Pasivum v češtině
|PDF - Authorized users only |
|Title:||Pasivum v češtině|
Karlík, Petr; pkarlik at phil dot muni dot cz; Ústav českého jazyka FF MU, Arna Nováka 1, Brno, 602 00
|Journal or Publication Title:|
Slovo a slovesnost, 65, 2, pp. 83-113
Analysis of Czech data within the theoretical framework of Modified Valency Theory (Karlík, 2000) shows that the syntactic derivation of passive voice proceeds in two phases. The first phase, which I call (A), can be referred to as deagentization. Given the passive morphology of a verb, A-1 (i.e. the subject or external argument of the verb) is blocked. When the verb is transitive, A-2 (i.e. the object or the internal argument of the verb) enters the caseless subject position “e” of a verb with passive morphology, i.e. the -n-/-t- participle in Czech. The resulting structures are sometimes called syntactically ergative, as shown by ‘PROA-1 chválit NPaccA-2 --> e(i)A-2 chválen-Ø/-a/-o t(i)’, as opposed to lexically ergative, as illustrated in the example ‘PROA-2 blednout’. The second phase, which I call (B), can be referred to as raising. For transitive verbs, this is the movement of A-2 from the subject position “e” of a verb with passive morphology, where it fails to receive a case, into the subject position of the verb být, ‘to be’. The verb ‘to be’ does not assign a Θ-role, however, in this position, A-2 can obtain case and thus be lexically realized: Petr(i)A-2 je e(i) chválen t(i). In the description of the passive voice, it is necessary to distinguish expressions with deverbal adjectives because these are produced through a single phase. Deverbal adjectives are generated earlier in the lexicon.