The voice of French existential on constructions
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
The external arguments of short passives and French existential on constructions share strikingly similar properties: both display discourse and scopal inertness, both fail to provide an antecedent for a PRO subject of a passive infinitival, and neither is compatible with an unaccusative verb. Such similarities have yet to be fully explained. Using Merchant’s (2013) observation that ellipsis is subject to identity between phrase markers, we argue that existential on sentences contain a non-active Voice head that existentially binds an external argument that remains syntactically unprojected, just as Bruening (2013) argues is the case for short passives. We further argue that on is the default agreement spellout that obtains when tensed T fails to find a goal bearing the appropriate valued j-features, assuming with Preminger (2009, 2014) that when Agree fails, the unvalued features on the probe retain their preexisting or default values. Finally, we argue that EPP in existential on constructions is satisfied on the assumption that it reduces to An’s (2007) Intonational Phrase Edge Generalization (IPEG) and we show that IPEG, combined with our theory of existential on, correctly predicts the existence of a silent counterpart to existential on in ECM contexts.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
(c) Marc Authier, Lisa A Reed, 2025
Lisa A Reed, Pennsylvania State University
Department of French And Francophone Studies & Linguistics Program
Professor of French and Linguistics
An, Duk-Ho. 2007. Clauses in non-canonical positions at the syntax-phonology interface. Syntax 10: 38-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00096.x
Bruening, Bejamin. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16: 1-41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x
Bruening, Benjamin & Thuan Tran. 2015. The nature of the passive, with an analysis
of Vietnamese. Lingua 165: 133-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.07.008
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521-582.
Collins, Chris. 2017. On the implicit argument in the short passive. Ms., New York University. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003492
Collins, Chris & Paul Postal. 2012. Imposters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (eds), Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics 8), 47-58. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_004
Creissels, Denis. 2011. Impersonal pronouns and coreference: Two case studies. Paper presented at the Journée sur les pronoms impersonnels, Paris, France, September 20, 2011. https://www.academia.edu/18971285/Impersonal_pronouns_and_coreference_two_case_studies
Egerland, Verner. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 75-102.
Gaatone, David. 1994. Passif, impersonnel et passif impersonnel en français: quelques réflexions. L’information Grammaticale 62: 42-44.
Haegeman, Liliane & Lieven Danckaert. 2017. Variation in English subject extraction: The case of hyperactive subjects. In Fuzhen SI. Studies on syntactic cartography, 303-315. China Social Sciences Press.
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445-483. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554406
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587-622.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999. On a tué le président ! The nature of passives and ultra-indefinites. In B. Fox, D. Jurafsky & L. Michaelis (eds), Cognition and function in language, 235-251. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Gail Mauner. 2000. A-definites and the discourse status of implicit arguments. Journal of Semantics 16: 207-236.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/16.3.207
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau, Idan. 2007. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 485-523.
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.485
Lasersohn, Peter. 1993. Lexical distributivity and implicit arguments. In U. Lahiri & A. Z. Wyner (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory III, 145-161. Washington, D.C.: Linguistic Society of America.
https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v3i0.2751
Lasnik, Howard. 1988. Subjects and the -Criterion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 1-17.
McFadden, Thomas & Sandhya Sundaresan. 2018. What the EPP and comp-trace effects have in common: Constraining silent elements at the edge. Glossa 3 (1), 43: 1-34. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.419
Meltzer-Asscher, Aya. 2012. Verbal passives in English and Hebrew: A comparative study. In M. Everaert, M. Marelj & T. Siloni (eds), The theta system: Argument structure at the interface, 279-307. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0011
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 77-108. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00120
Perlmutter, David & Paul Postal. 1983. Toward a universal characterization of passivization. In D. Perlmutter (ed), Studies in relational grammar 1, 3-29. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Perlmutter, David & Paul Postal. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In ed. D. Perlmutter & C. Rosen (eds), Studies in relational grammar 2, 81-125. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Preminger, Omer. 2009. Failure to Agree is not a failure: -agreement with post-verbal subjects in Hebrew. In J. Rooryck (ed), Linguistic variation yearbook, Vol. 9, 241-278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.9.07pre
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reed. Lisa. 1992. Remarks on word order in causative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 164-172.
Reed, Lisa. 2014. Strengthening the PRO hypothesis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510413
Reed, Lisa. 2018. Against control by implicit passive agents. In L. Repetti & F. Ordóñez (eds), Romance languages and linguistic theory 14, 279-292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.16ree
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.
Williams, Alexander & Jeffrey Jack Green. 2017. Why control of PRO in rationale clauses is not a relation between arguments. In A. Lamont & K. Tetzloff (eds), Proceedings of NELS 47, Vol. 3, 233-246. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts GLSA.
Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and the subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154265
Williams, Edwin. 1992. Adjunct control. In R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri & J. Higginbotham (eds), Control and grammar, 297-322. Dordrecht: Kluwer.