Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 25, No. 0, pp.1655-1670
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 16 Oct 2025 Revised 09 Dec 2025 Accepted 15 Dec 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202512.1655

Pseudo-Passives as Control Constructions

Kwang-sup Kim
Professor, Dept. of English Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Tel: 031-330-4294 kwangsup@hufs.ac.kr


© 2025 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The pseudo-passive is characterized by a gap in the complement position of a preposition, with the filler of that gap appearing in subject position. This peculiar syntactic pattern follows if prepositions, like verbs, exhibit a shell structure consisting of a light preposition p* and a lexical category P. The light preposition p*, like the light verb v*, is responsible for Case assignment. Being a bound morpheme, it merges with either P or the preceding verb at PF. This study claims that if it merges with the preceding verb, it fails to assign Case, leaving the complement of P Caseless, and the Caseless DP inside the PP is controlled by the subject. The pseudo-passive is subject to a distinctive semantic condition: it does not describe an event, but rather a property or characteristic of the subject. This follows if the subject is assigned a Character Role by the adjectival passive morpheme -en or by T. On this view, the subject is base-generated either in Spec of adjectival passive -en or in Spec-T, and it establishes a Form–Copy relation with the Caseless DP inside the PP. In short, the pseudo-passive is analyzed as a control construction.

Keywords:

pseudo-passive, control, shell structure, light preposition, Form-Copy

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF-2025S1A5A2A01007637) and the research fund (2025) of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  • Anderson, M. 1977. NP Pre-posing in Noun Phrases. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 8, 12-21.
  • Anderson, M. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.
  • Anderson, M. 2005. Affectedness. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., the Blackwell companion to syntax vol 1, Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom003]
  • Baltin, M. and P. M. Postal.1996. More on reanalysis hypotheses. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 127-145.
  • Bresnan, J. 1995. Lexicality and Argument Structure. Paper presented at the Paris Syntax and Semantics Conference.
  • Bruening, B. 2014. Word Formation is Syntactic: Adjectival Passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32, 363-422. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9227-y]
  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications.
  • Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2021. Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to Go? Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1-41.
  • Chomsky, N.2023. Language and the miracle creed. ms, University of Arizona/MIT. Available online at https://share.google/fsNd8NjBLPXjMKk8w
  • Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. MIT Press.
  • Drummond, A. and D. Kush. 2015. ‘Reanalysis’ as Raising to Object. Syntax 18, 425-463. [https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12035]
  • Drummond, A., N. Hornstein and H. Lasnik. 2010. A puzzle about P stranding and a possible solution. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 689-692. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00018]
  • Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999553968]
  • Hornstein, N. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Blackwell.
  • Hornstein, N. 2009. A Theory of Syntax. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575129]
  • Hornstein, N. and A. Weinberg. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 55–91.
  • Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris Publications. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111682228]
  • Koster, J.1987. Domain and Dynasties: the Radical Autonomy of Syntax. Foris Publications. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808520]
  • Landau, I. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Kluwer.
  • Larson, R. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.
  • Larson, R. K. 2014. On Shell Structure. Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203429204]
  • Lasnik, H. and R. Fiengo. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 535–71.
  • Postal, P. M. 1986. Studies of Passive Clauses. State University of New York Press.
  • Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: a first course. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840425]
  • Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
  • Riemsdijk, H. van. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Foris Publications.