Voice in Turkish: Re-thinking u-syncretism

Abstract

U-syncretism is the identical morphological marking of the passive and other verbal categories that have reduced syntactic valency, including the anticausative and verbal reflexive (Embick 2004). Nonactive morphology in Greek exhibits u-syncretism, while English and German have dedicated passive morphology. An influential body of literature holds that u-syncretism is the hallmark of a middle or nonactive Voice structure, which has a range of interpretations, while its absence is symptomatic of a canonical passive (Alexiadou and Doron 2012; Alexiadou et al. 2015; Spathas et al. 2015; Schäfer 2017; a.o.). The Turkish passive suffix also marks anticausatives and some verbal reflexives (Gündoğdu 2017). Nevertheless, the present paper argues that Turkish has a canonical passive that is morphosyntactically distinct from nonactive/middle Voice. U-syncretism is found only with verb stems that lack transitive marking. With stems that take an overt marker of transitivity—a causative suffix or an active light verb—the passive suffix is rigidly passive in interpretation, licensing a by phrase but not a by-itself or causer phrase in the case of alternating change-of-state verbs, and rejecting a reflexive reading even with a naturally reflexive verb. I conclude that the Turkish passive is derived with a transitive verb stem, while the anticausative and reflexive are derived with intransitive stems. U-syncretism arises only where transitive marking is null, and therefore, I argue, reflects a morphosyntactic ambiguity rather than different interpretations of the nonactive/middle Voice construction. This paper thus shows that a canonical passive can exhibit surface u-syncretism.