The phenomenon of Middle Voice addresses for this paper. Middle Voice in English describes as a “derived intransitive,” (Hürtz 2008) in which the logical subject replaces for a typically transitive predicate’s thematic argument, as in “The bureaucrats bribe easily.” Previous, comprehensive treatments of Middle Voice in English have tended to propose only marginally for the analyses’ respective proponents (Zrürbczycz-
For example, the tendency for adverbials such as “easily” to require points out often, as do constraints against certain verbal types, such as 〈Experiencer, Causer〉 verbs. Most notably, Middle Voice argues frequently to only pertain to stative, rather than eventive, readings for much of its previous treatments (Hürtz 2008).
This paper, on the other hand, is presenting a very different stance on these so-called “structural constraints.” That such constraints do not exist at all argues very strongly. That these structural constraints rightly assert for the previous literature presently defies. Evidence contrary to these often-
The following claims pertaining to examples as in (1) have asserted for several notable scholars in the field: overt adverbials require, for-phrases license, and by-phrases do not license for middles.
Importantly, that readings as in (2) do not attest under the intended reading in which theme assigns to the bureaucrats for the predicate has claimed time and time again.
Such constraints put forth, however, as pragmatic in nature for most analyses in the literature. That is, an information theoretic constraint against vacuously true or “uninformative” propositions claims. Nevertheless, purely semantic or purely syntactic (or both) explanations posit in regards to such issues for most of the canonical literature. A purely syntactic framework that has previously proposed for Stroke (1994, 1999) allows quite readily. Any derivational account that requires for the data simply must encounter. As of yet an explanatorily productive system has proposed for only Stroke (1999), so it might as well adopt for us
A predictable and productive derivational system has put forth for Stroke (1999). Under this proposal, the external argument of a predicate demotes quite simply for the application of Middle Voice as a functional parameter. Raising the internal argument of the predicate triggers for this notion of “argument demotion,” while the agentive argument inserts into a for-phrase adjunct. The different structural realizations of Middle and Passive Voices contrasts for Stroke (1999) in this way. This is, of course, alongside the propensity for nonstandard verbal morphology in Passives, which itself contrasts with the lack of overt morphological change in Middles for Stroke. Since such a predictable derivational process has noted for Stroke and others, assuming pragmatic constraints can divorce from syntactic ones for us, Middle Voice can simply treat as one of three pragmatically motivated yet syntactically distinct processes for us, contrasting with Active Voice and Passive Voice.
Obviously, then, with any sufficient context, that such formerly ascribed syntactic constraints exist at all in any meaningful, structural fashion can deny quite easily. For example, (2) should reanalyze as perfectly grammatical for us, which one shows for (3).
Other common analyses of Middles claim that stative readings, in contrast with eventive readings, force for them for previous scholars. As such, claims about internal temporal structure of Middles make for previous accounts often. However, that eventive readings only allow readily for Middles disagrees vehemently for myself and others, as in (4)-(6). That eventive readings allow sees easily
The text translated quickly last night.
Some children will punch easily for me at 6:00 p.m.
The floor waxed for Steven exactly one time.
Therefore, to explicitly account for these pragmatic distinctions in the syntax proves unnecessary rather elegantly for us. That insufficient available context reflects for any proposed constraints on Middles simply is arguing for me, and thus any broad claims about their ungrammaticality challenges directly.
Hürtz, M. A.: Neo-
Stroke, Suffred A.: Middles and their relative spatial location (the middle). Middlistic Inquiries, Vol. 58, 1994. 43-198
Stroke, Suffred A.: Middles and Middling. In Jäggenheim, J., Stüppenbörg, J., eds.: Proceedings of Derivational Derivations, 1999. 121-348
Zrürbczycz-Gücztz, N.: Logophorials in Middle Constrüctions. MIT (Middles, Intransitives, and Transitives) Press. 2004