English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper focuses on a well-known pattern of systematic syncretism in Spanish se constructions. Detailed syntactic and semantic analyses are provided with the aim of sustaining two main theses. First, I conceive of se (and its agreeing variants), as a probe for A-movement. This probe is merged with Voice in order to satisfy a subcategorization restriction. Yet, being defective, it cannot receive a θ -role from Voice. As a probe it looks for a goal in its complement domain. If there is such a goal, then it A-moves to Spec,Voice, position in which it agrees with se and receives an additional agent θ -role from Voice, if there is one. This results in most, if not all, instances of the so-called "paradigmatic" se (se reflexives, inherent se, benefactive se and so on). There are cases in which there is no such a goal for se. In those scenarios, Agree fails and the clitic receives third person singular by default. This results in the so-called "non-paradigmatic" se (essentially, passive/impersonal se). Second, at LF, these two syntactic scenarios feed two different LF realizations. Whenever se has a goal with which it agrees, se itself is realized as a λ -abstractor, but as an indefinite variable whenever Agree fails, as in the case of passive/impersonal se. This theory dispenses, then, with particular Voice features (e.g., Active vs. Non-active) and with different types of se (paradigmatic vs. non-paradigmatic) but, more importantly, it does so by appealing to well-motivated restrictions on A-dependencies, namely, Activity and Miminality.

Deconstructing Voice. The syntax and semantics of <i>u</i>-syncretism in Spanish