Impersonals, passives, and impersonal pronouns: Lessons from Lithuanian

Abstract

AbstractThis study examines the properties of VoiceP and impersonal pronouns by contrasting two constructions in Lithuanian: the‐ma/‐taimpersonal and the canonical passive. I argue that, while these two constructions overlap morphologically, they are syntactically distinct. The‐ma/‐taimpersonal is related to the‐no/‐toconstruction in Polish and in Ukrainian. Although it patterns with the Ukrainian‐no/‐topassive in allowing an auxiliary, it behaves like an active VoiceP with a null projected initiator in a thematic‐subject position, a pattern found in the Polish‐no/‐toimpersonal and other impersonals crosslinguistically. I show that the Lithuanian passive lacks a syntactically realized initiator and selects for a type of Voice without a specifier. I also analyze the properties of the impersonal pronoun of the‐ma/‐taimpersonal, demonstrating that it is a bare N that lacks inherently specified ɸ features (number, gender, and person) and has no case. This finding supports existing proposals that treat impersonal pronouns in different languages as defective.