Home Linguistics & Semiotics Passivization and argument structure in Lithuanian
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Passivization and argument structure in Lithuanian

  • Cori Anderson
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company
Search
Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic
This chapter is in the book Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic

Abstract

I examine the connection between internal case marking, telicity and the ability of a verb to passivize in Lithuanian. Crucially, oblique passivization – verbs which take a case other than accusative, yet form agreeing passive participles – is observed, and raises questions of case preservation. Because not all oblique-case verbs allow passivization, I examine the standard approach to case theory, and, following Babby (1994) and Woolford (2006), propose that instances non-structural case can be further distinguished as either lexical and inherent case. Additionally, oblique passives are overwhelmingly found to be instances of actional, rather than statal, passives. Statal passives denote an object-oriented result, and thus a connection between telicity and accusative case is found, following similar conclusions for Slavic in Richardson (2007).

Abstract

I examine the connection between internal case marking, telicity and the ability of a verb to passivize in Lithuanian. Crucially, oblique passivization – verbs which take a case other than accusative, yet form agreeing passive participles – is observed, and raises questions of case preservation. Because not all oblique-case verbs allow passivization, I examine the standard approach to case theory, and, following Babby (1994) and Woolford (2006), propose that instances non-structural case can be further distinguished as either lexical and inherent case. Additionally, oblique passives are overwhelmingly found to be instances of actional, rather than statal, passives. Statal passives denote an object-oriented result, and thus a connection between telicity and accusative case is found, following similar conclusions for Slavic in Richardson (2007).

Chapters in this book

  1. Prelim pages i
  2. Table of contents v
  3. Preface vii
  4. Voice in Baltic 1
  5. Part I. Causatives
  6. Lithuanian morphological causatives 39
  7. Morphological causatives in contemporary Latvian 99
  8. Extended uses of morphological causatives in Latvian 147
  9. Part II. Reflexives and middle voice
  10. Middle voice reflexives and argument structure in Baltic 181
  11. Converse relations with the reflexive marker in Lithuanian and Polish 211
  12. Part III. Passives
  13. Passivization and argument structure in Lithuanian 289
  14. Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive 323
  15. Latvian passives – personal, impersonal and evidential 367
  16. Language index 395
  17. Name index 397
  18. Subject index 399
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.2.06and

Chapters in this book

  1. Prelim pages i
  2. Table of contents v
  3. Preface vii
  4. Voice in Baltic 1
  5. Part I. Causatives
  6. Lithuanian morphological causatives 39
  7. Morphological causatives in contemporary Latvian 99
  8. Extended uses of morphological causatives in Latvian 147
  9. Part II. Reflexives and middle voice
  10. Middle voice reflexives and argument structure in Baltic 181
  11. Converse relations with the reflexive marker in Lithuanian and Polish 211
  12. Part III. Passives
  13. Passivization and argument structure in Lithuanian 289
  14. Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive 323
  15. Latvian passives – personal, impersonal and evidential 367
  16. Language index 395
  17. Name index 397
  18. Subject index 399
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 11.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/vargreb.2.06and/html
Scroll to top button