast, is only acceptable in a context where someone has caused the sinking; in a context where an inanimate force like a storm has caused the ship to sink it would not be acceptable (Berro et al. 2021)
As briefly mentioned in Section 1.2, the obligatory human interpretation of the implicit logical subject is a property of subject-suppressing impersonals (Blevins 2003) (see Section 5.2.3). Thus, in this respect, Basque departs from passives and behaves more like subject-suppressing impersonals.
3.2 What Basque impersonals share with passives
3.2.1 Control into purpose clauses
A test widely debated in the literature of middles has to do with control into purpose clauses (Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2005; Baker et al. 1989; Bhatt and Pancheva 2005; Manzini 1983; Roeper 1987). Unlike in middles (54b), the implicit agent of the passive can control the subject of a purpose clause, as can be seen in (54a). By contrast, inchoatives like (54c) are pragmatically deviant, given that a ship cannot sink on purpose. Thus, neither the middle nor the inchoative can control PRO in the purpose clause.
As Bhatt and Pancheva (2005: 4) point out, if PRO can only be controlled by a syntactically active agent, then there must be a syntactically agent in the passive. Therefore, this test has been used to differentiate passives, which are constructions with a syntactically active agent, from middles (and also inchoatives) in languages like English, which do not have such an implicit agent. Nevertheless, this test has been called into question (Lekakou 2005), as English, German and Dutch middles (i.e., type I middles) do allow control into some embedded clauses (Stroik 1992).
In any case, turning to Basque, we see that the impersonal construction allows control into purpose clauses. Consider the example in (56).
If (56) were interpreted as an inchoative, that is, without an implied agent, the purpose clause following it would be ruled out. Thus, Basque is similar to English in this respect (54c). It must be noted that the non-finite clause headed by -tzeko is not an obligatory control structure, since it also allows an explicit agent (see Artiagoitia 2003).
Nevertheless, in the impersonal reading of the structure, if no explicit agent is present in the purpose clause, the implicit agent of the impersonal is necessarily interpreted as the controller of the subject in the embedded clause. At this point, one conclusion to be drawn is that the Basque impersonal behaves like passives in English. In this respect, Basque impersonal patterns with French middles, which have been argued to be parasitic on the reflexive-marked passive (Lekakou 2005).
However, as has been shown for French, control into purpose clauses in Basque impersonals becomes impossible if we retain a stative interpretation. For instance, in an impersonal construction involving the verb jan ‘eat’ headed by the imperfective aspectual suffix, the meaning of potential modality is obtained (58a), as in prototypical middles (see Section 2.1). But if we include a non-finite -tzeko purpose clause where PRO is controlled by the implicit agent of the impersonal, the interpretation obtained is a habitual one (58b).
As can be seen, the impersonal in itself is not incompatible with control into purpose clauses – even with imperfective morphology – but the stative (middle) interpretation of this construction seems to be in complementary distribution with it.
3.2.2 Licensing of agent-oriented adverbial modifiers
Basque impersonals show another property that is also shared by passives, namely the ability to license agent-oriented adverbial modifiers. This is illustrated for English with the adverb deliberately in (59a), (59b) and (60).
The pair shows the asymmetry between a passive (59a) and an inchoative (59b): while the former is grammatical, the latter is considered deviant by Bhatt and Pancheva (2005). Middles are also ungrammatical in this context (60). Basque impersonals show a behavior similar to that seen in passives.
Note that (61) could also be read as an inchoative, but in that case the interpretation obtained would be pragmatically deviant, as in English.
The licensing of agent-oriented adverbial modifiers shows that Basque impersonals have an implicit agent that is syntactically active, as in canonical passives, a property that is not shared by type-I middles. With regards to this property, Basque impersonals and Spanish reflexive-marked passives behave alike.
Similarly, as shown by Lekakou (2005), French reflexive-marked passives and Greek middles share the same property, that is, they allow agent-oriented modifiers of this sort.
3.2.3 Licensing of instrumental or comitative phrases
In Section 3.1.1 we showed that Basque impersonals do not allow the presence of an overt agent marked by an instrumental phrase. In this regard, Basque impersonals and English-like middles behave alike, as exemplified in (63a) and (63b), and the former diverge from canonical passives.
However, Basque impersonals allow instrumental or comitative phrases licensed by an implicit agent, with the nominal denoting the instrument that the agent has used to perform the action denoted by the verb.
In this sentence, the implicit agent is the one who catches crabs with their hands or with a trap manipulated by them. Note that in a version of the example that includes eskuekin lit. ‘with hands’, there is a relation of inalienable possession between the implicit agent and the instrument. In such instances, there is an implicit agent that is syntactically present.
Instances involving instrumental or comitative phrases behave like the agent-oriented adverbial modifiers explored in Section 3.2.2. Hence, the idea that Basque impersonals involve a syntactically active implicit agent is once again confirmed.
3.2.4 Licensing of secondary predicates
The licensing of secondary predicates is considered another test for the syntactic presence of implied arguments (Collins 2005), although not all syntactically active implied arguments seem to be able to do this. The implied agents of Basque impersonals can naturally be attributed properties by adjectives.
Whether passives allow such depictives in English is a matter of debate. According to Collins (2005), English passives license secondary predicates (66), and he regards this fact as evidence for the syntactic presence of the agent argument.
However, secondary predicates are not always accepted in this type of configuration, and Landau (2010) proposes that their absence is a consequence of the implicit agent of passives being a weak implicit argument. According to him, secondary predicates must be licensed by strong implied arguments, namely DPs. Thus, the implicit agent of passives cannot license a secondary predicate because it is a weak implicit argument.
Nevertheless, the situation is not the same across languages. For instance, passives in German can license secondary predicates, as shown by Alexiadou et al. (2015: 132).
If Landau (2010) is right, the implied agent argument of Basque would be a strong implied argument. In fact, Berro et al. (2021) (see also Section 5) show that the implied subject in Basque impersonals can bind reciprocal anaphors as well as a certain type of reflexive anaphor (see also Ortiz de Urbina 2003).
3.3 Interim summary
In Table 2, we summarize the main properties of Basque impersonals in comparison to English-like passives.
|Properties||English-type Passive||Basque impersonal|
|By-phrase and alike||✔||✗|
|Person restriction on grammatical subject||✗||✔|
|Obligatory human logical subject||✗||✔|
|Control into purpose clauses||✔||✔|
|Licensing of agent-oriented adverbs||✔||✔|
|Licensing of instrumental phrases||✔||✔|
|Control of secondary predicates||✔/✗||✔|
As can be seen, the implicit agent of both Basque impersonals and passives can allow control into purpose clauses, and license agent-oriented modifiers and instrumental phrases. Another test – the ability to license secondary predicates – seems to be more problematic in English, as authors do not agree about its grammaticality. In Basque impersonals, on the other hand, secondary predicates are perfectly grammatical. Finally, there are three diagnostics that distinguish English-type passives from Basque impersonals: the presence of an explicit agent argument as an adjunct, the person restriction on the grammatical subject and the obligatory human interpretation of the logical subject. As we have shown, Basque impersonals do not allow instrumental phrases denoting the agent, but in this respect they could be considered agentless passives. Nevertheless, the person restriction on the grammatical subject and the human nature of the logical subject are not properties attested in passives of any type. Regarding the person restriction, we will see in the next section that there is a non-standard strategy that is used by some Basque speakers as a way to overcome the person restriction.
4 Circumventing person restrictions: impersonals with a dative subject
In Section 3.1.2, we showed that Basque impersonals can only be formed if the grammatical subject (thematic object) is in the 3rd person. Leaving aside examples from ealier language stages like those shown in (47) and (48) and some exceptional and controversial contemporary examples as shown in (50) and (51), the impersonal construction is assumed to be ungrammatical with 1st or 2nd person grammatical subjects. As discussed, this is a feature that Basque impersonal shares with English middles and that sets them apart from English-type passives. In this connection, there is one strategy that allows the person restriction to be circumvented: the shift to a dative subject (Ortiz de Urbina 1988, 2003, ). In the examples below we can see a transitive personal sentence (69a), its impersonal ungrammatical counterpart (69b) and an alternative impersonal with the dative theme (69c).
In the ungrammatical impersonal construction in (69b), the thematic object becomes the grammatical subject, bearing both absolutive case and showing absolutive agreement. As shown in Section 3.1.2, this impersonal is ungrammatical because the grammatical subject is 2nd person. Nevertheless, if the 2nd person theme is marked dative and a corresponding dative agreement marker is included in the auxiliary, as in (69c), the result becomes grammatical for many speakers.
Much research is still needed to fully understand the nature of impersonals with dative theme. Nonetheless, we can share some preliminary thoughts. First of all, the strategy seems to be restricted to the spoken language, given that no written examples can be found in the Contemporary Reference Prose or Contemporary Dynamic Prose corpora of Basque. Second, this is unquestionably not a standard strategy and it does not seem to belong to a particular dialect of Basque. Specifically, it does not seem to be restricted to Western Basque, although the speakers we informally consulted are all from this dialectal area. Third, the strategy is reminiscent of differential object marking (DOM) (for Basque, see Fernández and Rezac 2010, 2016; Odria 2012, 2014, 2017), although, as pointed out by Ortiz de Urbina (2011–2019), the speakers that accept and produce these impersonal constructions do not necessarily accept DOM in the transitive structure, such as zuri ikusi dizut ‘I have seen you’, with a 2nd person dative object instead of the canonical absolutive. Dative themes of impersonals are also available with 3rd person subjects, though only if they are [+human].
Apart from dative themes, other dative arguments can be present in impersonal constructions. In fact, Example (69c), repeated here for convenience, can have another interpretation involving an indirect object.
This example can be interpreted not only as an impersonal including a 2nd person dative theme (69c) but also as an impersonal based on a ditransitive verb such as eraman ‘take’, like the example (73) (see Section 2.4 for the anti-double-object condition).
In this ditransitive construction, the 2nd person dative agreement marker corresponds to the covert indirect object (zuri ‘to you’). Similarly, in its impersonal counterpart (72), the dative argument is an indirect object and not a theme. In this second reading, there is a covert absolutive theme that could also appear overtly, such as gutuna ‘the letter’. Note that the auxiliary form is apparently the same, namely zaizu be.2sgDat[3abs], in both the impersonal involving the dative theme in (69c) and the impersonal involving the dative indirect object in (73). However, the former, unlike the latter, shows 3rd person dummy agreement that cross-references no absolutive argument.
The dative arguments occurring in both constructions are not syntactically similar. The dative theme of the impersonal licenses secondary predicates (74a), just like absolutive themes (74b).
In contrast, secondary predicates in impersonals involving a dative indirect object cannot be controlled by the dative. In (75), the predicates pozik ‘happy’ cannot be predicated of the dative argument zuri ‘you’– it can only be predicated of the implicit agent (indexed as i).
Thus, the dative theme of impersonals seems to be syntactically similar to the absolutive theme, at least with regard to the licensing of secondary predicates. This is reminiscent of the contrast found with DOM objects and indirect objects. In fact, DOM objects license secondary predicates even though they are marked dative, whereas indirect objects do not (Fernández and Rezac 2010, 2016; Odria 2012, 2014, 2017; Ortiz de Urbina and Fernández 2016). For a formal analysis of impersonals including dative themes, see Berro et al. (2021).
5 Basque impersonals and subject-suppressing impersonals
In the preceding section, we compared Basque impersonals to English-like passives. As we have seen, there are some striking similarities between the two languages regarding the syntactic behavior of the implicit subject. However, unlike English, Basque cannot express the logical subject by means of an oblique of the by-phrase type. This can be interpreted as meaning that Basque impersonals are agentless passives or, alternatively, that they are subject-suppressing impersonals (Blevins 2003). This particular instance of impersonal constructions has been observed and analyzed by Blevins in Balto-Finnic languages such as Estonian, Balto-Slavic languages such as Polish and Celtic languages such as Welsh. Blevins identifies three main features that distinguish these impersonals from passives. First of all, not only transitive verbs but also unaccusative and unergative verbs may participate in impersonal constructions. Secondly, the suppressed subject is interpreted as human and non-human subjects are not allowed. Third and lastly, agentive obliques of the by-phrase type analyzed above (Section 3.1.1) are either less acceptable or unacceptable altogether. As we will see, these three characteristics are shared by Basque impersonals. However, unlike the subject-suppressing impersonals analyzed by Blevins, Basque impersonals are detransitivized constructions. In this section, we will focus on one of the many constructions analyzed by Blevins under the label “impersonal”. In particular, we will compare Basque impersonals to Polish no/to-constructions (Blevins 2003; Kibort 2004; Siewierska 1988). As we will see, Basque impersonals share many characteristics with Polish no/to-constructions, such as the three general properties listed above, as well as other properties explored by Kibort (2004), e.g. concerning syntactic control and the binding of reflexive anaphora.
5.1 Where Basque impersonal diverge from Polish no/to-constructions: detransitivization
Polish no/to-constructions are impersonals that suppress the realization of a syntactic subject (Blevins 2003). These impersonal constructions, exemplified in (76b), contrast with personal passives as illustrated in (76a). Example (76a) is a detransitivized construction with an object promoted to subject, and a demoted subject marked by an oblique phrase. In the passive construction, the passive auxiliary być agrees in person and number with the subject. In contrast, the impersonal in (76b) is an active construction: the object in (76b) retains its accusative case and czytano is transitive. Moreover, the object does not trigger agreement (Blevins 2003: 491).
As Blevins (2003: fn 17) points out, gazetę ‘the paper’ is actually the object of the impersonal construction, as it appears in the genitive under negation – see also Siewierska (1988: 274). Hence, although the subject is suppressed, the impersonal remains transitive: neither is the subject demoted, nor is the object promoted. Crucially, Basque impersonals are detransitivized constructions, as has been repeatedly pointed out in the literature – see for instance, Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 579–581). We show the Basque counterpart of (76b) in (77).
In the Basque impersonal, the logical subject has been suppressed, as in Polish. Actually, there is no argument marked with ergative case in (77). As we have seen above, the only argument available in this construction is the logical object marked by absolutive case, i.e., egunkaria ‘the paper’. Additionally, there is no ergative agreement in the verbal inflection. Basque being an ergative language, both the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb are marked by absolutive case. Thus, we do not observe the theme alternating between nominative and accusative marking in the passive and the impersonal respectively, like in accusative languages such as Polish. Still, Basque does not only show a logical object marked by absolutive case in the impersonal construction; it also shows an intransitive auxiliary, a characteristic which suggests that the construction should be regarded as being detransitivized, with the only absolutive argument being the grammatical subject. It is worth pointing out that this intransitive auxiliary cannot agree with any ergative argument but agrees with the absolutive argument instead.
5.2 What Basque impersonals share with Polish no/to-constructions
5.2.1 Verb types
One of the properties mentioned by Blevins (2003) in order to distinguish passives from impersonals has to do with the nature of the verbs involved in the construction. The Basque example in (77), as well as many others presented above, have shown that transitive verbs can participate in this construction in Basque (see Section 2.3 of this article for a review of the verb types that can appear in Basque impersonals). This is also true for Polish impersonals, as we saw in (76b) above, for example. However, not only transitive verbs but also intransitive verbs can appear in Polish impersonals (Blevins 2003). For instance, (78) is a Polish impersonal construction involving an unergative verb (Kibort 2004: 48).
Similar examples based on unergative verbs such as dantzatu ‘dance’ or borrokatu ‘fight’ are also attested in Basque. Compare (80) to the Polish example in (78) and (81a) and (81b) to the Estonian examples in (79a) and (79b) respectively.
As observed by Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 580), if impersonals involve unergative verbs, no argument is available to serve as the subject of the impersonal, and the verb appears in a third person singular form, i.e., the unmarked one.
Basque unaccusative motion verbs such as etorri ‘come’ and joan ‘go’ are also attested in impersonals – see Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 582–583).
Unaccusative verbs other than motion verbs are also found, as in the following example from Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 582).
However, unaccusatives are more restricted than unergative and transitive verbs in Basque impersonals, as they are mainly available in the impersonal with a generic imperfective aspectual – thus, non-episodic – interpretation (Ortiz de Urbina 2003), and the verb classes are restricted (Rodet 1992).
5.2.2 Suppressed subjects
The impersonals explored by Blevins are characterized as subject-suppressing constructions. In Blevins’ words (2003: 485), the subject is “not demoted but unexpressed”. As a result, instances including an explicit subject are ungrammatical. This can be seen in the following example from Kibort (2004: 49) related to the impersonal no/to-construction in (78).
Basque impersonals reveal a more nuanced picture with regard to subjects. To begin with, impersonals based on transitive verbs such as irakurri ‘read’ in (77), repeated here as (86), do not overtly encode the logical subject. Thus at first glance it would seem that the logical subject is suppressed in Basque impersonals, like in Polish.
However, unlike Polish impersonals, Basque impersonals are detransitivized constructions in which the absolutive argument is preserved. The syntactic status of this absolutive argument merits some discussion, in particular, concerning the question of whether it remains an object or, alternatively, is promoted to a grammatical subject. Recall that in an ergative language like Basque we will not see the logical object changing its case marking from accusative to nominative whenever it is promoted to subject. Instead, the logical object is marked absolutive in both the personal transitive form and the impersonal form. Thus, based on case marking, we cannot state that the logical object has been promoted. Still, the presence of the intransitive auxiliary suggests that the only absolutive argument in (86) is actually the (derived) subject of the impersonal construction. If a transitive auxiliary were available in the Basque impersonal, then the absolutive argument could be considered a grammtical object. However, with a detransitivized structure, as the intransitive auxiliary shows, the most plausible scenario is that the only absolutive argument is a grammatical subject and not an object – see Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 581) for impersonals that include both an absolutive argument, the logical object, and a dative goal. Summing up, Polish and Basque impersonals suppress the (logical) subject, but Basque shows a (derived) subject completely absent in Polish.
The similarities between Polish and Basque impersonals are more evident when the predicate involved is intransitive. In these instances, there is no subject at all, as in the Basque impersonal example in (80), repeated here as (87a), including the unergative verb dantzatu ‘dance’. The intended impersonal construction including an overt subject in (87b) is ungrammatical, so the only reading available for this sentence is the personal interpretation.
To conclude, Polish and Basque impersonals suppress the logical subject. However, Polish preserves the transitive nature of the impersonal and retains the object whereas Basque impersonals are detransitivized constructions that feature a (derived) subject when based on a transitive verb.
5.2.3 On the human nature of the suppressed (logical) subject
It has been noted in the literature on subject-suppressing impersonals that the logical subject must be interpreted as human. Thus, the following example (88a) from Siewierska (1988: 263), adapted by Kibort (2004: 50, 282), can be only interpreted as involving a human logical subject. As shown in Section 3.1.3, Basque behaves the same in this respect (88b).
Even if the action expressed by the verb is attributed to an animal, the impersonal implies a human subject, as in the Estonian example (89), from Torn (2002: 95), apud Blevins (2003: 484). Its Basque counterpart in (89b) must also perforce be interpreted as involving a human subject – see also Kibort (2004: 282) for similar examples in Polish.
Additionally, non-natural phenomena can be interpreted as the suppressed subjects of impersonals, as noted by Blevins (2003) for this construction in general, and by Kibort (2004: 282) for Polish (90a). Thus, the suppressed subject of the Polish construction is necessarily human.
Regarding the Basque counterpart in (90b), since the verb erre ‘burn out’ is a labile verb in Basque, it participates in the inchoative/causative alternation. As explained in Section 1.1, the intransitive form of such labile verbs is ambiguous. On the one hand, it can instantiate the impersonal construction of the causative, as in (90b). On the other, it can be interpreted as the inchoative variant, with the interpretation ‘the whole field burnt’. In the former reading, the implicit subject is necessarily human.
5.2.4 Oblique phrases
Subject-suppressing constructions are characterized by the impossibility of (or resistance to) the subject’s being expressed by an oblique phrase of the by-type (Blevins 2003). As reported by Blevins (2003: 485, 489), citing Matthews (1955: 370) and Tuldava (1994: 273), among others, this is true for Estonian (barring a few exceptions). In other languages such as Polish, the expression of the subject in the impersonal by means of an oblique phrase is ungrammatical (91) – see also Example (76b) above, in comparison to the passive (76a).
As already discussed in Section 3.1.1., Basque impersonals exhibit the same restriction.
5.2.5 A suppressed but active subject: a brief overview
Although the impersonals under discussion are subject-suppressing constructions in Blevins’ terms, at least in no/to-impersonals, there is an active covert subject (Kibort 2004: 49). This active covert subject i) binds reflexive pronouns, ii) controls into purpose clauses, and iii) licenses agent-oriented adverbs. In this respect, the covert subject of the Polish impersonal behaves similarly to English passives and Basque impersonals. In what follows we present relevant data and refer the reader to Kibort (2004) for more information on control and raising.
22.214.171.124 Binding of reflexive anaphors
The suppressed subject of the impersonal can bind a reflexive anaphor (Blevins 2003: 475). This has been observed for Estonian (Blevins 2003: 485 citing Vihman 2001) and Polish (Kibort 2004: 50), as exemplified below.
However, as observed by Berro et al. (2021), if the reflexive anaphor is norbere burua [oneself’s head] ‘oneself’, which lacks a person specification, then the covert subject can bind the anaphor and the construction is grammatical.
Berro et al. (2021) argue that the logical subject of impersonals requires the reflexive anaphor norbere burua [oneself’s head] ‘oneself’ rather than bere burua [his/her head] ‘himself/herself’, because the latter is third person, but the logical subject in impersonals has an unspecified person feature and therefore cannot be co-indexed with a third person form.
126.96.36.199 Control into purpose clauses
The syntactic activity of the logical subject in Polish no/to-impersonal is further supported by the fact that it can control the unexpressed subject of a purpose clause.
As seen in Section 3.2.1, the implicit subject of Basque impersonals can also control the subject of a purpose clause.
188.8.131.52 Licensing of agent-oriented adverbs
Finally, the logical subject of no/to-impersonals in Polish can also license agent-oriented adverbials, as shown by Kibort (2004: 275–276).
Again, Basque patterns with Polish impersonals in this respect too, given that, as explained in Section 3.2.2, the logical subject in Basque impersonals can also license such adverbs.
5.3 Interim summary
In Table 3, we summarize the main properties of Basque impersonals in comparison to Polish no/to-impersonals.
|Properties||polish -no/-to impersonals||Basque impersonals|
|Detransitivization of the verbal form||✗||✔|
|Verbs involved: transitives, unergatives and unaccusatives||✔||✔|
|(Suppressed) (logical) subject||✔||✔|
|(Suppressed) Human indefinite subject||✔||✔|
|Biding of reflexive anaphora||✔||✗/✔|
|Control into purpose clauses||✔||✔|
|Licensing of agent-oriented adverbs||✔||✔|
In this section, we will discuss some of the outcomes of the present study, considering the status of Basque impersonals within the typological framework of middles, passives and subject-suppressing impersonals. On the one hand, middles and passives are similar in that in both cases the logic object is realized as the grammatical subject, and the agent or logical subject, although not formally present, is semantically implied. The latter is also true for subject-suppressing impersonals. On the other hand, these three constructions are different with regard to a number of other morphosyntactic properties, some of them discussed in this study. As shown in the previous sections, the Basque impersonal construction shares some properties with middles (of type I as classified in Ackema and Schoorlemmer 2005) and many properties with passives and subject-suppressing impersonals. Specifically, the Basque impersonal resembles middles and subject-suppressing impersonals in that the implicit external argument cannot be overtly expressed in an adpositional phrase and, particularly, it patterns with middles in that the grammatical (absolutive) subject must be 3rd person (Urrestarazu 2019). Nevertheless, Basque impersonals differ from the middle in languages such as English in that the event is actually instantiated, it allows more aspectual and modal interpretations, and it can be formed with more classes of verbs. In terms of all those properties, the Basque impersonal seems to be closer to the passive and the subject-suppressing impersonals than to middles. In fact, even though the implicit agent argument of impersonals is not reflected in auxiliary choice or verbal agreement, it is syntactically active, as can be concluded from the tests presented in Section 3.2: it can control purpose/rationale clauses and it can license agent-oriented adverbs, secondary predicates and instrumental phrases. Thus, in Basque impersonals, the implicit agent argument is both semantically and syntactically present, like in passives and subject-suppressing impersonals, and unlike in middles, which have semantically, but not syntactically, active agents. Moreover, Basque impersonals pattern with subject-suppressing impersonals in having a logical subject that is necessarily interpreted as human, but resemble passives in showing detransitivized verbal morphology.
Thus, attending to the syntactic contribution of the implicit agent in Basque impersonals and the detransitivized verbal morphology, one could consider the Basque impersonal construction to be in reality a sort of agentless passive. In fact, Ackema and Schoorlemmer (2005) suggest that type II middles – a group in which Basque impersonals could be classified – should be analyzed as passives. In a similar fashion, Lekakou (2005) argues that Greek and French middles, which according to her have a syntactically active implicit agent, are syntactically indistinguishable from passives. Nevertheless, the Basque impersonal exhibits a person restriction on the grammatical subject, a feature that significantly limits the use of the impersonal in comparison to the passive in other languages such as English or Spanish. Moreover, it also requires a human implicit agent, a property not attested in passives of any type. Therefore, Basque impersonals can be thought of as an intermediate construction which does not completely coincide with middles, passives or subject-suppressing impersonals, thus lying somewhere in the middle.
Whether Basque has a real passive construction or not is a topic that has been much debated in the literature. As already pointed out in the introduction to this article, Basque grammarians have attributed the term “passive” to some structures that do not fit the traditional typological definition. In fact, Saltarelli et al. (1988: 219) consider the construction involving the adjectival participle (ending in -a, see Berro 2019; Eguzkitza 1981; Ortiz de Urbina and Uribe-Etxebarria 1991) to be a passive (see also Alberdi and Sarasola 2001: 44–45, 160–164; Bollebacher 1977; Euskaltzaindia 1991: 294–296, 1993: 16–19; Rebuschi 1984; and others).
As can be seen in (97a) and (97b), in this construction the perfective participle is headed by -a and agrees in number with the theme gutuna/gutunak ‘letter/letters’, i.e., the direct object of the lexical verb bidali ‘send’. On the other hand, the implied ergative-marked agent is missing, although it could be introduced in a fixed position preceding the participle, as can be seen in (98).
Even in this case, the ergative agent does not trigger agreement, just like in (97). Thus, the inflected element is an intransitive copula (izan ‘be’ or the locative copula egon ‘be’), even though the verb bidali ‘send’ is (di)transitive and is interpreted agentively.
Given that in this construction the thematic object behaves like a grammatical subject and the agent is usually not overtly realized, it has been considered a passive by some authors (Alberdi and Sarasola 2001: 44–45, 160–164; Euskaltzaindia 1991: 294–296, 1993: 16–19; Rebuschi 1984; Saltarelli 1988; and others). However, as argued by Ortiz de Urbina and Uribe-Etxebarria (1991), there are many reasons not to regard it as a passive. In fact, the following evidence supports a biclausal analysis of the construction, where the inflected element, the copula, takes the participial clause – with subject/object gap – as a complement. First of all, the agent of the event denoted by the verb embedded in the participle is not demoted, as we have already shown in (98). This is particularly relevant when it comes to considering (97) a passive, i.e., a detransitivized construction in which the direct object becomes the subject (or in other words, the direct object is promoted) and the subject becomes an adjunct (i.e., it is demoted) and thus can be omitted. Second, there are some word-order constraints that are surprising in a free word order language such as Basque. For instance, the agent marked by ergative cannot precede the theme, a consequence of the fact that the agent is inside the participial clause and therefore not in the sphere of verbal inflection.
If this construction were monoclausal, the agent would be expected to appear either before the theme or after the inflected element, without causing ungrammaticality. Compare (99) with (100), a monoclausal transitive sentence where the agent is in the same clause as the inflected verb.
Third, in the presence of an indirect object marked by dative, dative agreement is not obligatory in the copula, a surprising fact taking into account that dative arguments must generally agree with the auxiliary.
These facts and other evidence suggest, as proposed by Ortiz de Urbina and Uribe-Etxebarria (1991), that the construction in (97) is really biclausal, and not an instance of a monoclausal passive (see Berro 2019 for a syntactic and semantic analysis).
On the other hand, in analyzing classical texts, some authors such as Altuna (1987: 232, 234) and Zulaika (1998: 779–784) use the label ‘passive’ not only for constructions like those in (97) but also for those instances of impersonals that can be found in previous stages of the language, where 1st and 2nd person subjects were allowed (Examples (47), (48) and (50)). We repeat Example (50c) as (102) here for convenience.
With regard to these two constructions, that is, the one including the -a headed participle in (97) and the one in (102), only the latter can be considered a true passive. Unlike the -a participial construction, the old impersonal construction is monoclausal, and has no person restrictions. In relation to this, it must be noted that the person restriction is one of the main criteria distinguishing Basque impersonals from passives cross-linguistically. Thus, the old impersonal fulfills almost all the conditions to be considered a real passive.
Last but not least, Urrestarazu (2019) refers to Basque impersonals as middles. This designation can be also misleading, as Basque impersonals behave in a way that is much more similar to passives and impersonals than to middles, at least to type I middles in Ackema and Schoorlemmer’s (2005) typology. As shown in Section 2, the Basque impersonal construction seems to be broader than this kind of middle. Given this, we claim that in Basque the middle is best regarded as a semantic interpretation, parasitic on an impersonal construction that can be used in more contexts than the middle (see Lekakou 2005 for a similar approach but defending a passive analysis). As we have shown, the impersonal has some properties that are usually attributed to passives, and in all these features, the Basque impersonal seems to be very close to the reflexive-marked passives of Romance languages, particularly those of Spanish. However, this line of analysis merits more detailed research.
All in all, the comparison of Basque impersonals with middles, passives and impersonals cross-linguistically, as well as with reflexive-marked passives in Spanish, reveals that it is very difficult to propose a single syntactic definition for passives, middles or impersonals that will hold cross-linguistically. In fact, all three constructions seem to be subject to variation across languages, presumably due to the morphosyntactic requirements of each language. For instance, regarding passives, Alexiadou (2014) and Alexiadou et al. (2015) have proposed two syntactic ways of forming passives: one is present in languages such as English or German, and the other is present in languages like Greek. Without going into the detail, the most important consequences of having two configurations is that the English- or German-type passive is much more productive and systematic than the Greek one, which, for instance, only accepts a subset of verbs (some agentive verbs) and exhibits some restrictions regarding the introduction of apo ‘by’ phrases. On the other hand, middles have also been shown to vary across languages (as we have also demonstrated in this article). In fact, Ackema and Schoorlemmer (2005) distinguish between type I and type II middles, with both of them having quite different morphosyntactic properties. Moreover, Lekakou (2005) argues that middles ascribe a dispositional property to the understood object, where dispositional ascriptions are subject-oriented generic sentences. According to her, languages differ in terms of the choice of the structure that gives rise to such an interpretation. Along the same lines, Fábregas and Putnam (2014) and Alexiadou (2014) propose that the middle is better defined as a semantic interpretation that can be obtained with different syntactic constructions across languages. In a different but similar direction, Kemmer (1993) suggested that the middle must be regarded as an expressive strategy with the particular function of signaling “a departure from the canonical transitive event type in the direction of an intransitive event type” (Kemmer 1993: 209), a definition that served better to account for the various realizations of the middle across languages. In conclusion, the morphosyntactic shape of middles varies across languages, and to a certain extent, the same is true of passives and impersonals. In fact, as we have seen, even though Basque impersonals share many properties with subject-suppressing impersonals as described by Blevins (2003), they are also different in the arrangement of verbal morphology and the type of grammatical subject permitted. Thus, as far as English-type middles, passives and subject-suppressing impersonals are concerned, Basque impersonals seem to share properties with all of these constructions, but do not fully coincide with any of them.
In this article, we have presented and analyzed Basque impersonals, comparing them in particular with English-type middles, English-type passives, and Polish subject-suppressing impersonals. We have concluded that, though Basque impersonals seem to be closer to the passive and the subject-suppressing impersonal, they cannot be fully categorized as either. First, Basque impersonals share with middles the inability to have the implicit agent realized as an adjunct, and the person restriction on the grammatical subject. Second, Basque impersonals are similar to the passive in that the subject is syntactically active: it allows agent-oriented modifiers, instrumental/comitative phrases, control of purpose clauses and secondary predicates co-indexed with the implicit agent. Finally, we have shown that Basque impersonals resemble subject-suppressing impersonals to a considerable degree, but differ from them in their detransitivized verbal morphology, and the person restriction on the grammatical subject. Thus, Basque impersonals have a syntactically active implicit agent, unlike English-type middles, but they cannot be considered either passives or subject-suppressing impersonals, as the person restriction on the grammatical subject considerably limits their distribution.
Funding source: The Basque Governmenthttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003086
Award Identifier / Grant number: IT1169-19
Funding source: Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaciónhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014440
Award Identifier / Grant number: PGC2018-096380-B-I00
Funding source: Agence Nationale de la Reserchehttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001665
Award Identifier / Grant number: ANR-17-CE27-0011-BIM
Research funding: The research was financially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities’ research project PGC2018-096380-B-I00; from the Basque Government’s research project IT1169, and from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche’s ANR-17-CE27-0011-BIM research project.
Ackema, Peter & Maaike Schoorlemmer. 2005. Middles. In Martin Everaert & Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 3, 131–203. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch42Search in Google Scholar
Alberdi, Xabier & Ibon Sarasola. 2001. Euskal estilo libururantz [Towards a style book of Basque]. Bilbao: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitateko Argitalpen Zerbitzua.Search in Google Scholar
Albizu, Pablo. 1997. En torno a la inacusatividad sintáctica de las construcciones impersonales del euskera. Interlingüística 8. 13–18.Search in Google Scholar
Albizu, Pablo. 2001. Sobre la distribución sintáctica de las formas finitas del verbo vasco: condicionamiento léxico y sintáctico. Supplements of ASJU 35(1). 65–106.Search in Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou Elena & Florian Schäfer. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Altuna, Patxi. 1987. Linguae vasconum primitiae, Bernard Etxepare, Critical edn. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia & Mensajero.Search in Google Scholar
Arteatx, Iñigo & Xabier Artiagoitia. 2018. Eguraldiaren gramatika euskaraz eta gramatika teoria. Meteorological expressions in Basque grammar and the theory of grammar. ASJU 52(1–2). 3–60.10.1387/asju.20192Search in Google Scholar
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003. Adjunct subordination. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), A grammar of Basque, 710–762. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva. 2005. Implicit arguments. In Martin Everaert & Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 3, 558–588. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch34Search in Google Scholar
Berro, Ane. 2010. Unergative predicates in Basque varieties: Consequences for the ergative case assignment. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) DEA research work.Search in Google Scholar
Berro, Ane. 2015. Breaking verbs. From event structure to syntactic categories in Basque. Vitoria-Gasteiz & Bordeaux: UPV/EHU and Université Bordeaux Montaigne (UBM) dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Berro, Ane, Oyharçabal Bernard & Beatriz Fernández. 2018. Inkoatibo/arazle alternantzia euskaraz eratortzen [Deriving the inchoative/causative alternation in Basque]. In Beatriz Fernández & Ane Berro (eds.), Euskaratik giza hizkuntzara. Jon Ortiz de Urbinari gorazarre [From Basque to human language: In honor of Jon Ortiz de Urbina]. [Special Issue]. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 126, 365–388.Search in Google Scholar
Berro, Ane & Beatriz Fernández. 2019. (Euskal) bozak: erdikoak, inkoatiboak eta arazleak [(Basque) voices: middles, inchoatives and causatives]. In Itziar Laka (ed.), Hitzak sarean. Pello Salabururi eskerronez [Words in the net. In gratitude to Pello Salaburu], 47–64. Bilbao: UPV/EHU Basque Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Bollebacher, John. 1977. The Basque passive. In William A. Douglass, Richard W. Etulain & William H. JacobsenJr (eds.), Anglo-American contributions to Basque studies: Essays in honor of Jon Bilbao, 181–192. Reno, NV: Desert Research Institute Publications on the Social Sciences nº13.Search in Google Scholar
Brettschneider, Gunter. 1979. Typological characteristics of Basque. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Toward a theory of grammatical relations, 371–384. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cabañas, Rebeca. 2006. La animacidad como factor de variación entre la pasiva perifrástica y la pasiva refleja. Anuario de Letras: Lingüística y Filología 44. 125–146.Search in Google Scholar
Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia. 1997. The German middle construction. Paris: Université Paris 7 DEA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia. 2017. Voice and voice alternations. In Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax, 418–442. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110377088-006Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion: the impersonal passive. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and semantics 8: Grammatical relations, 47–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368866_004Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Duguine, Maia. 2008. Silent arguments without pro: The case of Basque. In Teresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today), 311–329. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.132.13dug.Search in Google Scholar
Duguine, Maia. 2013. Null arguments and linguistic variation: A minimalist analysis of pro-drop. Nantes & Vitoria-Gasteiz: Université de Nantes and UPV/EHU dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Eguzkitza, Andolin. 1981. On the so-called passive in Basque. FLV 37. 233–254.Search in Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael & Silvi Vare. 1995, Eesti keele grammatika, vol. 1 Morfoologia. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.Search in Google Scholar
Elordieta, Arantzazu. 2001. Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Utrecht: LOT.Search in Google Scholar
Euskaltzaindia. 1991. Euskal gramatika. Lehen urratsak I (EGLU I). [Basque grammar. First steps I]. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.Search in Google Scholar
Euskaltzaindia. 1993. Euskal gramatika laburra: perpaus bakuna (EGLA). [A brief grammar of Basque: the main clause]. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.Search in Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio & Michael T. Putnam. 2014. The emergence of middle voice readings with and without agents. The Linguistic Review 31(2). 193–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0002.Search in Google Scholar
Fagan, Sarah M. 1992. The syntax and semantics of middle constructions: A study with special reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández, Beatriz & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2010. Datiboa hiztegian [The dative in the dictionary]. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández, Beatriz & Milan Rezac. 2010. Datibo osagarri bitxiak eta Datiboaren Lekualdatzea: ari nai diyot eta kanta egin nazu bidegurutzean [(Dative) quirky objects and dative displacement]. In Beatriz Fernández, Pablo Albizu & Ricardo Etxepare (eds.), Euskara eta euskarak: aldakortasun sintaktikoa aztergai [Basque and its varieties: exploring syntactic variation]. Supplements of ASJU 52, 113–149. .Search in Google Scholar
Fernández, Beatriz & Milan Rezac. 2016. Differential object marking in Basque varieties. In Beatriz Fernández & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque, 93–137. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.13.05ferSearch in Google Scholar
Fernández, Beatriz, Fernando Zuñiga & Ane Berro. 2020. Datives with psych nouns and adjectives in Basque. Folia Linguistica 54(3). 647–696. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2020-2050.Search in Google Scholar
Gaminde, Iñaki. 2006. Herririkera: Osotu ala ordeztu? [The local variety: completing or substituting?]. In Paulo Agirrebaltzategi (ed.), Mendebaldetik 10 urtegarrenean [From the West in our tenth anniversary], 79–124. Bilbao: Mendebalde kultur elkartea.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser. 1988. Explaining and constraining the English middle. In Carol L. Tenny (ed.), Studies in generative approaches to aspect. (Lexicon Project Working Papers 24), 41–57. Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Comrie Bernard & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has.Search in Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & René Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.19184.108.40.206.Search in Google Scholar
Irigoyen, Alfontso. 1992. Euskal litteratura zaharrari dagokiola verbo-systema periphrastikoan boz aktivoari oposatzen zaion boz pasivoaz ohar gisako elea berriz ere [A note on passive voice that is in opposition to active voice in the periphrastic verbal system attested in Basque old literature]. De Re Philologica Linguae Uasconicae IV, 287–290. Bilbao: Wilsen.Search in Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin. 2001. The passive voice. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 899–916. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Passive in the world’s languages. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 1st edn., 243–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619427.006Search in Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Matthew S. Dryer. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol I: Clause structure, 2nd edn., 325–361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619427.006Search in Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 381–416.Search in Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna. 2004. Passive and passive-like constructions in English and Polish. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2010. Voice typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Linguistic Typology, 368–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0019Search in Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that asign accusative. In Jonathan D. Bobaljik & Colin Phillips (eds.), Papers on case and agreement I. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 14), 149–172. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL .Search in Google Scholar
Lekakou, Maria. 2005. In the middle, somehow elevated. London: University College of London dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1983. On the nature of ergativity. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 421–446.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, William K. (1955). Lithuanian constructions with neuter passive participles. The Slavonic and East European Review 33(81). 350–371.Search in Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones con se: medias, pasivas e impersonales. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Search in Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2012. Passive and se constructions. In José Ignacio Hualde, Antxon Olarrea & Erdin O’Rourke (eds.), The handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, 477–502. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781118228098.ch23Search in Google Scholar
Mitxelena, Luis & Ibon Sarasola. 1989–2005. Diccionario general vasco. Orotariko euskal hiztegia (OEH) [General Basque Dictionary]. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia. http://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=276&Itemid=413&lang=eu.Search in Google Scholar
Mounole, Céline. 2014 . Le verbe basque ancien : étude philologique et diachronique. ASJU 48. Donostia-San Sebastián: UPV/EHU and Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia.Search in Google Scholar
Mujika, Amagoia. 2016. Txirritaren etorria, etenik gabeko iturria, 80 urtez [Txirrita’s inspiration, a source without interruption]. Gara. http://naiz.eus/eu/hemeroteca/gaur8/editions/gaur8_2016-06-04-07-00/hemeroteca_articles/txirritaren-etorria-etenik-gabeko-iturria-80-urtez.Search in Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8. 149–211. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.005.Search in Google Scholar
Odria, Ane. 2012. What lies behind differential object marking: a survey in Basque dialects. In Pello Salaburu, Patxi Goenaga & Ibon Sarasola (eds.), Sareko euskal gramatika (SEG). [Online Basque Grammar]. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).Search in Google Scholar
Odria, Ane. 2014. Differential object marking and the nature of dative case in Basque varieties. Linguistic Variation 14–2, 289–317. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.14.2.03odr.Search in Google Scholar
Odria, Ane. 2017. Differential object marking and datives in Basque syntax. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1988. Interferentzia sintaktiko berezi batez [On an unusual syntactic interference]. In II. Euskal Mundu-Biltzarra, Euskara Biltzarra. I. atala: hizkuntz deskribapena. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza.Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1991. Deskribapenetik azalpenetara euskal gramatikan [From description to explanation in Basque grammar]. In Adolfo Arejita (ed.), Euskal Sintaxiaz, 11–27. Bilbao: Labayru.Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2003. Impersonal clauses. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), A grammar of Basque, 572–591. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895285.572Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2006. Old Basque (medio)passives. ASJU 40. 763–786.Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2011–2019. Aditz inpertsonalak [Impersonal verbs]. In Pello Salaburu, Ibon Sarasola & Patxi Goenaga (eds.), Sareko euskal gramatika (SEG): Univ. of the Basque Country. [Online Basque Grammar]. http://www.ehu.eus/seg/morf/5/12/2/2#predikatu_inpertsonalak.Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2019. Word order. In Ane Berro, Beatriz Fernández & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Basque and Romance: Aligning grammars, 14–58. Leiden & Boston: Brill.10.1163/9789004395398Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 1991. Participial predication in Basque. Supplements of the International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology (ASJU). [Memoriae L. Mitxelena Magistri Sacrum] 14(2). 993–1012.Search in Google Scholar
Oihenart, Arnault. 1657. Les Proverbes Basques, recueillis par le Sr. d’Oihenart; plus les po’sies Basques du mesme Auteur. Paris. [ed. Facsimil, 1935 RIEV 26(2), 201–264].Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon & Beatriz Fernández. 2016. Datives in Basque bivalent unergatives. In Beatriz Fernández & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque, 67–93. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.13.04ortSearch in Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier. 2008. Kausatibo aldizkatzeak euskaraz eta inguruko hizkuntzetan [Causative alternation in Basque and surrounding languages]. In Xabier Artiagoitia & Joseba A. Lakarra (eds.), Gramatika jaietan Patxi Goenagaren omenez [Celebrating grammar in honor of Patxi Goenaga], Supplements of ASJU 51, 643–663.Search in Google Scholar
Oyharçabal, Bernard. 1992. Structural and inherent case-marking; Ergaccusativity in Basque. In Joseba A. Lakarra & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Syntactic Theory and Basque syntax. Supplements of ASJU 27, 309–342. Donostia-San Sebastián: UPV/EHU and Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia.Search in Google Scholar
Oyharçabal, Bernard. 2003. Lexical causatives and causative alternation in Basque. In Oyharçabal Bernard (ed.), Inquiries into the lexicon-syntax relations in Basque. Supplements of ASJU 46, 223–253.Search in Google Scholar
Pineda, Anna & Ane Berro. 2020. Hybrid intransitives in Basque. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). 22. https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.824/.10.5334/gjgl.824Search in Google Scholar
Rebuschi, George. 1984. Structure de l’énoncé en basque. Paris: SELAF.Search in Google Scholar
Rodet, Ana. 1992. Construccions amb lectura arbitrària en basc. ASJU 26. 145–179.Search in Google Scholar
Rijk, Rudolf de. 1969. Is Basque an SOV language? Fontes Linguae Vasconum 1. 319–351.Search in Google Scholar
Rijk, Rudolf de. 2008. Standard Basque: A progressive grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 267–310.Search in Google Scholar
Saltarelli, Mario, Miren Azkarate, David Farwell, Jon Ortiz de Urbina & Lourdes Oñederra. 1988. Basque. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Sarasola, Ibon, Pello Salaburu & Josu Landa. 2001–2007. Ereduzko prosa gaur (EPG). Bilbao; Vitoria-Gasteiz; Donostia-San Sebastián: University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). [Contemporary Reference Prose]. https://www.ehu.eus/en/web/eins/ereduzko-prosa-gaur-epg-.Search in Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2006. Middles as voiced anticausatives. Proceedings of NELS 37. 183–196.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. Passive: A cross-linguistic study. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1988. The passive in Slavic. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice: Typological studies in language, 243–289. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.16.09sieSearch in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Passive constructions. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/107.Search in Google Scholar
Torn, Reeli. 2002. The status of the passive in English and Estonian. RCEAL Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 7. 81–106.Search in Google Scholar
Tuldava, Juhan. 1994. Estonian textbook. (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic series 159). Bloomington: Indiana University.Search in Google Scholar
Urrestarazu, Iñigo. 2019. Nire barruko setatsua: (Euskal) boza eta erdiko egiturak [(Basque) voice and middle constructions]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU Final Degree Project.Search in Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1982. La construction ‘se-moyen’ du français et son statut dans le triangle moyen-passif-réfléchi. Linguisticae Investigationes. International Journal of Linguistics and Language Resources 6, 345–401. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/li.6.2.05zri.Search in Google Scholar
Zuazo, Koldo. 2004. Euskalkiak, herriaren lekukoak [Basque dialects: witnesses of the country]. Elkar: Donostia.Search in Google Scholar
Zuazo, Koldo. 2008. Euskalkiak, euskararen dialektoak [The dialects of Basque]. Elkar: Donostia.Search in Google Scholar
Zuazo, Koldo. 2013. The dialects of Basque. Reno: University of Nevada.Search in Google Scholar
Zulaika, Esther. 1998. Ioanes Leizarragren aditza [Ioanes Leizarraga’s verb]. Donostia: University of Deusto.Search in Google Scholar
Zuñiga, Fernando & Beatriz Fernández. 2021. Antipassivization in Basque revisited. In Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Antipassive constructions in languages of the world. (Typological Studies in Language Series), 621–640. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.130.19zunSearch in Google Scholar
© 2021 Beatriz Fernández and Ane Berro, published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.