In this paper we show that the well known definition of affected object — as an object that is somehow altered or modified by the action expressed by the verb — is problematic with respect to middle formation, which has been claimed in the literature to be possible only with affected objects. The following puzzling facts are discussed: (i) in "plain" languages some predicates with unaffected objects may undergo middle formation whereas others may not; (ii) in "reflexive" languages some predicates with unaffected objects may undergo middle formation whereas others may not; (iii) "reflexive" languages may differ among themselves with respect to middle formation with unaffected objects. We argue that the notion of affected object has to be re-defined in terms of the aspectuality of the entire predicate.
2022. The Predictability of Social Stratification of Syntactic Variants. In Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation, ► pp. 144 ff.
Fernández, Beatriz & Ane Berro
2022. Basque impersonals in comparison. Linguistics 60:4 ► pp. 1039 ff.
Beavers, John
2011. On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29:2 ► pp. 335 ff.
Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens & Paul Kerswill
2005. Dialect Change,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.