In English, there are cases where passives apply to a non-object, that is, the object of a certain preposition, esp a locative preposition. The problem is there are cases where cert In English, there are cases where passives apply to a non-object, tha...
In English, there are cases where passives apply to a non-object, that is, the object of a certain preposition, esp a locative preposition. The problem is there are cases where cert In English, there are cases where passives apply to a non-object, that is, the object of ain locative prepositions allow the passive transformation, but some others don't.
The approach by the syntactic analyses has not been able to predict the behavior exhaustively.
As an alternative, the notion "affectedness" came to have attention. However, it has been found that just this semantic notion of "affectedness" alone can't cover the full range of the peculiar behavior of the preposition used for passive transformation.
It is also too irresponsible to appeal to the pragmatics, which can explain certain phenomena more persuasively than the syntactic or the semantic approach.
This paper purports to explain the phenomena, expanding the semantic notion of
"affectedness". By the expansion of the semantic notion, this paper purports to give a criteria for the pragmatic application.
This paper takes note of the fact that the passivization does not apply to the time expression PPs. It is suggested that the inapplicability is due to the "unaffectedness" or "trace-free' nature of "the point of time"
As for the "cause" and "manner" and "purpose" PPs, it is suggested that they can all be subsumed as meaning the same thing as the by-phrase, and so making the by-phrase a redundancy.
However, this paper can't be taken as providing all the necessary explanation. There still remains some unsolved problems.