Lexical and Syntactic Approaches to Middle Formation

This chapter is concerned with recent analyses of middle constructions and anticausatives. Almost all theories prefer a syntactic or lexical (presyntactic) solution: middle constructions are derived eiter in the lexicon or in the syntax. All syntactic or lexical analyses somehow manipulate the selectional properties of the verb or the linking of the verb’s arguments. Besides these two analyses, a conceivable third approach, which derives the thematic interpretation of middle constructions at the interface between syntax and semantic, has never been worked out in detail. This postsyntactic analysis takes the surface syntactic structure of middle constructions more serious and permits an unified analysis of the German middle voice we introduced in section 2.4 (i.e. of transitive sentences with an accusative reflexive pronoun). In a postsyntactic approach no manipulation of the argument structure and no additional linking-principles are necessary. According to this approach, the middle construction is only one possible interpretation of the middle voice in German. The semantic ambiguity of transitive reflexive sentences can be reduced to a semantic ambiguity of the accusative reflexive pronoun or, to be more specific, to the binding relation between the subject and the direct object. Besides, a postsyntactic analysis predicts that the middle constructions does not raise any theoretically important issues in terms of syntax or the lexicon. In the chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 we develop a postsyntactic analysis of the middle voice in German. In this chapter we first discuss the shortcomings of traditional lexical and syntactic approaches. The three possible analyses of middle constructions are illustrated in figure (1):

(1)

a.

Lexicon

(argument suppression – section 3.2)

b.

Syntax

(A movement – section 3.1)

c.

Semantics

(argument interpretation – chapter 4, 5 and 6)

The first two analyses (i) and (ii) are related to the common perspective on the interface between the lexicon and the syntax. Every analysis that assumes a one-to-one relation between semantic and syntactic arguments of a verb (as is claimed e.g. in the theta-criterion) must manipulate the the selectional properties of a verb somehow to make them compatible with the ‘argument structure’ of the middle construction. Two possibilities immediately come to mind: we can derive middle constructions, like passives, in syntax by means of A-movement of a deep structure object to the subject position or we derive a compatible argument structure presyntactically in the lexicon by means of argument suppression. Discussions of English, Dutch, Italian, and German middle constructions illustrate these two ways of analysing middle formation. Ironically, analyses of reflexive middle constructions in many languages have been influenced by the analysis of their non-reflexive counterparts in English and Dutch. The analysis of Stroik (1992, 1995 and 1999) and Hoekstra and Roberts (1993), for example, are inspired by syntactic analyses of passives. They analyze middle formation as a syntactic process. All semantic arguments of a verb are obligatorily linked to syntax. The external theta-role is assigned to some empty pronominal element (or a for-PP) and the internal theta-role is regularly assigned to the deep structure object, which moves to the external subject position for case reasons. Syntactic derivations of middle constructions can mainly be found in the discussion of English and Dutch middle constructions. This is not surprising. We already saw in section 2.3 that English and Dutch middle constructions are morphosyntactically unmarked. In contrast to Italian and German, middle constructions in Dutch and English do not select an additional reflexive pronoun. Hence, middle formation in these two languages could, in principle, be analysed as a kind of morphosyntactically unmarked passive. Hale and Keyser (1987) or Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1994) and (1995), on the other hand, are advocates of a lexical explanation of middle constructions in English and Dutch. They derive middle constructions on a presyntactic level of semantic representation (the Lexical-Conceptual Structure). Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1994) for example assume a lexical rule of middle formation (MF): Actor = ARB. Arguments that are ARB must not be projected syntactically. Hence, the second argument on the thematic hierarchy is linked to the subject position.

In the following subsections we discuss the shortcomings of lexical and syntactic analyses of middle constructions. This chapter is organized as follows. In the next section we criticize syntactic analyses of English, Dutch, Italian and German middle constructions. Section 3.2 deals with the shortcomings of lexical or presyntactic approaches to middle constructions in English, Dutch, French, and German. A greater part of the literature deals with English (and Dutch) middle constructions. Therefore, we always start off with a discussion of English and Dutch. Our criticism of these analyses is twofold. First, we discuss the conceptual and empirical shortcomings of analyses of English and Dutch middle constructions. Second, we check whether these analyses can be applied to German middle constructions. In a second step we discuss analyses of Italian si- and French se-constructions. In contrast to their English and Dutch counterparts, Romance middle constructions are reflexive and resemble the German middle construction, which we are mainly interested in. And finally, we turn to syntactic and lexical analyses that have been proposed for middle constructions and anticausatives in German. We will see that all lexical and syntactic analyses of middle formation make several empirical predictions that turn out to be incorrect at least for German. At best additional stipulations are necessary to explain the data in German. Furthermore, both lexical and syntactic theories cannot state any theoretically relevant generalization about middle constructions in German. Therefore, we argue for a alternative explanation of middle constructions in German, which is illustrated in (iii) in figure (1) above. So far Condoravdi (1989) and partly Zwart (1999)

See footnote 8 below for a brief comment on Zwart’s analysis.

, to our knowledge, seems to be the only advocates of a postsyntactic solution.

Syntactic theories

We begin with the discussion of the syntactic derivation of English and Dutch middle constructions (3.1.1), which has influenced the analysis of middle constructions in various languages. Advocates of a syntactic analysis emphasize the similarity between passives and middle constructions with respect to argument linking (cf. chapter 1 and 2). Furthermore, they tacitly start from the assumption that a syntactic analysis of passives is generally accepted. Therefore, their basic assumption is that the semantic interpretation of syntactic arguments in middle constructions can be derived in syntax by means of A-movement. The syntactic subject of a middle construction is base-generated in object position at deep structure (i.e. the complement position of V°). In this position it receives the theta-role of the internal or second argument (usually theme or patient). For case reasons the deep structure object moves into the subject-position (IP-Spec). Hence, A-movement creates a chain that receives nominative case and the internal theta-role. We discuss the shortcomings of syntactic analyses of English and Dutch middle constructions first. Secondly, we prove whether this idea would work in languages with reflexive middle constructions. We are mainly interested in the licensing of the reflexive pronoun. In subsection 3.1.2 we deal with the syntactic derivation of Italian middle constructions and in 3.1.3 we turn to syntactic analyses of German middle constructions.

English and Dutch

Stroik (1992, 1995 and 1998), Hoekstra and Roberts’s (1993) – henceforth H&R –, and Den Dikken (1997) analyses middle formation in English and Dutch as a syntactic process. The external theta-role is assigned in syntax to either pro in VP-Spec (H&R 1993/cf. 2.a) or PRO adjoined to VP (Stroik 1992/cf. 2.b). The subject of the middle construction receives the internal theta-role in the D-structure object position (ti in (2)) and moves to the IP-Spec position for reasons of case (cf. Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1995:174). Hence, both Stroik and H&R “assume that the lexicosemantic structure of a middle verb is the same as that of its active counterpart.” (Stroik 1999:120)

(2)

a.

[_IP walls [_I’ [_VP pro [_V’ paint t_i easily]]]]

(H&R 1993)

b.

[_IP walls [_I’ [_VP [_VP paint t_i easily]] PRO_i ]]]

(Stroik 1992)

Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1995) criticize mainly three shortcomings of Stroik (1992) and H&R (1993), which we briefly discuss.

See also Fagan (1992) for a criticism of Keyser and Roeper’s (1984) arguments in favor of a syntactic derivation of English middle constructions.

First, none of the arguments in favor of the syntactic presence of an empty pronominal element is convincing. Second, the same is true of the licensing conditions for the implicit argument.

Stroik claims that his derivation is not in conflict with the PRO-Theorem (cf. p. 135). But he must define dominance based on inclusion and on exclusion at the same time. In the first case INFL governs PRO and in the second case the verb (cf. also Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1995: 174).

Third, a movement analysis of middle constructions overgenerates: middle formation is more restricted than passive formation. Additionally, we discuss the shortcomings of Den Dikken (1997), who proposes a slightly modified version of H&R (1993). And finally, we argue that a movement analysis cannot be applied to middle formation in German.

Consider H&R’s analysis first. They argue that middle constructions in English and Dutch have a base-generated pro in the position of VP-Spec which receives the external theta-role of the verb. At the same time the D-structure object moves into the subject position at S-structure to receive nominative case.

H&R claim that only ‘affected’ arguments can be moved in middle constructions. To prevent nonaffected arguments from movement, H&R stipulate a second kind of accusative case. This case-distinction, which is not morphosyntactically but semantically motivated, seems to be only necessary to derive the ‘affectedness constraint’ (AC) within their syntactic framework (cf. also the discussion in 3.1.3 below for a similar problem). Besides, we expect passive to be subject to the AC, too, though NP-movement in passives is not limited to ‘affected’ arguments (cf. H&R 1993: 204).

Another point is that the AC seems to be the wrong generalization (cf. Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994, Fagan 1992: 64f. and chapter 2). Verbs like to read or to photograph form perfectly fine middles yet their implicit arguments are not ‘affected’:
(i)

This book reads easily

(ii)

She photographs well

(Fagan 1992)

In chapter 2 we mentioned that German middles are not subject to the AC, either (for this issue see also the discussion of the lexical theories below).

The VP-internal pro is licensed by an extra condition H&R call ‘arb licensing’, cf. (H&R 1993: 190):

(3)

A, a lexical head, assigns the index arb to pro in its Θ assignment domain (sister of A). This index may be identified by a modifier or by some morphological element.

H&R propose a special licensing condition for pro in middle constructions, which is not morphological licensed but only ‘arb licensed’ and, therefore, (by stipulation) syntactically inactive. H&R “introduce a syntactic element that does not manifest itself.” (Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1995:176). It seems to be impossible to find empirical evidence for a syntactic inactive nonovert element. A syntactically inactive pro can neither bind a reflexive pronoun nor control PRO in adjunct clauses. However, this contradicts Stroik’s analysis, who considers binding and control data to be clear empirical evidence for the presence of a (syntactically active) implicit external argument (cf. below). As opposed to what is claimed by H&R, anaphor-binding and PRO-control by the implicit first argument is not ungramamtical in middle constructions. Nevertheless, we will see shortly that neither binding nor control provide a compelling arguments for the presence of a pro/PRO in syntax.

Although definition (3) states that the ‘arb-index’ may be identified by a modifier, H&R assume that the ‘arb-index’ must be identified by some adverbial in middle constructions. According to H&R, adverbials like easily select an experiencer role, which ‘identifies’ pro in middle constructions via ‘theta-identification’ (cf. Higginbotham 1985). The adverb’s experiencer role is identified with the verb’s external theta-role and the resulting ‘complex’ theta-role is assigned to pro in VP-Spec to ‘identify’ pro somehow. The following illustration, which is taken from den Dikken (1997), illustrates this issue - i-subscripting marks binding, k-superscripting marks identification, cf. below.

It remains also unclear what it means that V ‘assigns the index arb to pro’ and that ‘this index may be identified by a modifier’ (more concrete: by the experiencer role selected by an adverbial). Besides, H&R assume that the agent role is assigned to pro in syntax. Therefore, we expect subject-oriented adverbs to be possible in middle constructions. But they are ungrammatical in English and German, which is illustrated in (i):
(i) *New cars clean carefully

According to Roberts (1987), middle verbs are stative predicates. Under the assumption that adverbs like carefully are agent-oriented and eventive, these adverbs cannot occur in middle constructions. However, we argue below, that verbs in middle constructions are not stative predicates. They select an event argument, that is bound by a generic operator.

(4) [_VP pro [_V’ [_V’ V < Θ^k, Θ, E_i > NP] Adv < Θ^k, Θ_i >]]

As a consequence, all adverbs modifying middle constructions must select an experiencer role. This assumption is ad hoc and semantically unmotivated.

H&R give the following LF-representation (‘G’ is a generic operator) for the middle construction:

(i) G [e: V (x, NP, e)] (Adv (e, for x))

In the middle construction (ii) the adverb schnell (‘quickly’) for example modifies the whole event of grass-cutting. This sentence means that the grass-cutting does not take too much time in general. We are not aware of any independent criterion to decide whether or not schnell in (ii) selects an experiencer role. But we do not think that example (ii) can be paraphrased as follows (cf. H&R: 194): ‘In general, events in which some x cuts the grass are quick events for x’.
(ii)

Der Rasen mäht sich schnell

The grass cuts RP quickly

Furthermore, even whole adverbial phrases like wie ‘erbleichen’ ohne ‘Leichen’ and als seien … in example (iii) and (iv) must select an experiencer role. This assumption is again counterintuitive to us.
(iii)

‘Erb’ schreibt sich wie ‘erbleichen’ ohne ‘Leichen’

‘Erb’ writes RP like ‘erbleichen’ (i.e. to turn pale) without ‘Leichen’ (i.e. corpses)

(iv)

[Dieser Bericht] liest sich, als seien die Berliner Lehrer und Polizisten schlimme Fremdenfeinde, …

This report reads RP as are the Berlin teachers and policemen bad racists

‘This report sounds as if all teachers and policemen in berlin are racists’

(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 12.9.2000)

Moreover, we saw in chapter 2 that adverbial modification is not obligatory in middle constructions in German. The same holds for English and Dutch (cf. Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1995:179). In the appropriate context middle constructions are grammatical without adverbial modification. For these examples H&R have to assume an empty adverb to provide the decisive experiencer role to identify the pro-arb. In addition to theta-identification, the adverbial also ‘binds’ the event-role of the verb. One consequence of this event-binding is that middle constructions are non-eventive sentences. But then, we expect all sentences with adverbial modification to be non-eventive because the adverb always ‘binds’ the verb’s event-role. A prediction that is obviously too strong. Moreover, the verb’s event-role should not be available for event-modifying adverbs like always or usually although they are grammatical in middle constructions, cf. below.

H&R assume that the free argument variables are bound by a generic quantifier. In chapter 7 we develop an analysis of the generic interpretation of middle constructions, which is also based on this assumption.

According to H&R’s approach, middle formation is limited to verbs selecting an external theta-role and Stroik (1999) predicts that the implicit argument in middle constructions must receive the theta-role agent.

Stroik (1999) argues that adverbs like quickly can only cooccur with predicates that select an agent. He concludes that ‘middle verbs’ also select an agent because they can cooccur with these adverbs. Note, however, that these adverbs can also cooccur with anticausative and unaccusative verbs, which do not have an agent argument.

We already mentioned in section 2.1.1 that this restriction does not hold for German. Unaccusative verbs as well as non-agentive verbs like verlieren (‘lose’) in (5.a) or finden (‘find’) in (5.b) that do not select an agent argument are perfectly grammatical in middle constructions. Middle formation with unaccusative and non-agentive verbs seems to be possible in Dutch as well, cf. (5.c-e) – example (5.b) is taken from Bernhard Schlink, Der Vorleser.

Thanks to Marcel den Dikken and to my Dutch informants in Berlin and Tilburg for helping me with the Dutch examples (cf. also the discussion of Ackema and Schoorlemmer’s analysis of middle constructions in English and Dutch in section 3.2.1).

(5)

a.

Sowas verliert sich schnell

Things-like-that loses rp quickly

b.

Der Abdruck [der Adresse] fand sich lesbar auf [dem] Papiers

The impression [of-the adsress] found rp readable on [the] paper

c.

?In je eigen bed sterft het een stuk prettiger dan in een bejaardenhuis

In the own bed dies expl a bit more agreeable than in the old people’s home

d.

Op/via de snelweg rijdt het een stuk lekkerder naar Berlijn

On/via the highway drives ita bit more comfortably to Berlin

e.

Kleinen munten raken gemakkelijk kwijt

Small coins lose easily verbal-particle

Den Dikken (1997) proposes a modification of H&R’s analysis. He does not assume that the external theta-role is assigned in syntax but agrees with H&R that the event-role of the middle construction must be bound. According to Den Dikken, the event-role cannot only be bound by an adeverbial but also by an operator. Den Dikken argues that ‘base transitive’ verbs have a dependent event-role that must be bound via theta-binding or (parasitic) operator binding. In transitive sentences the verb’s event-role is bound by a second event-role, which is introduced by the light verb v. This second event-role E¹ is by stipulation independent and must not be bound (cf. 6.a). Den Dikken assumes, that middle constructions only consist of the basic VP as is illustrated in (6.b).

Note that Zwart (1999), unlike Den Dikken, argues that middle constructions project also vP in addition to the basic VP. Furthermore, Zwart does not assume A-movement of the subject in middle constructions. Instead, the subject is base generated in the specifier of vP. In this position the subject is interpreted as a ‘circumstantial agent’, and as such it is responsible for the predication expressed in the middle construction (cf. section 2.1.2). We think, that Zwart’s analysis is on the right track. However, his analysis also makes wrong predictions: (i) this analysis predicts that middle constructions are ungrammatical without an adverbial; (ii) middle constructions with an unaccusative verb as well as telic middle constructions (e.g. resultatives, achievements and accomplishments) are also predicted to be ungrammatical; (iii) ‘effected’ arguments should be excluded in vP-Spec; (iv) nonargument middles should be ungrammatical in German. Besides, (v) it remains unclear how the subject is linked to the internal argument of the verb (i.e. how it receives its correct thematic interpretation); An additional (lexical) operation seems to be necessary to derive a one-place middle predicate from corresponding ‘normal’ two-place predicate. We think that (at least for German) the existence of (rare cases of) nonargument (or adjunct) middles should not be taken as evidence for the claim that all middle constructions are nonargument middles (cf. Zwart 1999:18, for a similar claim for Dutch). Especially for German nonargument middles must be explained independently (because nonargument middles are expected to be ungrammatical in German according to Zwart’s analysis). Note finally that we share the opinion that the reflexive pronoun in German middle constructions is ‘generated in the VP’ and ‘as a consequence of the binding relation obtaining between the surface subject and the reflexive argument of the lexical root, an interpretation according to which the surface subject is an argument of the lexical root becomes inescapable’ (Zwart 1999:18). We deal with the interpretation of the surface subject in chapter 5 and 6.

In this case, the event-role of the verb cannot be bound by E¹. Therefore, it must be bound by an adverb or by some operator.

(6)

a.

[_vP NP [_v’ [ v < Θ, E¹ _i> ] [_VP [_V’ [ V < Θ, E² _i> ] NP ]]]]

b.

[_VP [_V’ [ V < Θ, E² _i> ] NP ]]

Various operators can bind the event-role of middle constructions in syntax: negation, WH, or focus. We do not want to discuss the syntactic and semantic consequences of ‘parasitic’ event-binding in questions and sentences with negation. Instead, we confine ourselves to a few remarks on focus. First, recent theories of focus assume that focus is a syntactic feature assigned to a constituent that receives a specific semantic (and phonological) interpretation. Moreover, in semantics the focus is bound by some focus sensitive or illocutionary operator (cf. chapter 4 for more details). We are not clear about the syntactic status of the focus operator and about the syntax and semantics of parasitic focus binding. Second, a syntactic focus operator (or a focus projection/designated focus position) cannot be empirically motivated for languages like Dutch and German (cf. Gärtner and Steinbach 2000). Third, den Dikken assumes that only focus on the verb can bind its event-role because narrow focus on the subject would have no ‘access’ to the verb’s event-role. However, bare middle constructions with focus on the subject are as grammatical as middle constructions with narrow focus on the verb, cf. (7).

(7)

a.

Which door opens? Take the second one. THAT door opens

b.

Die HOSEN verkaufen sich aber die MÄNTEL da drüben sind ein Ladenhüter

The pants sell rp but the coats over there are a shelf warmer

Anticausatives pose yet another problem. Den Dikken assumes that anticausatives, like middle constructions, only consist of one VP. The external argument which is introduced by v (in vP-Spec) is again not present in syntax (and in this case it is also not present in semantics, cf. section 2.2 above). Therefore, the dependent event-role of V is not theta-bound by the independent event-role of v, and contrary to fact, anticausatives are expected to be non-eventive, too. As we illustrated in section 2.2, anticausatives usually describe particular events. The same problem arises for ergatives/unaccusatives in general.

Let us turn to Stroik's (1992) analysis of middle constructions now. As opposed to H&R (1993), Stroik assumes that the external theta-role, which is assigned to PRO in syntax, is syntactically active. Stroik gives empirical motivation for the syntactic presence of PRO. He shows that the external argument is able to bind a reflexive pronoun and to control the PRO-subject of an embedded infinitival. Furthermore, it can be overtly realized as a for-PP.

A detailed critisism of Stroik’s arguments can be found in Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1995). In the following we briefly summarize their main points and add some additional observations.

We turn to binding first. Stroik argues that the reflexive pronoun contained in the subject NP in (8) must be bound in its governing category in syntax because of principle A of binding theory. Therefore, oneself in (8) must be coindexed with a nonovert NP argument that c-commands it at some syntactic level. (8) illustrates that the empty PRO c-command the anaphor at D-structure.

(8) [[Books about oneself_i ]_j never read t_j poorly] PRO_i ]

Pollard and Sag (1994) and Reinhart and Reuland (1993), however, argue that so-called picture-noun-phrases like books about oneself in (8) that contain a reflexive pronouns are best treated as logophors. According to Pollard and Sag (1994) and Reinhart and Reuland (1993) – henceforth R&R –, the application of the binding conditions should be restricted to co-arguments of the same predicate. Therefore, not all occurrences of reflexive pronouns are subject to the binding theory. R&R’s reformulation of the binding principles is given in (9). We give only the relevant conditions. In chapter 5 and 6 we come back to R&R’s and Pollard and Sag’s binding theories.

(9)

Binding theory of R&R (1993: 678):

Definitions

...

c.

A predicate is reflexive iff two of its arguments are co-indexed

d.

A predicate (formed of P) is reflexive-marked iff either P is lexically reflexive or

one of P’s arguments is a SELF anaphor.

Conditions

A:

A reflexive-marked syntactic predicate is reflexive

B:

A reflexive semantic predicate is reflexive-marked

Reflexive pronouns that have no co-argument are exempt from binding condition A and B and are not bound in syntax. The binding conditions as defined in (9) do not say anything about logophors. Reflexive pronouns that are exempt form condition A are subject to non-syntactic binding constraints like e.g. point of view (cf. chapter 5 for more discussion). That logophors need not be bound at all in syntax is independently motivated by the examples in (10). The reflexive pronoun, which is embedded in the subject NP, has either no antecedent at all, as can be seen in (10.a and b), or its antecedent does not c-command the reflexive pronoun, cf. (10.c).

Chris Wilder p.c. pointed out that Kayne’s (1994) treatment of relative clauses would allow to establish a binding relation between the antecedent and the reflexive pronoun in (10.c) in syntax. This analysis cannot be applied to (10.a) and (10.b).

It follows that example (8) can be explained without the assumption that the external theta-role is assigned in syntax in middle constructions.

(10)

a.

Physicists like yourself are a godsend

b.

Books about oneself can bring much grief

c.

The picture of himself that John saw in the post office was ugly

Besides, Stroik himself argues in his (1999) article that in middle constructions the external (agent) argument, which can optionally be linked to a for-PP, is bound by the syntactic subject and not vice versa. Hence, the reflexive pronoun in (8) cannot be bound by the implicit argument. We come back to this issue below.

Stroik’s second argument in favor of a nonovert pronominal subject in middle constructions is based on PRO-control in infinitives. It is the implicit PRO argument of the middle construction that controls the subject PRO of an embedded infinitive in sentences like (11).

(11) Potatoes usually peel easily PRO_k [after PRO_k boiling them]

Stroik himself remarks that not all cases of PRO-control can be explained syntactically. Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1994) cite Koster (1987), who distinguishes ‘anaphoric control’ from ‘nonanaphoric control’. Koster argues that only the former, i.e. anaphoric control is syntactic and relies on c-command. Nonanaphoric control, on the other hand, need not be syntactic. In many cases the controller of the embedded PRO must be inferred pragmatically, regardless of whether the matrix clause is a middle construction or not.

(12)

a.

Potatoes are tastier [after PRO boiling them]

b.

We found plans to kill the Ayatollah

c.

We have plans to kill the Ayatollah

Koster (1987)

In (12.a) the adverbial clause containing the PRO-subject does not differ from the one in (11), but in this case the matrix clause does not contain an implicit argument to control the embedded PRO-subject. Nevertheless, these sentences are not ungrammatical. The PRO-subject in (12.a) is (pragmatically) controlled. (12.b and c) are two more examples that involve ‘nonanaphoric control’. In both examples “the controller is an implicit argument of plans (someone’s plans, our plans), the nature of which is again determined pragmatically.” (Koster 1987:116) Lasnik (1988) gives a further interesting example which shows that PRO need not be controlled by a (non-)overt syntactic element. Consider example (13.a) first. In this case the overtly realized agent the navy seems to be the (anaphoric) controller of the embedded PRO-subject. In (13.b), on the other hand, the agent-role is not overtly realized. One might argue that the implicit agent-role in passives is assigned to some nonovert element in syntax, which controls the PRO-subject of the embedded clause. So far this is in line with Stroik’s analysis of middle constructions. But now consider sentence (13.c). The external theta-role (in this case instrument) of the subject of the corresponding active sentence is assigned to the by-phrase by a torpedo. A pure syntactic theory of control predicts that the by-phrase controls the PRO-subject. But this is certainly not what sentence (13.c) means. Usually a torpedo does not prove a point. (13.c) is again an example for pragmatic control even in a case where a potential syntactic controller is present.

(13)

a.

The ship was sunk by the navy [PRO to prove a point]

b.

The ship was sunk PRO [PRO to prove a point]

c.

The ship was sunk by a torpedo [PRO to prove a point]

Lasnik (1988)

A third argument that is brought forward in Stroik (1992 and 1999) concerns the overt realization of the external agent-argument. Stroik argues that the prepositional phrase in (14) can be linked to PRO. Furthermore, he argues that binding data show that the prepositional phrase and the syntactic subject must be co-arguments (cf. (14.b), cf. Stroik (1999:127). Note that the examples in (14) only show that the first semantic argument of the verb can be linked to a syntactic constituent. However, they do not prove that the first semantic argument must always be linked. We do not see any reason for the assumption that optional arguments are always linked to some silent syntactic category. Otherwise we would have to introduce nonovert syntactic elements for nearly any kind of implicit argument: optional instrumental PPs, optional directional PPs, optional theme-arguments in locative inversion, optional direct objects, or optional datives in German to mention just a few. But this would lead to an unwarranted increase in nonovert syntactic elements. Besides, although the binding data are less clear in German, reflexive pronoun in (14.c) seems to be less grammatical than the personal pronoun.

Note that in the active counterpart the reflexive pronoun must be used, cf. chapter 4 on the adnominal focus particel selbst.
(i)

Der Enzensberger liest sich selbst/*ihn selbst

The Enzensberger reads RP (him)self/him (him)self

Furthermore, we mentioned in chapter 2 that in German for-PPs in middle constructions are much more restricted than the by-phrase in the corresponding passives.

Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1995) come to the same conclusion for English, but see Stroik (1999) for counterexamples.

We come back to this issue in chapter 7.

(14)

a.

Physics books always read slowly for Lou

b.

Mary₁ photographs well for Max and herself₁/*her₁

Also ich finde, der Enzensberger liest sich auch für *sich/?ihn selbst ganz gut

Well I think the Enzensberger reads rp also for rp self/him (him)self very well

d.

???Also ich finde, für Maria lesen sich die neuen Physikbücher gut

Well I think for Maria read rp the new physics-books well

So far we saw that neither of Stroik’s empirical arguments provides convincing evidence for the claim that in middle constructuions an implicit external argument is obligatorily present in syntax. The second shortcoming of all syntactic movement-analyses is that middle formation is not subject to the same restrictions as passive formation in many languages, cf. also footnote 4 above.

Recall that in Modern Greek and Russian passives and middle constructions are morphosyntactically identical, cf. section 2.3. This does not hold for languages that have developed a periphrastic passive form. Nevertheless, in Modern Greek and Russian the middle interpretation is also subject to different restrictions than the passive interpretation.

If middle formation was just an application of move-α, we would expect to find middle constructions, like passives, with ECM subjects.

Passives and middle constructions seem to differ in another respect. Preposition stranding seems to be much better with passives than with middle constructions. We mentioned in chapter 2 that preposition stranding is possible in some middle constructions (cf. i). In many cases the middle construction is, however, more marked than the corresponding passive (cf. ii).
(i)

?That tree climbs up quickly

(ii)

a. ??John laughs at easily

vs.

b. John was laughed at

‘Promotion of an object’ by middle formation is, however, only possible if the promoted element is somehow thematically related to the verb. ECM subjects cannot undergo middle formation in English (cf. 15.a).

The situation in German is not that clear. Passivization is not always perfect with so-called A.c.I.-verbs. The best examples involve intransitive complements.
(i)

Peter wurde im Garten liegen gelassen

Peter PASS in-the garden lie let

(ii)

Peter wurde im Garten spielen gesehen

Peter PASS in-the garden play let

(iii)

?Peter wurde gestern eine junge Frau küssen gesehen

Peter PASS yesterday a young lady kiss seen

German has only few verbs selecting A.c.I.-constructions. Besides lassen (‘let’/‘have s.o. do s.th.’), some perception verbs like hören (‘hear’) or sehen (‘see’) select A.c.I.-constructions. These verbs do not form good middles in principle. In chapter 2 we gave an example with sehen in a middle construction (here repeated as (iv). We think that the parallel ECM-construction is also possible (v) and (vi), although sligthly degraded. German A.c.I.-constructions do not provide any argument in favor of or against a syntactic analysis of middle constructions. We come back to these constructions in chapter 5.
(iv)

?Von hier aus sieht sich das gegnerische Tor viel besser

From here sees RP the opponent’s goal much better

(v)

??Von hier aus sieht sich die gegnerische Mannschaft viel besser spielen

From here sees RP the opponent’s team much better play

(vi)

??Von hier aus sieht sich der gegnerische Stürmer viel besser den Elfmeter schießen

From here sees RP the opposing forward much better the penalty take

Another difference between middle constructions and passives are double object constructions. Double object constructions do not permit middle formation. The first object NP can be moved into the subject position only in passives. The examples in (15.c and d) illustrate this contrast.

(15)

a.

*John believes to be a fool easily

b.

John was believed to be a fool

c.

Linguists were sold War and Peace

d.

*Linguists don’t sell books

(Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994: 80)

In Dutch and German some middle constructions do not have a corresponding passive. We already mentioned that German, like Dutch, has adjunct middles (cf. section 2.1.). However, German does not have adjunct passives as can be seen in (16.c).

(16)

a.

Peter schreibt mit meinem neuen Füller

Peter writes with my new pencil

b.

Mein neuer Füller schreibt sich gut

My new pencil writes rp well

c.

*Mein neuer Füller wird geschrieben

My new pencil pass written

A fourth difference between passivization and middle formation is that they are subject to different semantic constraints. As opposed to the subject of middle constructions, the subject of the passive need not be ‘responsible’ for the event described by the verb (cf. section 2.1.2) and passives need noot be ‘generic’ statements.

Further problems arise when we try to apply a syntactic movement analysis to middle constructions in German. Unlike middle coonstructions in English and Dutch, their German counterparts are transitive reflexive sentences. They optionally select a reflexive pronoun in the position of the direct object.

(17)

a.

Die Tür öffnet sich leicht

(middle construction)

The door opens rp easily

b.

Die Tür wurde geöffnet

(passive)

The door was opened

As they stand these movement analyses cannot account for the presence of an overt reflexive pronoun in German middle constructions. A-movement of the deep structure object (the complement of the verb) is motivated by the Case Filter (cf. Chomsky 1981). In German verbs in personal and impersonal middle constructions assign accusative case. Hence, there is no reason for the deep structure object to move into the subject position (cf. also Fagan 1992). A-movement of the internal argument (the D-structure object) and the appearance of the reflexive pronoun in the position of the direct object cannot be easily motivated under common syntactic assumptions. Besides, we already mentioned that impersonal passives must not have an impersonal (or pleonastic) subject (18.b), whereas impersonal middle constructions are ungrammatical without the impersonal subject es (18.a).

(18)

a.

Es tanzt sich gut hier

(impersonal middle construction)

It dances rp well here

a’.

… weil es sich hier gut tanzt

a’’

.*… weil sich hier gut tanzt

b.

Hier wird gut getanzt

(impersonal passive)

Here pass good danced

b’.

… weil hier gut getanzt wird

b’’.

*… weil es hier gut getanzt wird

We conclude that a syntactic derivation of English and Dutch middle constructions is confronted with various empirical and conceptual shortcomings. Both A-movement and the syntactic presence of the suppressed external argument lack independent evidence. Moreover, the process of passivization, which is similar to middle formation, underlies different restrictions in English, Dutch and German. The application of this approach to German yields further problems. Middle constructions in German are transitive. There is no necessity for A-movement because the verb assign accusative case in middle constructions. Furthermore, a passive-like syntactic analysis of middle constructions cannot account for the presence of the accusative reflexive pronoun without additional assumptions. In the next subsection we turn to anlyses of reflexive middle constructions. We take a look at syntactic derivations of middle constructions in Italian and German and are mainly interested in the licensing conditions for the reflexive pronoun.

Italian

Like their German counterparts, middle constructions in Italian are reflexive. They are only grammatical with the verbal clitic si. Moreover, the (weak) reflexive pronoun, i.e. the middle marker, is in Italian as ambiguous as in German. Besides these similarities the Italian and German middle marker differ in two respects. The reflexive pronoun is a verbal clitic in Italian but not in German, and Italian si-constructions can refer more easily to particular events. The Italian middle construction is more passive-like than their German counterpart. Additionally, the middle voice in Italian (i.e. the si-construction) may have an impersonal subject interpretation that is not available in the corresponding German construction (cf. 19).

Abraham (1995) judges the corresponding example in (i) to be grammatical in German as well.
(i)

Es besticht sich solche Beamte leicht

It bribes RP such officials easily

In sentences (19) the verb does not agree with its internal argument gli spaghetti. (20) on the other hand equals the German middle construction. In this case, the second or internal semantic argument is linked to the subject. Manzini (1986) and Cinque (1988) argue that in sentence (19) the NP gli spaghetti is the accusative or direct object of the sentence and the verbal clitic si forms a chain with a morphologically empty expletive subject that is assigned nominative case (note that Italian is a pro-drop language). The verb is specified as third person singular in this case. In (20) the same NP gli spaghetti either moves to the subject position or forms a chain with an expletive element in Spec of IP. In any case it receives nominative case. In this case the verb agrees with the plural NP gli spaghetti. Both examples are from Cinque (1988: 554).

(19)

Qui, si mangia spesso gli spaghetti

Here, rp eats often spaghettis

(20)

Qui, gli spaghetti si mangiano spesso

Here, spaghettis rp eat often

Because the si-construction in Italian is highly complex and the data are very subtle, we limit the following discussion to middle si-constructions. We are mainly interested in whether the analysis of the Italian middle construction can also be applied to German. We have little to say about the impersonal ‘subject’ si.

The impersonal si is analysed as a nominative reflexive pronoun. The syntactic clitic must form a chain with (and is bound by) an implicit subject by which it receives nominative case (the operation form chain is subsumed under binding in Manzini’s approach). Note, however, that crosslinguistically nominative reflexive pronouns are extremely rare. Even other Romance languages have no nominative reflexive pronouns, cf. Dobrovie-Sorin (1998). Reflexive constructions in other Romance languages seem to be syntactically more closer to the German middle voice. As a consequence of Manzini’s and Cinques’s analysis, the Italian nominative clitic si would be a great exception. Anderson (1986) argues that reflexive pronouns in Icelandic can appear in embedded sentences in subject position only if the embedded sentence contains a verb with a non-nominative subject. Nominative reflexives seems to be excluded in principple (see also Everaert 1990). Thanks to Hans-Martin Gärtner for making me aware of this issue. We discuss this observation in chapter 5.

Manzini (1986) offers a uniform treatment of all occurrences of si. According to Manzini, si is a verbal clitic that is always linked to an semantic argument of the verb. She formulates the following basic lexical entry for si:

(21)

si:

- variable

- argument

- N

- third-person, unspecified number and gender

- clitic on the verb

- bound to its subject

- (passivizer)

The first and the last two properties are crucial for her treatment of middle constructions. Si is a verbal clitic that must be bound in syntax. Furthermore, it belongs to the category N and is subject to the case filter. How is the middle si licensed in syntax? As opposed to impersonal and reflexive si, middle si is a ‘passivizer’. Si receives the external theta role of the verb. Therefore, the verb cannot assign case to its object (Burzio’s Generalization) and the D-structure object moves in syntax into the subject position. Manzini assumes that middle si is interpreted in the same way as impersonal si: it introduces a free variable into the semantic representation associated with the ‘subject theta-position’, i.e. it is linked to the external argument of the verb. Middle si cannot be bound to the grammatical subject of the sentence because it is neither referentially dependent on the subject nor does it form a chain with it. Therefore, one would have to assume an additional ‘deep structure subject’, which binds the clitic reflexive pronoun. However, we saw in 3.1.1 above that it is hard to find empirical evidence for the presence of a VP-internal PRO- or pro-subject in syntax. Moreover, the clitic cannot be licensed by such an additional deep structure PRO- or pro-subject because this implicit subject would not be in a case position. But this means that middle si violates the case filter. Note finally that the optional property ‘passivizer’ in (20) does not explain why the weak reflexive pronoun, the clitic si, like reflexive pronouns in many other languages, is ambiguous between a passive, a middle, a anticausative and a reflexive interpretation.

Cinque (1988) modifies the analysis proposed by Manzini. For various reasons, he distinguishes five different kinds of si-clitics in Italian. Si is a syntactic clitic to which nominative is assigned. It absorbs or suspends nominative, accusative or VP-internal accusative and dative case. As opposed to Manzini, Cinque assumes that si need not be an argument. He argues that Italian distinguishes two distinct nominative clitic reflexive pronouns, which are either specified as [+ argument] or [- argument]. This leads to the following picture:

We do not want to discuss whether the treatment of the reflexive si is conclusive. Note, however, that Cinque proposes a passive-like derivation for weak reflexives: the reflexive clitic si is linked to the external argument (or logical subject) of the verb and is bound by the syntactic subject, which is linked to the internal argument. Focus seems to be one problem for Cinques treatment of reflexives. If one asks for the external argument (i.e. who washes himself), the syntactic subject, which corresponds to the internal argument in Cinques account, must be focused in the corresponding answer. But this would yield the wrong semantic representation of the focus-background structure. Furthermore, it seems to be implausible to link the strong reflexive pronoun se stessi also to the external argument. But this would result in two totally different syntactic and semantic representations for the weak and strong form of the reflexive pronoun. See also the discussion of Manzini (1986) above, who analyses the reflexive si as an accusative or dative verbal clitic.

(22) si is always an [NP, IP] clitic

(i)

two different kinds of impersonal si:

1.

- [+ arg]

2.

- [- arg]

- absorbs external theta-role

- identifies an arb pro in conjunction with

- absorbs nominative

personal Agr

(ii)

‘Passivizer’ (i.e. middle si) and Anticausative si:

3.

- [-arg]

- suspends external theta-role

- suspends accusative Case

(iii)

Reflexive si:

4.

- [+ arg]

- absorbs external theta-role

- absorbs VP-internal Case

(iv)

Inherent Reflexive si:

5.

- [- arg]

- marks the absence of external theta-role

- marks the absence of VP-internal case

A discussion of the empirical motivation of this complex lexical entry and its empirical and conceptual consequences would exceed the scope of this subsection. Cinque presents empirical motivation for the distinction between [+/- arg] impersonal si (22.1 and 2).

But see Dobrovie-Sorin (1998:410f), who argues against Cinques [+/- arg]-distinction. She does not assume two types of nominative si. The [+ arg] si is analyzed as being a middle-passive accusative si. Dobrovie-Sorin’s analysis is closer to our own analysis we develop in chapter 5 to 7.

[- agr] impersonal si can only be licensed in finite sentences. As opposed to [- agr], [+ agr] si always receives or absorbs the external theta-role (cf. 22.1 and 5).

[- agr] si always occurs in finite sentences without ‘object agreement’, i.e. the internal argument stays in situ and does not move into the syntactic subject position (cf. (19) above). This is predicted by Burzio’s Generalization (1986): [+ arg] si absorbs the external theta-role by definition, so that the verb cannot assign accusative case according to Burzio’s Generalization. The internal argument is left without case. Therefore, [- arg] si together with a pleonastic pro-subject must be used in si-constructions without ‘object-agreement’. In this case the external theta-role is assigned to pro in Spec of IP and the verb assigns accusative. Unergatives like (i) might be the only exception.
(i)

Si lavora sempre troppo

RP works always too much (i.e. One always works too much)

These verbs do not select an internal argument. Hence they are not in conflict with Burzio’s Generalization. Furthermore, it is impossible to verify ‘object-agreement’ in this case. But it seems to be plausible to assume [‑arg] si in this context as well to get a uniform analysis.

In the following discussion we are concentrating on middle constructions and passives, i.e. on sentences with ‘object-agreement’ like (19.b). Cinque subdivides sentences with ‘object-agreement’ into passive si- and middle si-constructions.

In section 2.3.2. we mentioned that middle constructions in Italian and French can be used to describe specific events, where they can be modified by agentive adverbs or the implicit logical subject can control the PRO-subject of a purpose clause (cf. Cinque 1988: 562). This seems to be impossible with the ‘generic’ interpretation of si-constructions. Cinque attributes this to the difference between [+/- arg] si. With [- arg] middle si the external theta-role becomes ‘invisible’ in syntax.

The [+ arg] si in (22.1) is responsible for the passive interpretation and the [- arg] si in (22.3) for the middle interpretation (and also for the anticausative and inherent reflexive interpretation).

Both Manzini and Cinque derive middle formation in the syntax and anticausative formation in the lexicon. Arguments in favor of this distinction are (i) middle formation is more productive (ii) anticausative formation, unlike middle formation, is possible with and without reflexive pronoun, depending on the verb (cf. section 2.2). Property (i) might be due to the fact that anticausative formation is subject to additional semantic restrictions, so that only certain verbs can undergo anticausative formation. The second property (ii) might be either a lexical idiosyncrasy of certain verbs, that cannot be explained systematically, or it might be attributed to a systematic difference in the selectional properties of the underlying verbs. In chapter 5 and 6 we argue for a unified (syntactic) analysis of middle constructions and anticausatives.

We consider passive [+ arg] si first. According to Cinque, [+ arg] si ‘absorbs’ or ‘withholds’ the external theta-role, “thus preventing it from reaching [NP,IP]” (p. 535) and it is a nominal element that needs case. Therefore, it must be contained in a CHAIN to which case is assigned. Cinque assumes that the [+ arg] reflexive clitic si in (22.1) forms a CHAIN with a pleonastic pro in IP-Spec, the position to which nominative is assigned (p. 534f.).

(23) [_IP [NP propleo][_I’[_I° (Agr) si[+ agr]] [_VP ... gli spaghetti]]]

Note, however, that the internal argument gli spaghetti must also move to Spec of IP to get nominative case (recall Burzio’s Generalization: no external theta-role is assigned to IP-Spec, therefore, the verb cannot assign accusative to its internal argument). Hence, we have to elements that are assigned nominative case. Therefore, Cinque is forced to assume that nominative is assigned twice in (23): both CHAINs proi - sii and proi - gli spaghettii receive nominative case.

Cinque refers to Chomsky (1986: 131f. and 184f., especially footnote 120). Chomsky assumes that both the reflexive clitic si and the VP-internal argument are parts of two different CHAINs which contain a different thematic role each but are assigned the same case.

But this stipulation does not seem to be independently motivated and is necessary only to derive passive [+ arg] si in this construction. We would expect to find more examples of double nominative assignment within one clause (cf. also footnote 18 above).

What about [- arg] si in middle constructions? Unlike passive [+ arg] si in (22.b), middle [- arg] si in (22.a) can also be licensed in infinitival constructions (p. 560):

(24)

a.

(?) Questo vestito ha il vantaggio di lavarsi molto più facilmente di altri

This suit has the advantage of washing rp more easily than others’

b.

*Neanche il nemico ha la proprietà di uccidersi senza rimorsi
According to Cinque (24.b) is an impersonal-passive si construction that is grammatical only in finite clauses like (i). Verbs like kill are “less prone, even in generic contexts, to an interpretation that ‘backgrounds’ the agent to simply predicate a property of the subject” (p. 560). Therefore, si-constructions with these verbs receive the impersonal passive reading.

(i)

Neanche il nemico si uccide senza rimorsi

Not even the enemy has the property of killing rp without remorse

In this respect middle si also differes from impersonal [- arg] si in (22.2). For this reason Cinque assumes two different lexical entries for [- arg] si: (i) impersonal [- arg] that can be licensed only in finite clauses and ‘identifies’ an arb pro, i.e. (22.2), and (ii) middle [- arg] that can also be licensed in infinitive constructions and ‘suspends’ the external theta-role and accusative case, i.e. (22.3). Middle [- arg] si is subject to completely different licensing conditions than impersonal [‑arg] si. Middle si “does not need to be associated with nominative” (p. 561) and it renders the external theta-role ‘invisible’ in syntax. This typ of [- arg] si does not seem to be a pronominal clitic but some kind of functional element. It is, however, not clear to us how middle si is syntactically licensed (e.g. what does ‘suspends in syntax’ mean). Stipulating an extra lexical entry for middle si is again only a description of the fact that the syntactic subject of the middle construction corresponds to the internal or second semantic argument of the verb. In this respect Cinque’s treatment of middle si is similar to Manzini’s. Besides, it remains an open question how the ‘generic time reference’ and the adverbial modification of middle constructions in Italian can be attributed to the [- arg] middle si. Moreover, the analysis of anticausatives (ergative reflexives in Cinque’s terminology) relies on [- arg] si as well, but anticausatives do not have obligatory ‘generic time reference’ nor do they require any additional adverbial modification. Middle constructions seem to have additional semantic properties that cannot be reduced to [- arg] middle si.

Cinque’s distinction between [+ arg] and [- arg] can also be found in German. The (weak) reflexive pronoun in German and Italian can but need not be interpreted as an argument of the verb. However, we also find some decisive differences, besides this similarity. First, the reflexive pronoun in German middle constructions (i.e. the middle marker) does not receives nominative but accusative case. Second, Gärtner and Steinbach (1997 and 2000) argue that German does not have syntactic clitics, i.e. special clitics in the sense of Zwicky (1977). The accusative reflexive pronoun is syntactically an independent pronominal NP that need not be cliticized to the verb or to some functional head. We return to this issue in the next chapter. Third, we saw in section 2.1 that middle formation in German, unlike middle formation in Italian, is not limited to verbs that assign an external theta-role. In addition, we saw that the syntax of the Italian [- arg] middle si is still unresolved. The analysis of Italian reflexive constructions also do not offer a uniform explanation of the ambiguity of the (weak) reflexive pronoun. In sum, an application of the analysis of Italian to German would require greater modifications. The next subsection discusses two analyses of the German middle construction that are closely related to Cinque’s and Manzini’s analyses of Italian middle si.

German

Syntactic approaches to the middle construction in German also distinguish different types of reflexive pronouns. Haider, for example, analyses the accusative reflexive pronoun in middle constructions as some kind of A’-element. His proposal resembles Manzini’s or Cinque’s treatment of Italian middle si we discussed in the previous section. Haider argues that the reflexive pronoun in German middle constructions, like the reflexive clitic si in Italian, absorbs the external theta-role. Unlike its Italian counterpart, the reflexive pronoun in German is not a verbal clitic but an A’-element adjoined to VP that receives accusative case from the verb. According to Haider, the internal argument is directly linked to the (external) subject position of the sentence and binds the non-argument reflexive according to principle A of binding theory. Note that it does not make a difference for our discussion of syntactic analyses whether the internal object is base-generated in the complement position of V or directly linked to the VP-external subject position. The former analysis requires an additional movement of the D-structure object to the subject position (cf. the derivations of middles in English and Dutch in section 3.1.1 above).

This derivation resembles Everaert’s (1986) analysis of reflexive anticausatives in Dutch. For Everaert the Dutch reflexive pronoun zich is a VP-adjunct, too. He derives its occurence in this position from the ECP. The reflexive pronoun, which absorbs the accusative case, forms a chain with the syntactic subject and its trace in VP-internal position and mediates the antecedent-binding of the VP-internal trace.

(25)

a.

Die Schuhe tragen sich gut

The shoes wear rp well

a’.

[_CP Die Schuhe [_C° tragen₁ ] [_VP sich [_VP gut [_VP t₁ ]]]]

In middle constructions and anticausatives

Inherent reflexives equal anticausatives in Haider’s analysis. Therefore, we consider only anticausatives in the following discussion.

the reflexive pronoun is a nonreferential A’-element, as is illustrated in (25), whereas it is a syntactic argument (i.e. an A-element in the position of the direct object) when it is linked to a semantic argument of the verb (i.e. in the reflexive interpretation of transitive reflexive sentences). This is illustrated in (26):

(26) [_CP Hans [_C° wäscht₁ ] [_VP sich t₁ ]]]]

This distinction into two types of accusative reflexive pronouns is motivated by the observation that the reflexive pronoun cannot be focussed, coordinated, modified, fronted, or questioned in anticausatives and middle constructions as opposed to reflexives, as can be seen in (27).

(27)

a.

*Das Buch verkauft nur sich gut

(middle construction)

The book sells only rp well

b.

Hans wäscht nur sich

(reflexive)

Hans wasches only rp(i.e. ‘only himself’)

Haider tries to derive these differences from the syntactic distinction between argument and adjunct reflexive pronouns. Our next chapter deals with this difference in great detail. We will show that the difference in (27) directly follows from a the semantic interpretation of the reflexive pronoun, i.e. from the semantic difference between the argument and non-argument reflexive. Haider’s stipulation that the reflexive pronoun can be either an A- or an A’-element is neither necessary nor conclusive for the explanation of the ungrammaticality of (27.a). ‘Non-referential’ A’-elements like adverbs, adjectives or verbs can be focussed, questioned, modified, or fronted in principle (just like ‘referential’ A-elements). Therefore the specific properties of reflexive pronouns in middle constructions and anticausatives cannot be reduced to this syntactic difference. Moreover, referentiality is a matter of semantics rather than syntax. Word order in German raise additional problems for Haider’s treatment of the reflexive pronoun. We show again in chapter 4 that both types of the accusative reflexive pronoun (the adjunct and the argument reflexive) have the same properties with respect to word order in the middle-field.

However, both types of reflexive pronouns differ in the sentence-initial position. Only the argument reflexive can occupy the sentence-initial position. This follows again from the semantic ambiguity (interpretative difference) of the accusative reflexive pronoun (together with semantic restrictions on the sentence-initial position in German) as will be shown in chapter 4.

This similarity, which is only surprising if we discriminate between two kinds of accusative reflexive pronouns in syntax (i.e. between an argument and an adjunct) needs additional explanation in his account.

Haider assumes that the external theta-role can be assigned to or ‘absorbed’ by an A’-element. But this is in variance to the theta criterion according to which every theta-role is assigned to a syntactic argument (and vice versa).

Note that Haider’s explanation relies on the theta criterion (cf. p. 245)

In addition, this assumption does not explain why only accusative reflexive pronouns are able to receives or ‘absorb’ the external theta-role in A’-position.

According to Haider the external theta-role can be assigned either to the subject position (Spec of CP or IP) or alternatively to an A’-element (adjoined to VP). However, it does not become clear why dative reflexive pronouns or ‘referential’ NPs cannot receive or ‘absorb’ the external theta-role in VP-adjoined position.

In this respect this assumption is as descriptive as Manzini’s that si is a ‘passivizer’. Furthermore, Haider must stipulate two ways of accusative case assignment. Accusative case can be assigned (i) either to an A-element in the verb’s complement position (standard case assignment, e.g. for the argument reflexive and common direct objects) or (ii) to a reflexive pronoun that is adjoined to VP. This stipulation is again only necessary to derive middle constructions and anticausatives. Moreover, it is not sufficient to derive impersonal middle constructions. One-place predicates do not assign accusative case in active voice. But in middle constructions they must assign accusative to the reflexive pronoun. In addition to these two ways of accusative assignment Haider must also distinguish two kinds of binding relations.

Traditionally reflexive pronouns are bound in syntax (feature-sharing) and semantics (coreference) by the same antecedent. The adjunct reflexive in middle constructions and anticausatives can, however, only be bound in syntax. Semantically the reflexive pronoun is interpreted as an unbound implicit ‘generic’ subject in middle constructions. In this respect Haider’s analysis resembles Manzini’s treatment of Italian middle si. The responsibility of the reflexive pronoun for the generic interpretation is neither empirically nor conceptually motivated. We come back to this issue in the chapters 4 and 5.

The theta-role of the external argument can be assigned only once. In the case of middle constructions, the external theta-role is assigned to the reflexive pronoun. Therefore, we expect no other constituent than the reflexive pronoun to receive the external theta-role in middle constructions. In section 2.3 and 3.1.1 we saw that the overt realization of the external argument is much more restricted in German than in English. Neverthelss, the external argument can be linked to a für-PP, as is illustrated in (28).

(28)

Dieses Spiel lernt sich auch für kleine Kinder schnell

This game learns rp also for small children quickly

Besides, we mentioned in chapter 2 that middle formation is not limited to verbs selecting an external argument. Unaccusative verbs are grammatical in (unergative) middle constructions although they do not select a designated external argument. Auxiliary-selection poses a related problem. Remember that verbs in middle constructions always select the auxiliary haben (‘have’).

(29)

a.

Dieses Buch hat / *ist sich gut gelesen

(unergative)

This book has / is rp well read

b.

Peter *hat / ist in Hamburg angekommen

(unaccusative)

Peter hat / is in Hamburg arrived

Haider derives auxiliary-selection from the unergative-unaccusative distinction: unergative verbs on the one hand select haben (‘have’). Unaccusative verbs on the other hand do not have an external argument. Therefore, they select sein (‘be’) (cf. p. 238f.). Haider’s analysis predicts that middle constructions with unaccusative verbs are either ungrammatical or that unaccusatives select sein (‘be’) in middle constructions. Both predictions are incorrect. Furthermore Haider claims that anticausative verbs are ‘lexicalized’ middle constructions.

This contradicts the following observation: diachronically, anticausatives and inherent reflexive verbs are attested earlier than middle constructions. Moreover, not every middle construction can be lexicalized. We will see in chapter 5 that the difference between middle constructions and anticausatives is not due to lexicalization but to further semantic restrictions on anticausatives.

The reflexive pronoun is lexicalized and occupies the first or external argument position in the lexical entry of the anticausative verb without receiving a theta-role.

(30)

a.

causitive:

öffnen₁

(Θ ₁, Θ₂)

e.g. Peter öffnet die Tür

b.

anticausative:

öffnen₂

(rp (?), Θ₂)

e.g. Die Tür öffnet sich

The internal argument Θ₂is_{the only thematic argument of the verb in (30.b). Anticausative verbs, unlike ‘middle verbs’, have no implicit external argument at all (cf. 2.2).}

Haider claims that the reflexive pronoun represents the theta-role of the external argument. But we saw in section 2.2. that no external theta-role is implicitly present in the anticausative variant of causative verbs. This crucial difference distinguishes middle constructions from anticausatives.

Hence, the reflexive pronoun cannot be a thematic argument of the verb. But according to Haider’s analysis, the external argument must be present at some level of derivation to control the auxiliary-selection. Otherwise, reflexive anticausatives should select the auxiliary sein. Hence the reflexive pronoun (30.b) finds itself in a quandary: it must be an argument and a non-argument at the same time. We conclude that Haider’s syntactic derivation of German middle constructions and anticausatives is not convincing. His analysis requires several hoc stipulations that are only necessary to derive the syntactic representation and thematic interpretation of middle constructions. His syntax is not restrictive enough to exclude ungrammatical sentences (we refer the reader again to chapter 4 for a detailed discussion of this issue). Furthermore, Haider cannot derive impersonal middle constructions in general and middle formation with unaccusative verbs in particular. Note finally that he does not offer a uniform explanation of the ambiguity of the accusative reflexive pronoun.

Schachtl (1991) proposes a very similar solution that tries to avoid the problem of accusative case assignment. Following Fanselow (1987), she assumes that German has two different types of accusative case, an abstract and a morphological one. On the one hand, theta-roles must be assigned to NPs with abstract case and only abstract case is subject to Burzio’s Generalization. On the other hand, only morphological case is subject to the case filter. As opposed to Haider, Schachtl does not assume that the external theta-role is assigned in middle constructions. It follows from Burzio’s Generalization that the verb cannot assign abstract accusative case in middle constructions. The reflexive pronoun, which again adjoins to VP, ‘absorbs’ the morphological accusative case of the verb and the syntactic subject of the middle construction receives morphological nominative case in its VP-internal base position.

Schachtl’s analysis is motivated by word order data. According to Schachtl, in the unmarked word order a subject NP marked with morphological nominative in VP-internal position must follow constituents that are adjoined to VP like dative NPs, adverbs (cf. also next footnote), or the reflexive pronoun in middle constructions. But there is no evidence that the nominative NP stays in situ in its VP-internal base-position in middle constructions (for example (iii) see Diesing 1988 and1992 and Jäger 1992):
(i)

*...weil sich [VP gut ein Buch liest]

vs.

...weil sich ein Buch [VP gut liest]

(ii)

??...weil sich [VP immer ein Buch gut liest]

vs.

...weil sich ein Buch [VP immer gut liest]

(iii)

??...weil sich [I’ ja doch ein Buch gut liest]

vs.

...weil sich ein Buch [I’ ja doch gut liest]

because RP a book well read

(‘immer’ always, ‘ja doch’ indeed)

Moreover, unmarked word order in the German middle field is restricted not only by constraints on morphological and structural case but also by additional constraints: for example (i) a nominative NP precedes accusative NP, (ii) an agent precedes other constituents, (iii) topic precedes focus, (iv) pronouns precede full NPs, or (v) NPs that refer to animate entities precede NPs that refer to unanimate ones. Especially the unmarked position of dative objects varies. A dative NP can precede an accusative NP and a nonagentive nominative NP, provided that the dative NP refers to an animate entity (cf. chapter 4 for more details and references). In middle constructions the nominative NP cannot be an agent. Therefore, it is no surprise that dative NPs can precede the nominative NP in principle, especially if they refers to animate entities.
(iv)

a.

… weil sich ein Porsche einem Zuhälter gut verkauft

… because RP a Porsche-NOM a pimp-DAT (i.e. to a pimp) well sells

b.

… weil sich einem Zuhälter ein Porsche gut verkauft

Word order restrictions in the German middle field do not provide any evidence foor the claim that the internal argument is case marked with morphological nominative in its VP-internal base-position. We come back to this issue in chapter 4 (cf. also Fagan 1992: 111 for a similar argumentation with respect to the accusative-dative order in passives).

Schachtl adjoins the adverb to V° in middle constructions, but manner adverbials do not only modify the verb but the whole VP in middle constructions. This can be illustrated with adverbials like schnell (‘quickly’) that can modify either the verb itself (cf. i.a) or the whole VP in (i.b). In middle constructions like (ii) the adverbial has only the second (VP-modifying) reading.
(i)

... weil Peter den Rasen schnell mäht

... because Peter the lawn quickly cuts

a. the cutting is quickly but it takes Peter more than 4 hours to cut the whole lawn

b. the whole event of the gras-cutting is quickly finished because the lawn is very small. Peter may or may not do this in a quickly manner.

(ii)

...weil sich der Rasen schnell mäht

... because RP the gras quickly cuts (only interpretation (b.) possible)

The adverbial in middle constructions should be analysed as a VP-adverbial.

(31)

... [_CP [_C° weil] [_VP gut [_VP sich [_VP [_NP das Buch] liest ]]]]

because well rp-accthe book-nom read

The stipulation of a second type of accusative case that is morphosyntactically indistinguishable does not explain the accusative reflexive pronoun in middle constructions and anticausatives. First of all this derivation is in conflict with Fanselow’s (1987) assumption that theta-roles must be connected with structural case. In (31) the internal theta-role is assigned to a NP with morphological nominative. Therefore, it should also be possible for the NP das Buch to receive morphological accusative in its base-position. But in this case we would need no reflexive pronoun to absorb the morphological accusative of the verb. Besides, nothing is said about structural nominative in (31). Second, it is anything but clear which case can or must be assigned under which condition. Schachtl must assume that every one-place predicate can assign morphological accusative in principle to account for one-place verbs in middle constructions. But then one is forced to stipulate that the same verb, that must obligatorily assign its morphological accusative in the middle construction in (32.a) must not assign accusative case in the active intransitive counterpart in (32.b).

(32)

a.

Hier schläft es sich gut

Here sleeps it rp-acc well

b.

Peter schläft (*sich)

Peter sleeps rp-acc

This solution requires at best some lexical operation to derive a two-place ‘middle verb’ from an underlying one-place active verb. This lexical derivation of middle constructions will be discussed in the next section. And third, we expect that verbs can assign morphological and structural case to different constituents, yet the corresponding sentences are ungrammatical in German.

German has only very few cases with two accusative objects. The Duden (1973) cites four verbs: lehren (‘teach’) , kosten (‘cost’), abfragen (‘test’), and abhören (‘test’). In the first two cases accusative + dative/PP is the preferred option for many speakers. Besides, German has some idioms like (i) with two accusatives. However, the same verb cannot assign two accusatives in nonidiomatic sentences (cf. ii):
(i)

Eins bitt’ ich dich

(Duden: 514)

One-ACC ask I you-ACC

(i.e. I ask you for one thing)

(ii)

Ich bitte dich *das Auto/um das Auto

I ask you-ACC the car-ACC/for the car

According to Schachtl we would expect much more ‘double case’ constructions.

Like Haider, Schachtl must also assume two different kinds of reflexive pronouns as well as two different kinds of binding relations. With the reflexive interpretation the reflexive pronoun is assigned structural accusative and the internal ‘theme’ theta-role in the VP-internal object position and it is syntactically and semantically bound by its subject. In middle constructions and anticausatives the reflexive pronoun absorbs morphological accusative without receiving a theta-role and it is bound only in syntax by its subject. This distinction is again neither empirically nor conceptually motivated (cf. above and chapter 4).

Summary

We summarize the outcome of the discussion in a shorthand:

A syntactic analysis of the middle constructions in English, Dutch, Italian and German is neither empirically nor conceptually motivated. Note that middle constructions and ‘middle verbs’ are morphosyntactically simple active forms.
All analyses discussed so far always need additional ad hoc assumptions.
Furthermore, they run into serious empirical and conceptual problems.
Syntactic analysis cannot account for the accusative reflexive pronoun in German.
Syntactic analysis do not offer a uniform explanation of the systematic ambiguity of reflexive constructions in many Indo-European languages.
So far, we do not find any relevant syntactic restriction on middle formation (however, we will see in chapter 6 that one generalization can be stated in syntax: the syntactic status of the reflexive pronoun is relevant for preventing dative objects from middle formation).

We conclude that a convincing syntactic explanation has not been found yet. German middle constructions can not be conclusively derived from the principles of generative syntactic theories. Therefore, many linguists prefer a presyntactic derivation of middle constructions. In the next section we discuss lexical explanations of the middle construction.

Lexical theories

An alternative explanation of middle formation could be found in lexical (or more general presyntactic) theories.

Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1994) argue that the term lexical is misleading. For them the lexicon is not part of the computational system but a “list mentioning all and only those properties of the elements of a language that are idiosyncratic” (p.60) – but see Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998) for a different point of view. In the following discussion we do not make a terminological distinction between the ‘productive’ and the ‘idiosyncratic’ part of the lexicon. For the ongoing discussion it is irrelevant whether middle formation itself and the respective output are part of the lexicon or of some additional presyntactic module. To simplify matters we call these approaches lexical.

Some presyntactic manipulation of the verb’s argument structure is a characteristic of all lexical approaches. The first or external semantic argument of the verb is lexically suppressed and not linked to an element in syntax. Instead the second argument is directly linked to the subject position according to linking principles such as the theta hierarchy or the case hierarchy. In the following subsections we discuss two kinds of lexical theories. The first approach proposes a lexical rule of middle formation. This rule derives a middle verb V’ from a basic verb V. The second approach starts out from the assumption that middle constructions (or ‘middle verbs’) have a lexical entry on their own and postulates two different templates for middle constructions, into which basic verbs can be inserted under certain conditions. Both approaches rely on the assumption that the lexicon determines the adicity (selectional properties) of basic and derived verbs (cf. Ackerman and Webelhuth 1998, chapter 1, for a detailed discussion of lexical theories). The following subsection discusses rule-based approaches and subsection 3.2.2 deals with the template analysis.

Lexical middle formation: Actor = ARB

Fagan (1992) and Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1994 and 1995) – henceforth A&S – argue for a rule of middle formation that operates on lexical representations of verbs. The central assumption of both explanations is a lexical rule of middle formation, cf. (33) for A&S’s rule of middle formation and (35.1) below for the very similar rule proposed by Fagan.

(33) MF (Middle Formation): Actor = ARB

Rule (33), together with the specific design of lexical entries, should enable the theory to derive the correct restrictions on MF. A&S’s theory is based on the framework of conceptual semantics developed by Jackendoff (1990). (34) is a list of additional constraints that are necessary to derive middle formation in Dutch and English.

A&S postulate an additional rule of ‘adjunct incorporation’ for adjunct middles in Dutch. We discuss this issue in chapter 6.

The feature [+ext] means that one argument must be external. It is an inherent property of the whole lcs and cannot be deleted in the course of a derivation.

This restriction raises the following problem. Consider a verb like receive that might subcategorize for a patient argument that is the most prominent argument on the action tier and, in addition, for a second argument that is more prominent at the thematic tier than its co-argument, the patient. This verb, like double-object verbs in middle constructions, should be prevented from linking their arguments, cf. sentence (i), which can be represented as is illustrated in (ii):
(i)

Sam received a book

(ii)

receive

[GO_Poss ([BOOK], [TO [SAM]])
AFF⁺ ( ,[SAM]) ]

In (ii) neither argument can be linked as the external argument of the verb because of condition (34.d) and we expect sentence (i) to be ungrammatical. One might, however, argue that receive does not select an external argument.

(34)

A&S (1994)

a.

MF only with lcs marked [+ext].

b.

ARB-arguments cannot project

c.

Only an argument represented in the action tier can be a nonprojecting ARB

d.

A-marked elements project according to the following hierarchy:

[ actor - patient ] - [ agent - theme - goal ] - het

e.

An A-marked semantic argument can only be linked to the external argument position if it is the most prominent argument at all thematic dimensions

f.

A verb has a syntactic e-role iff it has a fully specified Action tier

According to (33), MF marks the actor argument on the action tier of a verb’s lexical conceptual structure (lcs) as ARB. ARB cannot project into syntax and the next argument on the thematic hierarchy (34.c) is chosen for the external argument. A&S do not discuss German middle constructions. Nevertheless, we are interested in the consequences of this analysis because it is developed from Fagan’s analysis of middle constructions in English, German and French. Therefore we discuss both the empirical and conceptual shortcomings of this analysis and its possible application to middle constructions in German. With regard to the second point, it is easy to see that a presyntactic approach along these lines is forced to assume some extra rule or linking principle to handle the reflexive pronoun in object position in German. Fagan (1992) solves this problem by simply stating that middle constructions in German are transitive reflexive sentences (cf. the corresponding subcategorization frame in 35.4). Therefore Fagan’s rule of middle formation is more complex for German (and French) than for English:

The relevant parts of Fagan’s definition of middle formation in English and French are as follows:

(i) English: +[______AdvP]
(ii) French: [_V X] → [_V se + [_V X]]

Middle formation in English introduces only the adverbial (cf. i), whereas adverbials are not obligatory in French. On the other hand, French middle constructions select a reflexive clitic that is introduced by rule (ii) in French. Note that the reflexive clitic in French agrees in number and person with its subject. For this rule (ii) must be slightly modified.

Grimshaw (1982) offers a similar lexical derivation of middle constructions. Moreover, she proposes two additional rules for anticausatives and reflexives. We give her middle rule in (iii) (Grimshaw 1982: 124):
(iii)

(SUBJ)→Ø

(OBJ)→((SUBJ)

(↑REFL) =_C +

Roughly speaking, the last condition ‘(↑REFL) =_C +’ means that an intrinsic clitic (i.e. a clitic that has ‘(↑REFL) = +’ in its lexical entry) has to be present in the syntactic clitic position CL. Following the general principles of clitic placement in French, it precedes the finite verb.

it does not only externalize the direct Θ-role or Ø, but it also introduces an accusative reflexive pronoun (and an adverbial). The subrules and conditions that comprise Fagan’s complex rule of middle formation are illustrated in (35).

(35)

(Fagan 1992: 196)

1.

Assign arb to the external Θ-role

2.

Externalize (direct Θ-role) [or]

3.

Externalize (Ø)

4.

+[NP- NP_[+anaphor]- AdvP_______]

5.

Semantics: ‘be able to be Xed’

Condition:

V does not assign lexical case

V is not an achievement or state

V is not ditransitive

The rules and conditions in (35) are a description of the empirical facts. Fagan stipulates that the reflexivity of middle constructions is an idiosyncratic lexical property of this type of construction.

“In essence, then, the presence of a reflexive in a middle must be stipulated” (Fagan 1992: 171). We argue in chapter 5 that the widespread use of reflexive pronouns to indicate valency-reduction is not accidental.

From her point of view middle constructions are transitive reflexive sentences in syntax, because middle constructions select a reflexive pronoun. Transitive reflexive sentences are linked to an intransitivized verb that selects an ‘empty’ reflexive pronoun. Thus, middle constructions have a lexical entry of their own. All three conditions in (35.6) place restrictions on the verb classes that can be inserted into the ‘middle frame’. Rule (35.2) states that the direct theta-role is realized as the external argument (the first NP in (35.4)) and rule (35.3) does the same job for one-place verbs. In this case it can be interpreted as a ‘zero-externalization rule’.

As opposed to A&S, Fagan does not distinguish unergatives from unaccusatives. All intransitive verbs assign an external theta-role and that is why they can all undergo middle formation in German in principle. This point will be relevant in the discussion below.

We do not want to discuss Fagan’s treatment of intransitive verbs here because it is not relevant for the analysis of German middles we will present in chapter 4 and 5. For further discussion see Grewendorf (1989), cf. also van Riemsdijk (1978) or A&S (1995) among others, who argued at length that there are differences between unergative and unaccusative verbs in German. Fagan, argues, ‘that the diagnostics for ergativity in German are generally unreliable’ (p. 120).

According to Fagan’s analysis, the reflexive pronoun indicates some change in argument structure, a property of reflexive pronouns that can be observed in many languages (cf. section 2.3 and Fagan, p. 175). We share this intuition in principle. As opposed to Fagan we do not think that this has to be stipulated in the lexical entry of the middle construction. Condition (35.4) is ad hoc. Although it correctly describes the empirical facts, it does not explain why middle constructions are reflexive in many languages.

Both analyses are confronted with certain empirical and conceptual problems. We start off with a discussion of Fagan’s definition of middle formation. The subcategorization frame (35.4) Fagan gives is too restrictive. We saw in section 2.1. that middle formation in German and in English (cf. A&S) is also grammatical without an additional adverbial, provided that the middle construction is uttered in an appropriate context. We come back to this issue in section 3.2.2. and in chapter 7.

(36)

a.

This bureaucrat bribes

(A&S 1994: 71)

b.

Dieses Auto könnte sich fahren

This car might rp drive

c.

Jetzt ist es schwer. Aber es vergißt sich alles.

Now it is hard. But it forgets rp everything

Condition (35.6: V is not an achievement or state) raises another problem. The so-called aspectual interpretation (Aktionsarten) is not always an inherent lexical property of the verb. It often results from the interpretation of more complex structures including especially the verb and the direct object. Moreover, verbs in middle constructions can receive an achievement interpretation. The verbs treffen (‘meet’), for example, is ambiguous between an activity and an achievement interpretation.

Treffen is a two-place predicate that can be inherent reflexive (i), reciprocal (ii), or non-reflexive (iii). The first two examples can describe activities and the last two examples can yield an achievement interpretation. Hence, Sentence (37.b) is ambiguous between a middle interpretation and a reciprocal interpretation. The middle constructions in (37) are derived from the achievement interpretation in (iii).
(i)

Ich habe mich drei Stunden lang mit Helmut getroffen

I have RP three hours long with Helmut met (i.e. for three hours)

(ii)

Wir haben uns gerade auf der Straße/zwei Stunden lang getroffen

We have RP just in the street/two hours long met

(iii)

Ich habe gerade den Peter auf der Straße/??zwei Stunden lang getroffen

I have just the Peter in the street/two hours long met

But in middle constructions, it receives only the achievement interpretation. Sentence (37.a), for example, does not mean that it is hard to arrange a get-together with Father Christmas but that it is hard to meet him altogether.

(37)

a.

Der Weihnachtsmann trifft sich nicht so leicht

Father Christmas meets rp not that easily

b.

Ein hilfsbereiter Mensch trifft sich in dieser Stadt überall

A helpful person meets rp in this town everywhere

In section 2.1 we mentioned another example of a verb in a middle construction that yields an achievement interpretation, which is repeated in (38).

(38)

Der Fernseher schaltet sich schnell aus

The TV switches rp quickly off

The third condition in (35.6: V is not ditransitive) is also too strong. In section 2.1 we already gave some examples for ditransitive verbs in middle constructions. Ditransitive sentences also pose a problem for A&S’ analysis. According to their analysis, we expect the third semantic argument on the thematic hierarchy (e.g. goal) to be linked to the direct object position in middle constructions. However, the third argument cannot be ‘promoted’ at all. It remains in the ‘third’ position on the thematic hierarchy and is linked to the dative (to-PP) position as can be seen in (39), for German see the next subsection. A&S are forced to assume that the categorial realization of these arguments is fixed in the lexicon or they have to add some further linking principle for goal arguments in order to prevent the third argument from being linked to the accusative position, if the patient/theme is linked into the external argument position. In both cases the validity of the linking principle (34.c) is weakened.

(39)

a.

These books don't sell to linguists

b.

*These books don't sell linguists

Besides, we already mentioned in section 2.1 that that dative objects cannot undergo middle formation in principle. Fagan assumes condition 1 (V does not assign lexical case) account for the ungrammaticality of example (40).

(40)

*Die Maria hilft sich leicht

The Maria-nom helps rp easily

In German dative case differs syntactically and semantically from the so-called structural cases accusative and nominative in many respects. Below we argue for a distinction between structural and oblique case that excludes dative objects from middle formation. The syntactic and morphological properties of dative objects in German will be discussed in chapter 6.

In chapter 2 we mentioned that Fagan observes a constrast between buy and sell. While sell forms acceptable middle constructions, buy sounds odd in middle constructions:

(i) *These books buy well (from linguists)
(ii) These books sell well (to linguists)

The properties of the object for sale may influence the act of selling. A parallel situation is hard to imagine for buy. Nevertheless, buy is possible in middle constructions in certain contexts as well (cf. section 2.1). The acceptability of middle constructions is affected by the ‘responsibility’ of the promoted second argument for the event described by the verb. Note that all theories have to assume additional conceptual constraints on middle formation. The difference between (i) and (ii) does not follow from A&S’s lexical-conceptual approach, for example. Both verbs should be equally acceptable in middle constructions because they both provide the correct input for MF.

A&S’s analysis for Dutch and English middle constructions predicts that only verbs with Actor-arguments and verbs whose lcs is marked for projecting an external argument (i.e. [+ext]) can participate in middle formation. This prediction is not correct for German and neither does it seem to be correct for Dutch.

A&S (1994) note in footnote 15 on page 73 that in Dutch unaccusatives are marginal grammatical in middle constructions. In the previous subsection we gave two examples for middle constructions in Dutch that contain a unaccusative verbs. See chapter 2 for corresponding German examples.

We illustrated in section 2.1 and 3.1 that verbs that do not select an Actor-argument can be found in middle constructions. In (41), for example, ARB is not assigned the actor-role.

A&S subsume the so-called ‘affectedness constraint’ (AC – cf. section 3.1.1) under their rule of MF (cf. 33). They observe that even non-affected objects can undergo MF under the condition that the verb subcategorizes for an actor argument (cf. p. 76). On the one hand, their rule of MF is more liberal than the AC. On the other hand, it also covers all standard cases of the AC, i.e. two-place selecting an actor and a patient argument. The examples in (41), however, show that A&S’s rule of MF is also too restrictive.

Besides, this analysis requires that concepts like actor, patient, agent, theme, action tier or thematic tier can be clearly defined. But up till now no clear definition has been proposed (cf. Dowty 1989 and 1991).

(41)

a.

Diese neuen kleinen Geldscheine verlieren sich aber sehr einfach

These new small banknotes lose self really very easily

b.

In diesem Bett träumt sich's gut

In this bed dreams rp it well

c.

In Hamburg lebt sich's gut

In Hamburg lives rp it well

d.

Kleinen munten raken gemakkelijk kwijt

Small coins lose easily

(42) are two examples for unaccusative verbs in middle constructions in Dutch and German. As opposed to A&S, Fagan does not distinguish between unaccusative and unergative verbs. She argues that both types of one-place verbs select an external thata-role. Hence, unaccusative verbs do not pose a problem for Fagan’s theory.

(42)

a.

Es stirbt sich leichter mit guten Freunden im Haus

It dies rp easily with good friends in-the house

b.

Op/via de snelweg rijdt het een stuk lekkerder naar Berlin

On/via the highway drives it a bit more comfortably to Berlin

Besides, there is no morphological evidence for a lexical rule of middle formation. Note that ‘middle verbs’ do not differ from their corresponding active counterparts in their morphological form. Fagan and A&S take the semantics of middle constructions as evidence for their lexical rule of MF. The implicit ARB is responsible for the ‘generic’ interpretation of middle constructions.

This argument cannot be appplied to middle constructions in French, which need not be ‘generic‘, although they are lexically derived, too.

Fagan's condition (35.5) states that all middle constructions in German are stative (the same holds for English). That is, they do not generalize over events. Instead they “involve properties (of a patient subject)” (p.156). In addition, Fagan’s rule (35.1) is responsible for the fact that the external theta-role receives a generic interpretation, because ARB is specified as [+human, +generic]. Hence, middle constructions generalize over the implicit argument (ARB) and they attribute a specific property to the syntactic subject (which is linked to the second argument of the verb). The resulting interpretation for sentence (43.a) can be paraphrased as in (43.b) (cf. p.155).

(43)

a.

This book reads easily

b.

People, in general, can read this book easily

Similarly, A&S (1994) claim that all predicates with either an ARB-Actor or an ARB-Patient are necesarily individual-level predicates, because they do not trigger an e-role.

A&S claim that only verbs with a fully specified action tier (i.e. without ARB-arguments at the action tier) can have a syntactic e-role (cf. 34.e). Therefore, middle constructions do not trigger an e-role. An ARB-Actor induces a generic reading and an ARB-Patient a habitual reading.

The relevant condition is given in (34.e) above. Besides (34.e), A&S (1994) assume the following two conditions in (45).

(44)

Argument projection from LCS to D-structure is optional

(45)

Recoverability condition

An A-marked non-projecting semantic argument α must be

(a) discourse linked to a semantic argument identical to α

(b) ARB

Hence, both Fagan and A&S claim that ‘middle verbs’ are stative or individual-level predicates and that the first argument of these predicates is filled by ARB. We think that the second assumption is correct, although we do not believe that it follows from a lexical rule.

Recall that sometimes the implicit argument of middle constructions can also be linked to a für/for-phrase. This contradicts A&S’s rule of middle formation MF = ARB (cf. chapter 2 and section 3.1.1 above).

However, we do not think that the first assumption is correct.

Note that Fagan (1992:78) herself describes middle constructions as actions.

It is not very plausible that a change in reference of one of its arguments turns the verb into an individual-level predicate, i.e. changes its basic semantic properties. Besides, this assumption raises several empirical problems. Note first that not every non-projecting implicit argument that is not discourse linked leads to a generic or habitual interpretation. Both examples in (46) contain an implicit object, which need not induce a habitual interpretation, although it is not discourse linked. Contrary to condition (45), the implicit arguments of trinken (‘drink’) and schreiben (‘write’) can be bound by an existential quantifier without being discourse linked. Besides, it can also get an arbitrary interpretation. (46.b) means either that our neighbour is writing something now (but we do not know what) or that he is writing in general, i.e. he is a writer.

In contrast to English, German does not distinguish simple present from progressive form. The simple present form is ambiguous between a progressive and a ‘habitual’ interpretation.

In (46.a) the arbitrary interpretation of the implicit object of drinking usually involves alcohol. But sentence (46.a) is unlikely to mean that the small child usually drinks alcohol. This (habitual) interpretation becomes the preferred option if we substitute an adult person for the small child. Hence, sentence (46.a) can only mean that the child is drinking something. Besides, argument projection is not always optional, as can be seen in sentence (46.c). Note finally that discourse linked arguments can only be ‘dropped’ in sentence-initial position, cf. (46.d) and (46.e). Condition (45.a) incorrectly predicts that sentence (46.e) including a discourse linked object/second argument should be gramamtical. Hence, in German discourse linking of an implicit object/second argument seems to be impossible in general, cf. Jacobs (1994) and Rapp (1999) for an analysis of implicit arguments.

(46)

a.

Das kleine Kind trinkt

The little child drinks (i.e. is drinking)

b.

Unser Nachbar schreibt wieder

Our neighbour is writing again

c.

Peter unterstützt *(seine Nachbarn)

Peter supports (his neighbours)

d.

Was ist mit dem Bier? Ø_{THE BEER} trinkt der Peter

What is the matter with the Bier? drinks the Peter

e.

Was ist mit dem Bier? *Der Peter trinkt Ø_{THE BEER}

A second objection concerns passives. A&S assume that in passsives a syntactically active implicit argument is present.

The actor role is not assigned to the subject position but to the passive morphology.

Hence, in passives the implicit argument projects form LCS to D-structure. (47) shows that the implicit argument can also be a semantically arbitrary element. As a consequence of condition (45) the actor argument of trinken (‘drink’) in (47) does not project to syntax and passive formation with ARB becomes indistinguishable from middle formation. Rule (33) as it stands is not sufficient to derive middle formation. We conclude that genericity or habituality cannot simply be reduced to implicit (ARB-) arguments. Implicit arguments are neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for ‘generic’ statements. This is also illustrated in (47.b) and (47.c). Both sentences do not include an implicit argument. Nevertheless, (47.b) is a generic sentence that report general property and sentence (47.c) is ambiguous between a generic and an episodic interpretation (cf. e.g. Krifka et.al. 1995).

(47)

a.

In Deutschland wird viel Bier getrunken

In Germany was much beer drunk

b.

Mary smokes a cigar after dinner

c.

Hans-Heinrich trinkt Wein

Hans-Heinrich drinks/is-drinking wine

Turning to middle constructions in German now. We already mentioned that middle constructions can also receive an episodic interpretation. Example (28) from section 2.1, repeated as (48), shows that middle constructions can be used to describe particular events. (48) does not mean that yesterday evening this piece by Bach exceptionally had the property that it can be played well. Instead this sentence reports a particular situation in which this piece of music was played well, although it might be a very difficult piece of music.

In some contexts English middles can be used in progressive.

(i) Yesterday afternoon this book was selling like hell

(48)

Der Bach hat sich gestern Abend ausnahmsweise mal ganz gut gespielt

The Bach has rp yesterday evening exceptionally once quite well played

‘Exceptionally, this piece by Bach played well yesterday evening’

Fagan and A&S argue that ‘middle verbs’ are always individual-level predicates. But verbs in middle constructions differ from typical individual-level predicates in several respects. Middle constructions, like stage-level predicates, can be modified by temporal adverbials, as can be seen in (49.a’) and (49.a’’). As opposed to this, temporal modification is impossible in (49.a), because the individual-level predicate intelligent sein (‘be intelligent’) describes a permanent property of its subject. (49.b) illustrate a second difference. The prepositional phrase in diesem Laden (‘in this shop’) is only ambiguous in sentence in (49.b’) and (49.b’’) that include stage-level predicates. Sentence (49.a’), for example, has the following two readings: (i) the salespersons, that are working in this shop, usually wear green caps and they (also) wear their green caps outside the shop; (ii) the salespersons must wear green caps whenever they are working in the shop. The same ambiguity can be found in the middle construction (49.b’’): (i) the books that are sold in this shop are best sellers in every shop (ii) the books are best sellers (at least/only) in this shop. As opposed to (49.b’) and (49.b’’), the first sentence in (49.a) including the individual-level predicate is not ambiguous. The prepositional phrase can only modify the NP (i.e. all the salespersons that work in this shop are called Müller). The second interpretation (VP-modification) is impossible in this case.

(49)

a.

*Heute Abend sind Feuerwehrmänner intelligent

(individual-level)

This evening are firemen intelligent

a’.

Heute Abend sind Feuerwehrmänner verfügbar

(stage-level)

This evening are firemen available

‘This evening firemen are available’

a’’.

Heute Abend verkaufen sich die Bücher ganz gut

(middle c.)

This evening sell rp the books quite well

b.

… weil alle Verkäufer in diesem Laden Müller heißen

(individual-level)

… because all salespersons in this shop Müller are-called

b’.

… weil alle Verkäufer in diesem Laden grüne Mützen tragen

(stage-level)

… because all salespersons in this shop green caps wear

‘… because all salespersons (in this shop) wear green caps (in this shop)’

b’’.

… weil sich die Bücher in diesem Laden super verkaufen

(middle c.)

… because rp the books in this shop well sell

Additionally, ‘middle verbs’, unlike individual-level predicates, can be modified by adverbs of quantification, as is illustrated in (50). Following Krifka et.al. (1995:7) these expressions typically mark a characterizing (or habitual) reading. They quantify over the event variable that is selected by the verb. Accordingly middle constructions are not individual-level predicates but characterizing sentences in the terminology of Krifka et.al.

(50)

a.

Dieses Buch liest sich immer wieder gut

This book reads rp always well

b.

In billigen Hotels schläft es sich selten gut

In cheap hotels sleeps it rp rarely well

c.

Dieser Wagen hat sich nie gut verkauft

This car has rp never well sold

Note finally that middle constructions usually require some adverbial modification, which typically modify the way in which an action is performed. Consider the adverbial schnell (‘quickly’) in (51). In the active sentence (51.a) schnell can either modify the verb, i.e. the way in which the event is carried out, or the whole VP, i.e. the duration of the event. In the corresponding middle construction in (51.b) only the second interpretation is available (i.e. the whole event of cutting the lawn usually does not take much time). Although schnell (‘quickly’) is not ambiguous in middle constructions, its interpretation clearly involves modification of events.

(51)

a.

… weil Peter den Rasen schnell mäht

… because Peter the lawn quickly cuts

b.

… weil sich der Rasen schnell mäht

… because rp the lawn quicky cuts

In chapter 7 we come back to the problem of the generic interpretation of middle constructions. We argue that both the implicit argument and the event variable are bound by a generic operator. Furthermore, we show that Fagan’s semantic condition (35.5) (‘be able to be Xed’) can be derived from this assumption. We conclude that Fagan’s and A&S’ analyses have various conceptual shortcomings and some of the empirical predictions turned out to be incorrect. Furthermore, the status of the implicit argument is not clear. We argued that there is no simple correlation between a uniform lexical representation of middle constructions and the ‘generic’ interpretation they typically receive. An implicit argument does not obligatorily trigger a generic interpretation. Moreover, ‘middle verbs’ or middle constructions are not individual-level predicates. Middle constructions clearly involve generalizations over events. And last but not least Fagan’s approach does not offer a conclusive explanation for the accusative reflexive pronoun in German middle constructions. In the following subsection we therefore look at an alternative lexical theory.

The middle template analysis

Bierwisch (1996) offers an explanation for the reflexive pronoun in anticausatives that can also applied to reflexive pronouns in middle constructions. In Bierwisch’s analysis a general grammatical principle accounts for the reflexive pronoun. In a sense the reflexive pronoun absorbs the accusative object case of the two-place verb, cf. also Abraham (1995a) for a similar idea. We believe that this approach is on the right track, although it is faced with various shortcomings. Let us take a closer look on Bierwisch’s analysis of anticausatives first.

The feature [+ Refl] is itself part of the lexical entry of every reflexive pronoun. Bierwisch proposes the following lexical entry for sich (him-/her-/itself and themselves):
(i)

/sich/ [+D, +Refl, +3Pers, +Obj] [x_k]

condition: x_k is the variable of the argument position occupied by the antecedent

(52)

Whenever an argument position is dominated by a nongenuine argument position the lower one is assigned the feature [+ refl]

A non-genuine argument position does not bind a variable in the semantic form (SF) of the predicate, i.e. this is an example of vacuous quantification. The reflexive pronoun in anticausatives can be derived from principle (52). Consider the following lexical entry for the verb öffnen (‘open’).

(53) öffnen: λx λy λe [e INST [(y CAUSE) [BECOME [OPEN x]]]]

In the anticausative variant of öffnen the argument position λy does not bind a variable, because the one-place SF-predicate CAUSE together with its argument y is removed from the SF of the anticausative verb (indicated by parentheses). According to (52), the object position λx receives the feature [+Refl] and it is (referentially) bound by the argument position λy dominating λx. The reflexive pronoun results from a valency-reduction operation that only affects the SF of the verb. Öffnen still subcategorizes two (syntactic) argument positions in (54), although it has only one semantic argument. The lexical entry for the anticausative variant of öffnen is given in (54):

(54) öffnen: λx λy λe [e INST [BECOME [OPEN x]]] λx = [+ Refl]

Note that the argument structure of a predicate does not simply result from λ-abstraction over SF-variables but is partly independent of the semantic representation (SF) of a predicate. Although this analysis can easily be applied to personal middle constructions it cannot explain why impersonal middle constructions are also transitive reflexive sentences. The underlying lexical entry of impersonal middle constructions contains only one argument position as can be seen e.g. in (55).

(55) lachen: λx λe [e INST [LAUGH x]]

(55) does not contain a second argument position that is dominated by another non-genuine argument position. Therefore the reflexive pronoun in impersonal middle constructions cannot be derived from (55). In order to apply (52) to impersonal middle construuctions we first have to add an additional non-genuine argument position to the argument structure of one-place predicates. Bierwisch (1997) assumes two different middle templates, which are necessary to derive the core cases of middle construction in his approach. (56.a) is the relevant middle template MT₁ for personal middle construction. One-place predicates have to be inserted in MT₂ in (56.b).

The operator PS is assumed to be responsible for the adverbial modification in middle constructions (and possibly for the ‘modal’ interpretation most middle constructions get, cf. 2.1.4). N stands for the generic interpretation of the implicit argument (N is an impicit argument that is ‘preferably generic’) and equals Fagan’s and A&S’ ARB. We do not discuss PS and N, because we already saw in the section that these issues are more complex.

The feature [+ M] is added to the lexical entry of a verb that undergoes middle formation to distinguish ‘middle verbs’ from their corresponding basic verbs in the lexicon.

(56)

a.

MT₁:

Two-place verbs:

[+ M]

λV λy λz [PS [V N y ]]

b.

MT₂:

One-place verbs:

[+ M]

λV λy λz [PS [V N ]]

These two templates enables us to derive both impersonal and personal middle constructions from underlying one- or two-place verbs. The derivation of personal middle constructions is illustrated in (57.a) and the derivation of impersonal middle constructions is given in (57.b).

(57)

a.

personal middle construction

1.

V [+V, -N]:

λa λb [b P a]

(two-place verb)

2.

[+M]:

λV λy λz [PS [V N y]]

3.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [(λa λb [b P a]) N y]]

4.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [N P y]]

b.

impersonal middle construction

1.

V [+V, -N]:

λa [a P]

(one-place verb)

2.

[+M]:

λV λy λz [PS [V N ]]

3.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [(λa [a P]) N ]]

4.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [N P]]

The free argument variable N, that is substituted for the first or highest argument of the verb, is crucial for this analysis of middle formation. N is an intrinsic part of both MTs. This step of the derivation is illustrated in (58). It corresponds to Fagan’s externalization rule or A&S’s basic rule MF: Actor = ARB.

(58)

λx [P x] N

=

[P N]

In a second step principle (52) can now be applied to personal and to impersonal ‘middle verbs’ and the output is a transitive reflexive sentence. (59) illustrates the derivation of the personal ‘middle verb’ schneiden (we use the simplified SF [x CUT y]).

(59)

1.

/schneid/

[+V, -N]:

λa λb [b CUT a]

2.

/Ø/

[+M]:

λV λy λz [PS [V N y]]

3.

/schneid/

[+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [(λa λb [b CUT a]) N y]]

4.

/schneid/

[+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [N CUT y]]

5.

λy = [+ Refl]

Note that Bierwisch tacitly assumes an additional condition like (60):

(60) N must occupy the highest argument position of the verb

Otherwise he cannot prevent two-place predicates from being inserted in the ‘impersonal’ MT₂ in (56.b), which would result in the lexical representation given in the third line (61.3). In semantics (61.3) is a two-place verb with an implicit ‘generic’ object. But in syntax (61.3) projects two reflexive pronouns, because principle (52) can be applied twice. However, a sentence like (63.4) with two reflexive pronouns does not yield the interpretation in (61.3). Hence (61.3) cannot be linked to (61.4). The same problem arises for one-place predicates that are inserted into the personal middle template MT₁

(61)

1.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [(λa λb [b P a]) N]]

2.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [λb [b P N]]]

3.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λb λy λz [PS [b P N]]

4.

λb = [+ Refl] & λy = [+ Refl]

5.

Peter zeigt sich sich (im Spiegel) (≠ 61.3)

Peter shows rp-dat rp-acc (in the mirror)

‘Peter is showing himself to himself (in the mirror)’

Three-place verbs pose yet another serious problem.

We take (62.1) to be a possible representation of a three-place predicate. The following argumentation does not depend on this specific representation. The same problem arises for all lexical entries with three argument positions.

Insertion of a three-place predicate into MT₁ would again contradict condition (60). The ‘generic’ argument N does not occupy the position of the first argument in the resulting ‘middle verb’ (62.5). The output in (62.5), which contains an implicit dative argument, is not the correct SF for a three-place ‘middle verb’.

(62)

1.

V [+V, -N]:

λc λb λa [CAUSE [a BECOME [POSS (b,c)]]]

2.

[+M]:

λV λy λz [PS [V N y]]

3.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [λc λb λa [CAUSE

[a BECOME [POSS (b,c)]]] N y]]

4.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [λa [CAUSE [a BECOME [POSS (N,y)]]]]]

5.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λa λy λz [PS [CAUSE [a BECOME [POSS (N,y)]]]]

Even a third middle template MT₃ for three-place verbs cannot derive the correct lexical representation for these verbs. Let us assume the following middle template MT₃ for three-place verbs which contains three semantic argument variables.

(63) MT₃:Three-place verbs: [+ M] λV λx λy λz [PS [V N y x ]]

After insertion of a three-place verb we derive the lexical representation in (64). This time the free ‘generic’ variable N is substituted for the correct argument variable (i.e. a).

(64)

1.

V [+V, -N]:

λc λb λa [CAUSE [a BECOME [POSS (b,c)]]]

2.

[+M]:

λV λx λy λz [PS [V N y x ]]

3.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λx λy λz [PS [λc λb λa [CAUSE

[N BECOME [POSS (y,x)]]] N y x ]]

4.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λx λy λz [PS [λa [CAUSE [N BECOME [POSS (y,x)]]]]]

5.

V [+V, -N, +M]:

λx λy λz [PS [CAUSE [N BECOME [POSS (y,x)]]]]

The corresponding syntactic representation can be derived by means of linking principles as proposed e.g. in Wunderlich (1992).

Case assignment for (structural) dative, accusative and nominative can be defined in the following way - [+HR] means ‘there is a higher role’ and [+LR] means ‘there is a lower role’ (cf. Wunderlich 1992:21). Note that not all instances of dative are structural, cf. chapter 6.
accusative:

[+HR]

dative:

[+HR, +LR]

nominative:

[-HR] or default case

These principles together with (52) yield the following syntactic realization of the arguments, which is again inconsistent with middle constructions derived from three-place verbs (cf. section 2.1.1). In (65) the non-argument reflexive is incorrectly assigned dative case and the accusative object of the corresponding active sentence is not promoted to subject.

(65)

a.

V [+V, -N, +M]: λx λy λz [PS [CAUSE [N BECOME [POSS (y,x)]]]]

b.

λx = [acc] & λy = [dat] & λz = [nom]

c.

λy = [+ Refl]

A similar problem arises for two-place verbs that assign dative case to their second argument. We mentioned in section 2.1.1 that dative objects cannot undergo middle formation at all. They can only occur in impersonal middle constructions.

(66)

a.

*Der Rektor widerspricht sich leicht

The rector-nom contradicts rp easily

b.

Dem Rektor widerspricht sich’s leicht

The rector-dat contradicts rp it easily

One could somehow restrict principle (52) to accusative objects only. But this restriction is again not sufficient to derive middle constructions with three-place verbs. In this case we cannot make use of principle (52) because it is always the dative object that is dominated by the empty (or nongenuine) argument position λz. As matters stand, the template analysis cannot derive MF with three-place verbs and it cannot exclude middle constructions derived from underlying two-place verbs that assign dative case to their object. We complete the discussion with some more basic remarks. We think that this analysis is basically on the right track. The reflexive pronoun in middle constructions and anticausatives is not an inherent property of these constructions but follows from some general grammatical principle. However, the template analysis is forced to assume (at least) two different lexical entries to offer a unified account of personal and impersonal middle constructions and anticausatives.

Both lexical entries in (57) can be combined to the following unified entry:

(i) λV λy λz [PS [V N (y)]]

Note however that one-place basic predicates can only be inserted into one-place middle templates. The same holds for two-place basic predicates (cf. above). Otherwise, middle formation would add not only an argument position but also an argument variable. Hence, we need again an additional principle to account for this. The relevant restriction can be stated as follows:

(ii) A [+M] verb must not select more argument variables than the corresponding [-M] verb

Note that a middle verb can select more argument positions but not more arguments.

Unlike anticausatives and two-place predicates, one-place predicates only select one argument. Therefore, one-place basic verbs must first be changed into two-place middle verbs. But this is assumption is clearly ad hoc. Hence the template analysis does not offer a uniform explanation of personal and impersonal middle constructions. Moreover, although the middle templates in (57) and principle (52) correctly describe the fact that middle constructions are always transitive relfexive sentences, they do not explain this fact. Besides, we cannot see how this analysis derives the fact that the non-argument reflexive cannot be focussed (cf. 67.b) as opposed to the argument reflexive in (67.a).

(67)

a.

Peter hat SICH gewaschen

Peter has rp washed

b.

*Das Brot schneidet SICH gut

The bread cuts rp easily

The corresponding SF-representations in (67.a’ and b’) show that the corresponding argument position λy binds a variable at SF in both examples. The template analysis does not distinguish two different interpretations of the reflexive pronoun. In both cases the reflexive pronoun is linked to an argument position (i.e. to a semantic variable). Following standard theories of focus we expect (narrow) focus to be grammatical in both cases (cf. next chapter for a detailed discussion of this issue).

(68)

a’.

λy λx [x WASH y]

λy = [+ Refl]

b’.

λy λz [PS [N Py]]

λy = [+ Refl]

Furthermore we expect ‘middle verbs’ to be input to further lexical rules like e.g. nominalization.

We mentioned in section 2.1.1 that resultatives can undergo middle formation.
(i)

Solche Schuhe laufen sich gewiß schnell kaputt

Such shoes walk rp certainly quickly broken

As far as we can see middle constructions must be derived from resultatives and not the other way round. A resultative can be input to MT₁ as is illustrated in (ii). RF means ‘resulative formation’ and MF ‘middle formation’. (ii.2) is a simplified lexical representation of the resultative construction corresponding to (i):
(i)

1. V [+V, -N]:

λb [WALK(b)]

2. V [+V, -N]:

λP λa λb [WALK(b) & CAUSE [BECOME [P(a)]]]

RF

3.[+M]:

λV λy λz [PS [V N y]]

4.V [+V, -N, +M]:

λP λy λz [PS [WALK(N) & CAUSE [BECOME P(y)]]]

MF

If we ‘medialize’ the verb laufen (‘walk’) first it seems impossible to derive the corresponding resultative construction. The output of this derivation is a three-place ‘middle verb’, which cannot be linked to (i).

(iii)

1.V [+V, -N]:

λb [WALK(b)]

2.[+M]:

λV λy λz [PS [V N]]

3.V [+V, -N, +M]:

λy λz [PS [WALK(N)]]

MF

4.V [+V, -N, +M]:

λP λx λy λz [PS [WALK(N) & CAUSE [BECOME P(x)]]]

RF

But it seems to be impossible to apply further lexical rules to middle constructions or ‘middle verbs’. This restriction would follow without additional assumptions from syntactic and presyntactic analyses. Besides, we already mentioned that there is no morphological evidence for ‘middle verbs’ or lexical ‘middle templates’. Verbs in middle constructions do not morphologically differ from their ‘active’ counterparts.

Finally we briefly turn to adverbial modification. According to Bierwisch, middle constructions obligatorily select an adverbial (via the PS-operator). Note that the question whether or not adverbial modification is (more or less) obligatory in middle constructions does not necessarily depend on the approach we choose. H&R (1993), for example, try to reduce adverbial modification to some syntactic licensing condition whereas some lexical approaches do not assume that adverbial modification is an inherent property of middle constructions that must be stipulated in the lexicon (cf. e.g. A&S 1994 and 1995 above). A postsyntactic approach must offer some semantic or pragmatic explanation for the fact that most middle constructions sound odd without adverbial modification. We already saw that sometimes middle constructions are also grammatical without adverbial modification (cf. the examples in section 2.1.4). Although most middle constructions involve some adverbial modification, this does not necessarily mean that middle constructions without adverbials are simply exceptions to the core or canonical case of a middle construction.

A similar example might be the verb wohnen (‘live’), cf. Höhle (1987). One could argue that wohnen also requires (context-dependent) adverbial modification because the intransitive sentence in (68.c) without an adverbial sounds odd. Sentence (i) shows, that wohnen selects either a manner adverbial or a locative PP.
(i)

Ich wohne gut/in Hamburg

I live (well) in Hamburg (i.e. I am living (well) in Hamburg)

(ii)

Ralf wohnt mit Hans-Martin zusammen

Ralf lives with Hans-Martin together

(iii)

Sie wohnt gut

She lives well

(iv)

%Er wohnt

He lives

(v)

Ich wohne jetzt unter der Brücke/im Obdachlosenasyl

I live now under the bridge/in-the shelter for the homeless

Usually, everybody has a place to live (zum Wohnen), at least in western cultures. The property wohnen can even be extended to cases like (v). Therefore, one might argue that sentence (iv) is not very informative, and it is very hard to imagine a situation in which this sentence can be uttered. We think that this sentence is grammatical. It is, however, not pragmatically licensed (cf. chapter 7 for further discussion).

Moreover, stipulating that adverbial modification is an intrinsic lexical property of middle constructions or 'middle verbs' is not yet an explanation of the fact that most middle constructions require some adverbial modification. Even under this assumption the reasons why adverbial modification is obligatory in many cases are still unclear. In addition, we do not see any independent criterion to decide whether or not adverbial modification is a necessary condition for the grammaticality of middle constructions. Traditionally, verbs c-select optional or obligatory arguments (and possibly directional or locative PPs). An approach that claims that verbs (e.g. ‘middle verbs’) also select adverbials, loses an important criterion that distinguishes adverbials from arguments, i.e. the property to be selected (or subcategorized) by the verb. Hence one advantage of an alternative (non-syntactic) explanation is that we need not extend the selectional properties of verbs.

Otherwise this must be done to explain only a few cases like wohnen or middle constructions.

On the one hand, a theory assuming subcategorization of an adverbial has to explain the (admittedly) rare cases of middle constructions that are grammatical without adverbial modification. And a theory that does not assume adverbial selection in middle constructions must explain why most middle constructions require some adverbial modification. In chapter 7 we discuss this issue in greater detail.

Summary

We summarize the main results of the discussion again in a shorthand.

lexical theories do not offer a conclusive explanation for the reflexive pronoun in middle constructions.
personal and impersonal middle constructions cannot be derived in a uniform way.
middle constructions with three-place predicates cannot be derived at all.
so far, middle formation with dative objects cannot be excluded.
the correlation between the implicit argument ARB or N and the generic interpretation of middle constructions (or the change from stage-level to individual-level predicates) is unclear. No conclusive lexical explanation has been offered so far.
‘Middle verbs’ are not individual-level predicates.
lexical theories cannot explain why most middle constructions require some adverbial modification.
no relevant prediction follows from a lexical derivation of middle constructions.
there is no morphological evidence for a lexical rule of middle formation or a lexical middle template.

Conclusion

We saw that neither a syntactic nor a lexical approach offers a conclusive derivation of middle constructions in English, Dutch or Italian (and French) so far. An application of these analyses to German middle constructions raises additional problems. The analyses of German middle constructions that we discussed in 2.1.3 and 2.2 are not conclusive either. They need all additional ad hoc stipulations and cannot account for all kinds of middle constructions that can be found in German. In particular impersonal middle constructions, middle constructions with three-place verbs and impersonal middle constructions with an dative object still pose serious problems. Besides, they do not offer a uniform analysis of transitive reflexive sentences (i.e. of the semantic ambiguity of the accusative reflexive pronoun). We think that further investigation into the semantics of middle constructions can help to answer some of the questions raised above. Up to now a postsyntactic approach has generally been neglected. In the following we develop a postsyntactic analysis of middle constructions, anticausatives and reflexives. Above all, this analysis has to account for the ambiguity of the accusative reflexive pronoun. Furthermore, it must exclude dative objects from middle formation. In chapter 4 we show that all transitive sentences with a accusative reflexive pronoun in the position of the direct object do not differ in syntax no matter whether they are interpreted as reflexives, anticausatives or middles. In chapter 5 we deal with the semantic ambiguity of transitive reflexive sentences. We argue that all interpretations of transitive reflexive sentences can be derived from the same underlying syntactic representation. Chapter 6 deals with anticausatives and dative case. In chapter 7 we briefly turn to the problem of adverbial modification and genericity and we finally discuss adjunct-middle constructions.