Search

This article argues for the presence of an implicit projected argument in Spec,Voice in Spanish impersonal- and passive- se constructions. The main empirical support comes from an available inalienable-possession interpretation of the sole overt DP when it is a body part in both constructions. This interpretation is only possible in the presence of a syntactically present c-commanding possessor. I argue that the implicit projected external argument serves as the inalienable possessor of the body part. Neither the periphrastic passive nor the anticausative- se construction in Spanish allows an inalienable-possession interpretation of the sole overt DP when it is a body part. In these instances, I claim, no implicit argument projects in Spec,Voice. I discuss how the presence of a projected argument in Spec,Voice is responsible for by-phrase restrictions in impersonal- and passive- se constructions and person restrictions in passive- se constructions; the lack of a projected implicit argument in Spec,Voice of both the periphrastic passive and the anticausative- se construction is responsible for the lack of the person restrictions in both, and the lack of by-phrase restrictions in the periphrastic passive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper is concerned with the internal structure of Germanic what for phrases. A comparative look at what for across Dutch, German, Norwegian, Swedish, and Swiss German leads to a drastic revision of the traditional view on what for. The proposal recognizes an (often silent) functional nominal SORT as a constitutive part of the what for construction. For is analyzed as a prepositional complementizer whose complement contains the (silent) nominal and the trace of what, to which for assigns accusative Case. The projection of for, forP, is argued to sit in a specifier position in the extended projection of the head noun, similar to adjectival modifiers on a Cinquean view. What moves out of forP into the left periphery of the noun phrase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]