ON THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF

SUBJECTLESSNESS
AND HOW TO MODEL THEM IN LFG

Anna Kibort
Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey, UK

Proceedings of the LFG Conference

Universität Konstanz
Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors)

CSLI Publications
[Link]
 Abstract
Outside LFG, the term ‘subjectless’ is found referring to a range of phenomena in which
the expression of the predicate lacks an overt lexical item (a syntactic constituent) bearing
the grammatical function of the subject. In some of these phenomena, for example in pro-
drop, the architecture of LFG allows us to find the subject at the a-structure and f-structure
levels despite there being no categorial element expressing the subject. There are, however,
other subjectless constructions for which there are no readily available LFG accounts, and
it is not always obvious how they could be analysed adequately. It is constructions of this
type – often called ‘impersonal’ in traditional literature – that will be the focus of this paper,
exemplified from Polish which is rich in impersonal forms.
I will begin with an overview of all Polish constructions which appear to be subject-
less. I will identify three types of construction which lack subjects at some level of analysis:
pro-drop constructions (including the so-called ‘weather constructions’ and ‘adversity im-
personals’), morpholexically derived impersonal constructions, and truly subjectless con-
structions. I will then demonstrate how they differ by highlighting their morphological
and syntactic properties and suggest levels of representation at which the different types of
‘null/missing subjects’ can be captured theoretically.

 ‘Subjectless’ constructions in Polish

Polish has a large number of different constructions that appear to be subjectless. As will be
demonstrated in the further sections of this paper, their morphosyntactic properties allow
them to be grouped into the following categories:
. pro-drop constructions. These include clauses formed from personal predicates
with a dropped personal pronoun (such as ‘[He] [Link] that the door was open
and [he] [Link] in’), and from personal predicates with a dropped indefinite pro-
noun, both the pronoun referring to humans (‘[Someone] [Link] as if [he]
[Link] to warn us’) and the pronoun referring to non-humans, as in ‘weather
constructions’ and ‘adversity impersonals’ (‘[Something] [Link] as if [it]
[Link] to pull out trees with their roots’, ‘[Something] [Link] him to
the side’). Contrary to the frequently found though unsubstantiated assumption, Polish
weather constructions, adversity impersonals and other apparently subjectless clauses in-
volving verbs of physical or psychological states do not lack a syntactic subject, nor do they
have a suppressed or other empty category/zero subject. Instead, they result from subject
ellipsis, with their omitted subject being the indefinite pronoun referring to non-humans
– that is, they are instances of proindef -drop.
. Morpholexically derived impersonal constructions. These include clauses formed
from personal predicates whose fully operational (binding, controlling, available for raising)
and interpretable syntactic subject has been ‘suppressed’ by a morpholexical operation and
is not allowed to appear as a constituent in surface syntax. This category includes the so-
called ‘-no/-to impersonal’ (Bito Piotra ‘[Link] Peter(masc).acc’ meaning ‘[They] beat
Peter’) and the reflexive impersonal (Biło sieø Piotra ‘[Link] refl Peter(masc).acc’
meaning ‘[One] beat Peter’).
I gratefully acknowledge the current ESRC grant RES---. This paper draws from my PhD
thesis on passive and passive-like constructions in English and Polish (Kibort ).
 . Subjectless constructions. These are formed from predicates without either an overt
or an omitted/covert syntactic subject which could participate in syntactic operations such
as control or raising. This category includes inherently impersonal predicates (a small class
of defective, non-inflecting verbs as in: Słychać jaø ‘[One] [Link]-personal [Link]’, or
‘Było widać łaøkeø ‘[One] [Link] [Link]-personal meadow(fem).acc’) and predi-
cates which have lost their subjects as a result of derivation. The latter occurs, for instance,
when passivisation is applied to an intransitive predicate.
. Constructions with non-agreeing subjects. These include predicative adverbial con-
structions (e.g., Miło z tobaø podróżować ‘Nicely with you [Link]’ meaning ‘It is nice
travelling with you’) or nominativeless clauses with predicates requiring a genitive argu-
ment (e.g., Przybywa wody ‘Becomes-more water(fem).gen’). Clauses of this type com-
plete the typology of Polish ‘subjectless’ constructions, but it is important to realise that
their subjectlessness is only apparent. They do not lack subjects, but simply have non-
agreeing subjects. Thus, they pattern with other clauses whose subjects have some nominal
properties but are nevertheless not appropriate agreement controllers. Such subjects are
prepositional phrases, quantifier phrases (with quantifiers requiring their complements to
appear in genitive case), clausal subjects (including infinitival subjects), and certain inde-
clinable subjects such as acronyms and foreign place names. This type of construction will
not be taken up further in this paper; for some more discussion and analysis see Kibort
(:-).
The first three types of construction all lack overt subjects but each has different mor-
phosyntactic properties, which will be exemplified in the sections below. I will show that
the architecture of LFG makes it possible to identify these different types of subjectlessness
at different levels of representation of the predicate, even though the new analyses may
require revising some elements of LFG’s theory of argument structure. Constructions of
TYPE  (pro-drop) fall under the standard LFG analysis of unexpressed pronouns. Con-
structions of TYPE  (morpholexical impersonals) need a new analysis: they have an
unaltered argument structure, but the categorial expression of their fully operational syn-
tactic subject is suppressed. At functional structure level, the covert subject may be analysed
as an obligatory pro analogous to the pro in arbitrary anaphoric control constructions. Fi-
nally, constructions of TYPE  (truly subjectless predicates), which have no subject at any
level of analysis (a-structure, f-structure, or c-structure), provide a strong argument against
LFG’s Subject Condition (‘Every predicator must have a subject’; Bresnan :).

 TYPE : pro-drop constructions

The following Polish sentences are not usually associated with the pro-drop phenomenon.
They exemplify predicates denoting natural or supernatural phenomena including weather
phenomena (-), the so-called ‘adversity impersonals’ (), and predicates denoting physical
or psychological states ():
() Pada/Świta.
rains/dawns
‘It is raining/dawning.’
() W tym domu straszy.
in this house spooks
 ‘It haunts in this house.’ (meaning: ‘This house is haunted’)
() Wyrzuciło łódkeø na brzeg.
[Link] boat(fem).acc onto shore
‘The boat got thrown onto the shore.’
() a. Mdli/Dusi/Skreøca/Ciaø gnie/Boli/Sweødzi/Kłuje mnie.
nauseates/chokes/convulses/pulls/aches/itches/stabs [Link]
‘[Something] makes me nauseous/choke/convulse/contract my muscles/painful/itch/gives
me shooting pains.’
b. Mdli/Dusi/Skreøca mnie od tego zapachu.
nauseates/chokes/convulses [Link] from this smell
‘This smell makes me nauseous/choke/convulse.’
c. Mdli/Dusi/Skreøca mnie z bólu/zazdrości.
nauseates/chokes/convulses [Link] from pain/envy
‘The pain/envy makes me nauseous/choke/convulse.’
Clauses of this type commonly appear without an overt nominative subject and use
verbal forms displaying ‘default’ agreement. They are often treated as impersonal active
clauses with covert inanimate subjects – that is, they are taken to contain an empty or ‘zero’
subject. The existence of the ‘zero’ subject is taken to trigger ‘default’ [Link] agreement
in the verb and impose on the construction an ‘inherent inanimate force’ interpretation.
However, it is straightforward to demonstrate that all predicates used in these construc-
tions can easily appear with an overt nominative subject, whether in the singular or in the
plural:
() a. Padało. ∼ Deszcz padał.
[Link] rain(masc).nom [Link]
‘It was raining. ∼ The rain was raining.’
b. Świta. ∼ Poranek świta.
dawns morning(masc).nom dawns
‘It is dawning. ∼ The morning is dawning.’
c. Czeøsto padajaø tu ulewne deszcze.
often rain.3pl here [Link] rains(nonvir).nom
‘Torrential rains often rain here.’
() a. W tym domu straszy.
in this house spooks
‘It haunts in this house.’ (meaning: ‘This house is haunted’)
b. W tym domu coś straszy.
in this house something(neut).nom spooks
‘Something haunts in this house.’ (meaning: ‘This house is haunted by some-
thing/some ghost’)
c. W tym domu straszy duch pradziadka.
in this house spooks ghost(masc).nom great-grandfather(masc).gen
‘This house is haunted by the ghost of the great grandfather.’
 () a. Morze wyrzuciło łódkeø na brzeg.
sea(neut).nom [Link] boat(fem).acc onto shore
‘The sea threw the boat onto the shore.’
b. Fale wyrzuciły łódkeø na brzeg.
waves(nonvir).nom [Link] boat(fem).acc onto shore
‘The waves threw the boat onto the shore.’

() a. Wszystkie zapachy mnie mdliły. Nawet

all smells(nonvir).nom [Link] [Link] even
zapach kawy mnie mdlił.
smell(masc).nom coffee(fem).gen [Link] [Link]
‘All smells made me nauseous. Even the smell of coffee made me nauseous.’
b. Ból skreøcał mnie niemiłosiernie.
pain(masc).nom [Link] [Link] mercilessly
‘The pain convulsed me mercilessly.’
c. Bolała/Sweødziała mnie głowa.
ached/[Link] [Link] head(fem).nom
‘My head ached/itched.’
d. Coś mnie dusi. / Dusiły mnie
something(neut).nom [Link] chokes [Link] [Link]
te zapachy.
[Link] smells(nonvir).nom
‘Something makes me choke. / Those smells made me choke.’

Furthermore, there are no morphosyntactic restrictions on any of these verbs which

would prevent them from agreeing with a subject in a person other than third, e.g.:

() Głośno wiejesz, wietrze.

loudly blow.2sg wind(masc).voc
‘You are blowing loudly, wind.’

All this suggests that these constructions do not lack a subject at any level of abstract
representation of the predicate. They are personal predicates and their superficial subject-
lessness results from the familiar pro-drop phenomenon. Wierzbicka () argued against
a pro-drop analysis of Polish ‘weather constructions’ assuming that the dropped pronoun
would have to be a personal pronoun corresponding in gender to the nominal denoting
the particular natural phenomenon, that is: on ‘he[masc]’ for deszcz ‘rain(masc)’ or wiatr
‘wind(masc)’; ono ‘it[neut]’ for niebo ‘sky(neut)’ or powietrze ‘air(neut)’. She assumed
that, if the ‘subjectless’ weather sentences were a result of subject ellipsis, the verb would
have to display gender agreement with the dropped pronoun corresponding to the nominal
denoting the natural phenomenon. Such agreement is indeed not established. However,
this hypothesis makes an incorrect assumption about the subject of the weather construc-
tions: the dropped subject is not the personal pronoun, but the indefinite pronoun.
All nouns and pronouns in Polish, whether denoting or referring to people, objects,
abstract notions or natural phenomena, bear the feature of inherent grammatical gender:
masc, fem or neut in the singular, and vir (masculine human) or nonvir (all other,
i.e. non-masculine human and all non-human) in the plural. The so-called indefinite
pronouns ktoś ‘somebody’, referring to humans (hum), and coś ‘something’, referring to
non-humans (non-hum), bear the grammatical features masc and neut, respectively, and
these are also the gender agreements that they trigger in the verb.
The following is an example of a definite (and referential) use of the indefinite hum
pronoun ktoś which is employed here in order to avoid specifying the gender (and number)
of the referent of the agent:
() Ten ktoś pisał, jakby chciał nas
[Link] someone(masc).nom [Link] as-if [Link] us
ostrzec.
[Link]
‘This person was writing as if he/she wanted to warn us [of something].’
If the pronoun is dropped, as in any other familiar case of ellipsis, the resulting sentence is:
() Pisał, jakby chciał nas ostrzec.
[Link] as-if [Link] us [Link]
‘He/she was writing as if he/she wanted to warn us [of something].’
Although sentence () taken out of context is ambiguous between a gender non-specific
(‘he or she’) and a gender specific (‘he’) interpretation of its agent, both examples () and
() show that [Link] agreement is used with unspecified singular human subjects,
whether overt or dropped.
By analogy, the following sentence:
() Wieje, jakby chciało powyrywać drzewa z korzeniami.
blows[3sg].NEUT as-if [Link] [Link] trees with roots
‘[The wind] is blowing as if it wanted to pull out the trees with their roots.’
illustrates the use of [Link] agreement with an unspecified non-human subject. In
the sentence above, the subject has remained unexpressed overtly, as in example ().
If we choose to specify the number and gender of the agent of the event denoted by the
verb, the number and gender agreement corresponding to the unspecified agent is replaced
by verbal inflection corresponding to the grammatical number and gender of the subject
nominal. Therefore, in case of human agents, we can have, for example:
() Piotr pisał, jakby chciał nas ostrzec.
[Link] [Link] as-if [Link] us [Link]
‘Peter was writing as if he wanted to warn us [of something].’
() Ta kobieta pisała, jakby chciała nas
[Link] [Link] [Link] as-if [Link] us
ostrzec.
[Link]
‘This woman was writing as if she wanted to warn us [of something].’
 Thisis a simplified view of Polish gender in its interaction with number, but it is sufficient to describe
the phenomena discussed in this paper.
Moreover, in case of subject ellipsis, the verb retains its agreement with the ‘dropped pro’
denoting a human agent, because personal pronouns are specified for exactly the same
features which trigger the agreement as the nominals they correspond to:
() (On) pisał, jakby chciał nas ostrzec.
(he[MASC].nom) [Link] as-if [Link] us [Link]
‘He was writing as if he wanted to warn us [of something].’

() (Ona) pisała, jakby chciała nas ostrzec.

(she[FEM].nom) [Link] as-if [Link] us [Link]
‘She was writing as if she wanted to warn us [of something].’

In case of overtly expressed non-human agents, the gender and number agreement also
corresponds to the grammatical gender and number of the subject nominal, as was shown
in sentences to the right of the hyphens in example (). However, even though deszcz
‘rain(masc)’ or wiatr ‘wind(masc)’ are grammatically masculine, and niebo ‘sky(neut)’ or
powietrze ‘air(neut)’ are grammatically neuter, it is not possible to replace these nominals
with the personal pronouns on ‘he[masc]’ or ono ‘it[neut]’ unless we personify the natural
phenomena in question.
The unacceptability – or, more accurately, the infelicity – of sentences such as:
() a. #On padał.
he[masc].nom [Link]
‘It [he=the rain] was raining.’
b. #Ono sieø ochłodziło.
it[neut].nom refl [Link]
‘It [=the air] has become colder.’
follows from the fact that, in addition to being specified for number and gender, personal
pronouns in Polish conventionally denote human (hum) agents, while verbs such as ‘rain’,
‘snow’ or ‘cloud over’ imply a non-human (non-hum) ‘agent’ or cause.
Since weather verbs in Polish are not normally used with personal pronouns, it is,
therefore, not plausible to suggest that weather constructions without an overt subject result
from personal pronoun ellipsis. It is, however, reasonable to see them as resulting from the
ellipsis of the indefinite pronoun coś ‘something’ which is used to achieve the ‘unspecified
agent’ interpretation and which triggers [Link] agreement. In case of subject ellipsis
(‘proindef -drop’), the [Link] verbal agreement is retained. One of the conventional
uses of the ‘indefinite’ pronouns, both hum and non-hum, is with a definite referent
whom/which the speaker chooses not to specify. By omitting the indefinite pronoun coś
‘something’, the identity of the ‘agent’ is not questioned, but left unspecified, since it is in
most cases understood from the context.
Clauses with proindef -drop do not present problems for LFG. They fall under the
standard analysis of unexpressed pronouns, e.g., Bresnan (:-). She analyses pro-
drop as the functional specification of a pronominal argument by the head to which the
pronominal inflection is bound, which entails the absence of the structural expression of
 Formore detailed discussion of the morphosyntax of proindef -drop constructions in Polish, see Kibort
(:-).
the pronoun as a syntactic NP or DP when the optional semantic and binding features of
the pronominal inflection are present.

 TYPE : morpholexical impersonals

There are two constructions in Polish whose grammaticalised function is to despecify the
principal participant of the predicate: the -no/-to impersonal and the reflexive impersonal.
The principal participant in these constructions is interpreted as either an unspecified or
a generic human agent or experiencer. The constructions have particular morphosyntactic
properties and morphological marking. The -no/-to impersonal uses a dedicated, uninflect-
ing verb form ending in -no/-to, and is restricted to past tense, while the reflexive impersonal
uses [Link] verb form and the reflexive marker sieø, and can be used in all tenses.

. The -no/-to construction

The -no/-to construction is exemplified in () and ():

() Budowano szkołeø.

[Link] school(fem).acc
‘A/The school was built. / [They] were building a/the school.’

() Tutaj tańczono.

here [Link]
‘There was dancing here. / [They] danced here.’

One of the key properties of this construction is that it can be used with both in-
transitive and transitive predicates, and in the case of transitives the accusative object is
retained, as in (). Another key property is that it can be formed from both unergative
and unaccusative predicates, including the habitual/iterative form of the verb ‘be’. It can
be formed from passivised predicates, therefore it has to be treated as independent of pas-
sivisation. The following example contains an impersonal form of the auxiliary (bywano)
in a periphrastic passive construction with a passive participle (bitymi):

() Dostawano różne kary i

[Link] [Link] punishments(nonvir).acc and
bywano bitymi.
wasiterative .impers [Link]
‘[They/One] received various punishments and were/was beaten.’

The Polish -no/-to construction does not, under any circumstances, accept the surface
expression of a nominative subject (-), nor does it accept the expression of the agent in
an oblique phrase as in the passive, (-):

() *Władze budowano szkołeø.

authorities(nonvir).nom [Link] school(fem).acc
‘(intended) The authorities were building a/the school.’
 () *Uczniowie tutaj tańczono.
pupils(vir).nom here [Link]
‘(intended) The pupils were dancing here.’
() *Budowano szkołeø przez władze.
[Link] school(fem).acc by authorities
‘(intended) A/The school was built by the authorities.’
() *Tutaj tańczono przez uczniów.
here [Link] by pupils
‘(intended) The dancing was done here by pupils.’
However, despite being superficially subjectless, the -no/-to impersonal appears to have
a syntactically active ‘covert’ subject which participates in syntactic control and binding.
The -no/-to predicate can share its subject with infinitives (), with deverbal adverbials
(), and in a subject-raising construction (); the covert subject of -no/-to is also capable
of binding reflexive and reflexive possessive pronouns when they need to be bound by the
subject (-):
() Chciano wyjechać.
[Link] [Link]
‘There was eagerness to leave.’
() Wsiadajaø c do autobusu pokazywano bilety.
[Link] into bus [Link] tickets(nonvir).acc
‘On getting on the bus [they]/one showed the tickets.’
() Zdawano sieø tego nie dostrzegać.
[Link] refl [Link] neg [Link]
‘[They] seemed not to notice this.’
() Oglaødano sieø/siebie w lustrze.
[Link] refl/[Link] in mirror
‘[They] looked at [them]selves in the mirror. / One looked at oneself in the mirror.’
() Oglaødano swoje zbiory.
[Link] own[refl].[Link] collections(nonvir).acc
‘[They] looked at [their] own collections. / One looked at one’s collection.’
The -no/-to impersonal is not agentless, either. Its agent (or experiencer) licenses all
sorts of agent-oriented adverbials (e.g., celowo ‘on purpose’) and is invariably interpreted
as an unspecified but definite human. The human interpretation of the agent/experiencer,
which has been grammaticalised in the usage of this construction, overrides any semantic
implications to the contrary that may arise from the meaning of the lexical items used in
the clause, or from the context. Therefore, the -no/-to forms of predicates such as ‘bark’ or
‘build nests’ can only be interpreted as involving human activity.
The covert subject of the -no/-to impersonal triggers virile (plural) marking in agreeing
(adjectival and nominal) predicative complements. Examples () and () show that ex-
pressions whose referents are, inflectionally, other than virile (plural) are incompatible with
the -no/-to form and produce ill-formed clauses:
 () (example adapted from Dziwirek :)
a. *Pracowano jako nauczyciel.
[Link] as teacher(masc).nom
b. *Pracowano jako nauczycielka.
[Link] as teacher(fem).nom
c. *Pracowano jako nauczycielki.
[Link] as teachers(nonvir)[fem].nom
d. Pracowano jako nauczyciele.
[Link] as teachers(vir).nom
‘[They] worked as teachers. / One worked as a teacher.’
() a. *Wyglaø dano na szczeøśliwego.
[Link] to [Link]
b. *Wyglaø dano na szczeøśliwaø.
[Link] to [Link]
c. *Wyglaø dano na szczeøśliwe.
[Link] to [Link]
d. Wyglaø dano na szczeøśliwych.
[Link] to [Link]
‘[They/One] looked happy.’
There is no off-the-shelf LFG analysis of impersonals, and therefore none to fit the -no/-
to construction. The -no/-to impersonal is not a syntactic variant of the passive: it is neither
an ill-behaved passive of the transitive, nor equivalent to the passive of the intransitive.
It retains the accusative object, can be applied to unaccusatives, and exists alongside the
passive – as was shown in (), it can be formed from a passivised transitive predicate if
the passive subject can be interpreted as human. It is, therefore, a different morpholexical
construction to the passive (for more detailed argumentation against a passive analysis of
this construction, see Kibort ).
The fact that -no/-to impersonalisation preserves both the grammatical relations and
the internal (lexical) semantic structure of the predicate, but only suppresses the surface
realisation of the subject, means that, unlike valency-changing operations, it is argument-
structure-neutral – the argument structure of an impersonalised verb is unaltered. Thus,
the a-structure representation of the impersonalised transitive verb czytano ‘[Link]’ is
the same as that of a personal active verb:
() impersonal of the transitive hx yi
| |
subj obj
 In the a-structure representations of impersonalised predicates that I had hypothesised prior to this paper,

I placed the symbol Ø under the subj to indicate that this grammatical function was prevented from being
mapped onto a categorial argument. Cf. the LMT ‘suppression’ rule which says: ‘Do not map an argument
to the syntax’ (e.g., Bresnan :-; Falk :) and is notated with Ø. I understand now that this
notation was superfluous. If we accept that the subject of the impersonalised predicate is an (obligatory) pro
(i.e., the impersonal inflection provides the specification (↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’ in the f-structure), there can
be no other NP that could be the subject at the same time.
 The covert subject is not a phonetically empty pronoun (pro). It is not a null expletive
– Polish does not have expletives at all, and the covert subject has a thematic role. It is not
a dropped pronominal subject (vir), either – the -no/-to morphology is not equivalent to
normal vir morphology, and we would have no way of explaining what prohibits the overt
expression of the pronominal subject.
However, it is possible to analyse the covert subject of the -no/-to impersonal as a
pronominal anaphor analogous to the null, or shared, subject of non-finite clauses in syn-
tactic control contexts (pro). In constructions involving arbitrary anaphoric control the
reference of the pronominal element in the clause is not determined syntactically, but the
controlled argument finds it referent in a way similar to an ordinary pronoun. Thus, the
f-structure of czytano ‘[Link]’ could be represented as in (), with the c-structure
appropriately lacking the node for the categorial expression of the subject:
()
 
pred ‘czytano h(f subj)(f obj)i’
 tense past 
   

 pred ‘pro’ 

f :  subj  human + 
   

  num pl  
 
 gend vir 
 h.i 
obj ..

The [pred ‘pro’] subject is introduced by the impersonal -no/-to inflection. The im-
personal pro differs from the pronominal anaphor of non-finite clauses in that it is clearly
finite, and never syntactically controlled. The subject of the -no/-to impersonal is always
interpreted as an unspecified human, but it is by no means always arbitrary – it may have
either an unspecified arbitrary referent, or, very commonly, an unspecified definite referent.
Furthermore, the human interpretation of the subject of the -no/-to impersonal cannot be
overridden as it can be in infinitival clauses with the ‘optional control’ of the pro by a su-
perordinate non-subject argument: e.g., English It’s all too common to bark (at your kids/*in
the dogpound), but: It’s all too common for all the dogs to bark all at once in the dogpound.
Finally, when the proarb in Polish uncontrolled (i.e., arbitrarily controlled) infinitivals has
an adjectival complement, the adjective has to be masculine (singular), while the covert
subject of the -no/-to impersonal is compatible only with predicate adjectives which are
virile (plural); compare examples () and ():
() (example from Lavine :, ft. )
Jest ważne być szczeøśliwym / *szczeøśliwymi.
is [Link] [Link] [Link] / [Link]
‘It is important to be happy.’
I understand that it is possible to draw all these properties of the -no/-to subject from
the fact that it is introduced in a different way to the subject of non-finite clauses: here, it
is the impersonal inflection itself that provides the (obligatory) [pred ‘pro’] for its subject
together with any other gender and number specifications that are required.
Iwould like to thank the participants of the LFG conference for a helpful discussion of the options of
how to analyse the -no/-to subject, and for inclining to adopt this one as the most promising. Special thanks
. The reflexive impersonal
The morphosyntactic behaviour of the Polish reflexive impersonal mirrors that of the -no/-
to impersonal. It can be used with both intransitive and transitive predicates, and it retains
accusative objects:
() Budowało sieø szkołeø.
[Link] refl school(fem).acc
‘A/The school was built. / One was building a/the school.’
() Tańczyło sieø.
[Link] refl
‘One danced.’
It can also be formed from both unergative and unaccusative predicates, and from
passivised predicates, for example:
() Było sieø żebrakiem.
[Link] refl beggar(masc).instr
‘One was a beggar.’
() Było sieø bitym przez kaprala.
[Link] refl [Link] by corporal
‘One was beaten by the corporal.’
The Polish reflexive impersonal does not, under any circumstances, accept the surface
expression of a nominative subject (-), nor does it accept the expression of the agent
in an oblique phrase as in the passive, (-):
() *Władze budowało sieø szkołeø.
authorities(nonvir).nom [Link] refl school(fem).acc
‘(intended) The authorities were building a/the school.’
() *Uczniowie tańczyło sieø.
pupils(vir).nom [Link] refl
‘(intended) The pupils were dancing.’
() *Budowało sieø szkołeø przez władze.
[Link] refl school(fem).acc by authorities
‘(intended) A/The school was built by the authorities.’
() *Tańczyło sieø przez uczniów.
[Link] refl by pupils
‘(intended) The dancing was done by pupils.’
The covert subject of the reflexive impersonal is also syntactically active and participates
in syntactic control and binding. The reflexive impersonal can share its subject with infini-
tives (), with deverbal adverbials (), and its covert subject is capable of binding reflexive
and reflexive possessive pronouns when they need to be bound by the subject (-):
to Rachel Nordlinger for further clarifying some issues to me.
 () Chciało sieø wyjechać.
[Link] refl [Link]
‘There was eagerness to leave.’

() Wsiadajaø c do autobusu pokazuje sieø bilet.

[Link] into bus shows refl ticket(masc).acc
‘On getting on the bus one shows the ticket.’

() Maluje sieø całego siebie od stóp do głów.

paints refl [Link] [Link] from feet to heads
‘One covers oneself with paint from head to foot.’

() Nie niszczyło sieø swoich dokumentów.

neg [Link] refl own[refl].[Link] documents(nonvir).gen
‘One did not destroy one’s documents.’

Like the -no/-to impersonal, the reflexive impersonal has an agent (or experiencer) which
licenses agent-oriented adverbials (e.g., celowo ‘on purpose’) and which has a ‘default’ hu-
man interpretation. However, unlike in the -no/-to impersonal, this default interpretation
can be exceptionally overridden by providing a different referent for the unspecified agent
somewhere in the context, for example:
() Gdy sieø jest bocianem, gniazdo buduje sieø wysoko.
when refl is stork(masc).instr nest(neut).acc builds refl high-up
‘When one is a stork, one builds the nest high up.’
Furthermore, the reflexive impersonal verb form does not seem to impose the same
inflectional requirements on its predicative complements as the -no/-to form. That is, if the
context provides a specific agent/undergoer as the referent of the covert subject, agreeing
(nominal and adjectival) predicative complements of the reflexive impersonal may carry
any number and person markers corresponding to the features of the referent of this covert
subject:
() a. Pracowało sieø jako nauczyciel /nauczycielka
[Link] refl as teacher(masc).nom /teacher(fem).nom
/nauczyciele /nauczycielki.
/teachers(vir).nom /teachers(nonvir).nom
‘One worked as a teacher. / [We] worked as teachers.’
b. Wyglaø dało sieø na biednego studenta /biednaø
[Link] refl to [Link] student(masc).acc /[Link]
studentkeø /biednych studentów /biedne
student(fem).acc /[Link] students(vir).acc /[Link]
studentki, to i wpuszczali za darmo.
students(nonvir).acc so and [Link] for free
‘One looked like a poor student, so one was let in for free. / [We] looked like
poor students, so [we] were let in for free.’
 c. Było sieø czeøsto bitym /bitaø
[Link] refl often [Link] /[Link]
/bitymi.
/[Link]
‘One was often beaten.’
d. Było sieø kiedyś szczeøśliwym /szczeøśliwaø
[Link] refl in-the-past [Link] /[Link]
/szczeøśliwymi.
/[Link]
‘Once, one was happy.’
Like -no/-to impersonalisation, reflexive impersonalisation also preserves both the syn-
tactic and semantic valency of the predicate, but suppresses the surface realisation of the
subject. Therefore, the reflexive impersonal czytało sieø ‘[Link] refl’ can be repre-
sented with the same a-structure as the -no/-to impersonal czytano ‘[Link]’:
() impersonal of the transitive hx yi
| |
subj obj
The reflexive impersonal has the same morphosyntactic properties as the -no/-to imper-
sonal, therefore it can also be analysed as having an obligatory [pred ‘pro’] subject, but
its subject has different inflectional properties. Instead of the specific number and gender
features, the agreement features of the reflexive impersonal’s subject could be represented
by the metavariable [agr α]. Thus, the f-structure of czytało sieø ‘[Link] refl’ could
be represented as in:
()

pred ‘czytało-sieø h(f subj)(f obj)i’

 
 tense past 
   
f :  subj
 pred ‘pro’ 

 agr α 
 h.i 
obj ..

Note that the exponent of the impersonal inflection introducing the ‘pro’ subject in this
construction is analytic, consisting of ‘[Link] marker + sieø’.

 TYPE : truly subjectless predicates

There are two types of Polish nominativeless clauses which genuinely do not have syntactic
subjects – that is, do not contain elements omitted only from surface syntax, whether
due to ellipsis (pro-drop) or suppression (as in impersonalisation). They can be formed
with two types of predicates which do not have subjects at a-structure as well as at f-
structure and c-structure: a small class of defective (non-inflecting) verbs, and passives of
intransitives. The existence of these predicates calls into question LFG’s Subject Condition
and similar principles expressed in other syntactic frameworks, such as GB’s ‘Extended
Projection Principle’ and RG’s ‘The Final  Law’. Because the subject function is assumed
to be universally required in clauses, subjects – including null or shared subjects – are
standardly considered obligatory, and truly impersonal predicates do not feature in any
standard syntactic analyses.

. Inherently impersonal predicates

These clauses do not result from any derivation, and do not contain elements omitted only
from surface syntax. Predicates which make these clauses are inherently subjectless – that
is, their argument structures inherently lack the first argument.
The class of Polish inherently impersonal predicates is very small and comprises only a
few defective (non-inflecting) verbs such as widać ‘see.[non-personal]’, słychać ‘hear.[non-
personal]’, czuć ‘feel.[non-personal]’, stać ‘afford.[non-personal]’, znać ‘know.[non-
personal]’. The form of these verbs resembles the infinitive, but their distribution and
morphosyntactic behaviour are not like those of infinitives – they function in the clause as
main verbs, resembling personal predicates. Here are examples of typical clauses with these
verbs:
() a. Słychać jaø / jakieś mruczenie.
hear.[non-personal] [Link] [Link] murmuring(neut).acc
‘One can hear her/some murmuring.’
b. Było widać łaøkeø.
[Link] see.[non-personal] meadow(fem).acc
‘One could see a/the meadow.’
c. Czuć, że sieø wygina.
feel.[non-personal] that refl bends
‘One can feel that it is bending.’
As exemplified in the sentences above, all these verbs take complements in the form of an
accusative noun/pronoun, a gerund or a finite clause.
If a sentence with a defective verb is meant to refer to the present, the verb may be used
with or without the present auxiliary (jest ‘is’). In the past, as in sentence (b) above, all
these verbs require the past auxiliary (było ‘[Link]’) which carries tense marking.
The fact that these predicates are truly impersonal does not seem to be contested in
any Polish grammars since, as phrased by Fisiak et al. (:), ‘there is no reconstructable
noun phrase which can be regarded as being the deleted subject of sentences [with these
predicates]’ (see also Nagórko : for a similar remark).
I suggest that impersonal predicates formed with defective verbs have lexically imper-
sonal argument structures which, in the intransitive variants, may be represented simply as
empty argument frames:
() inherently impersonal predicate

h i

while in the transitive variant they additionally include an object argument (apart from the
unoccupied first argument position):
 () inherently impersonal predicate with an object

h yi
|
obj

In an argument structure like () it is normally expected that the first argument of
the predicate is assigned the grammatical function of the subject (as in the canonical an-
ticausative, for example). However, in defective verbs the underlying object ([–r]) is pre-
served as a syntactic object [+o] , which makes these verbs somewhat similar to morpholex-
ical impersonals.
In contrast with morpholexical impersonals, defective verbs do not have a covert syn-
tactic subject which would participate in syntactic control and reflexive binding, nor do
they have an active agent which would control agent-oriented adverbials. On the other
hand, they use the same lexical roots as the corresponding personal verbs which have
agents/experiencers: słyszeć ‘hear’, widzieć ‘see’, czuć ‘feel’, etc. For this reason, despite being
‘impersonal’ at every level of argument structure (i.e. despite being subjectless, argument-
less, and agentless), they are used exclusively in situations which involve animate (typi-
cally human) participants as agents/experiencers and they are interpreted accordingly. This
might be the reason why they are exceptionally allowed to preserve their structural objects.
There does not seem to be any other motivation for such a mapping, and the construction
does not result from a productive derivational rule. On the contrary, the class of defec-
tive verbs in Polish is indeed very small and their morphosyntactic behaviour seems to be
unusual.
If the a-structures above are accepted, the f-structure representation of the inherently
impersonal verb widać ‘see.[non-personal]’ with an object could be:
()
 
pred ‘widać h(f obj)i’
f :  tense hpresent
 
.. i 
obj .

. Passives of intransitives

The impersonal variant of the periphrastic passive results from the application of the passive
rule to an intransitive predicate regardless of whether the predicate originally subcategorised
for one argument only, or whether it happened to be an intransitive use of a potentially
transitive predicate. It is, therefore, a derived construction which does not have a subject
(either overt or covert), though it does, arguably, still have the original agent which can be
mapped onto an oblique (as in examples () and () below).
Below are some examples of Polish impersonal passives:
 This argument is associated with a primary, not secondary, patientlike role, therefore I hypothesise that
instead of being pre-specified as [+o], it is pre-specified as [–r] and then allowed to increase in markedness
([+o]) in order to be linked to obj. This operation can be referred to as ‘object preservation’ and it may be
found in other types of clauses, e.g. the common (personal) active with a subject instrument that may not be
conceptualised as an agent (Kibort :-).
 () Wchodzisz i czujesz, że było palone.
come-in.2sg and feel/smell.2sg that [Link] [Link]
‘You come in and you can smell that there has been smoking [here].’

() Czy na tej ulicy już było sypane (przez

interrog on this street already [Link] throw/[Link] (by
kogokolwiek)?
anyone)
‘Has there already been spreading [of grit] on this street (by anyone)?’

() Nie widać, żeby tutaj było

neg see.[non-personal] compl.[3sg] here be.-ł-[Link]
sprzaøtane przez firmeø.
[Link] by company
‘It doesn’t look as if this place was cleaned by a [professional] company.’

() Beødzie ci wybaczone, jeśli przeprosisz.

[Link].3sg [Link] [Link] if [Link].2sg
‘[It] will be forgiven you if you apologise.’

The personal passive of the transitive can be represented in the following way (e.g.,
Bresnan :):

() passive of the transitive hx yi

| |
(obl) subj
When the passive operates on an intransitive predicate, the result can be diagrammed
as follows:

() passive of the intransitive hx i

|
(obl)

If the predicate does not subcategorise for any other arguments apart from the one
being downgraded to oblique, there is no possibility of promoting any other argument to
the status of syntactic subject. On the other hand, the mere presence of another argument
does not guarantee its promotion either. In Polish, only ‘underlying’ objects, expressing
patients/themes, but not beneficiaries or locatives, can become subjects. Although the
same general rule applies in English passives, in the appropriate syntactic circumstances,
the downgrading of the first argument may result in an oblique location argument being
mapped onto syntactic subject.
Locative inversion, described at length particularly in Bresnan & Kanerva () and
Bresnan () can be exemplified by the following pair of sentences in English:
 As for English beneficiaries, when they are mapped onto passive subjects they occupy the second, direct

object, position in the argument structure not the third position of the indirect object. See Kibort (:-
) for discussion.
 () a. Those visitors came to the village.
b. To the village came those visitors.
Bresnan () demonstrates that, despite lacking the nominal morphology (and hence the
agreement features) of subjects, inverted locatives in English have the properties of syntactic
subjects as grammatical relations. Therefore, in sentence (b) the nominal denoting the
‘village’ is a syntactic subject, while the nominal denoting the ‘visitors’ is a syntactic object.
The final mappings of arguments after locative inversion in a predicate such as come
can be represented as in:
() locative inversion hx zi
| |
obj subj
Viewing locative inversion as downgrading of the highest argument to a lower grammatical
function (in a similar way to passivisation) predicts correctly that locative inversion may be
found with predicates which subcategorise for only one argument:
() a. And then, those visitors came.
b. And then – came those visitors.
As in the passive, the downgrading of an argument in (locative) inversion involves a con-
comitant promotion of another (lower) argument only if there is something to be pro-
moted. If there is no argument available to become subject, (locative) inversion results in
another subjectless construction, analogous to the impersonal passive of the intransitive:
() (locative) inversion hx i
|
obj
The demotional (rather than promotional) analysis of both passivisation and locative
inversion reveals that, when the two constructions are considered together, they emerge
as complementary processes which are part of a larger system of operations occurring in
the argument structure of predicates. It has been observed that there are crosslinguistic
restrictions on the applicability of both passivisation and locative inversion which are based
on the distinction between unergative and unaccusative predicates: passivisation applies
only to unergatives, while locative inversion only to unaccusatives. In this way, the two
operations apply to two complementary classes of predicates, and they essentially serve the
same purpose: they both target the highest argument of the predicate in order to downgrade
it to a lower grammatical function (the oblique, and the object, respectively).
It has been noted that the overt expression of the downgraded agent in impersonal pas-
sives in Polish is not as easily acceptable as in personal passives. This may be due to the
fact that passivisation of intransitive predicates yields clauses which structurally resemble
and functionally pattern with unspecified-agent constructions. If a predicate has only one
argument, the agent, it can either be specified and appear in a personal clause, or be un-
specified through a variety of means. Some of the means of despecifying the agent do not
 For detailed discussion of these operations, and references, see Kibort (; ).
 Blevins (:) remarks that ‘[s]ubjectless passives often have an implicitly human interpretation,
which suggests that this interpretation is associated with subjectless forms of personal verbs, irrespective of
the syntactic source of that subjectlessness’.
make the clause subjectless: these are the use of lexical items with unspecified/generic refer-
ence (e.g., the English one, people, or they), or the use of conventionally interpreted verbal
agreement (e.g., 3pl in Polish). If, however, the agent is despecified through impersonal-
isation or passivisation, the clause lacks a surface subject. Reintroducing the downgraded
agent into an impersonal passive would contradict the intention to despecify it in the first
place. Although it is syntactically legitimate in Polish, it is often more readily acceptable if
the agentive phrase is an afterthought or addition to the main utterance, as in:
() Dzisiaj było już sprzaøtane –przez sprzaøtaczki.
today [Link] already [Link] by cleaners
‘The cleaning has already been done today – by cleaners.’
Reintroducing the agent into surface syntax as an oblique evidently does not pose the
same kind of problem in personal passives. This may be because the prime motivation
behind personal passives may be the need to locate the syntactic pivot on the initial object of
the predicate, and not the need to despecify the agent of the predicate. Impersonal passives
do not have the capacity to provide a different syntactic pivot for the clause. Therefore,
unless the agent of an intransitive predicate needs to be unspecified, it will simply be kept
as the subject of the personal active sentence rather than downgraded from this position
only to be reintroduced to surface syntax as an oblique constituent.
Due to the lack of a syntactic subject, impersonal passives show ‘default’ impersonal
agreement – that is, the verbs appear in 3sg neuter form. Recall that the same inflectional
form is used in the Polish reflexive impersonal which does not have its own dedicated verbal
morphology (the personal verb form is simply accompanied by the multifunctional marker
sieø).
If the a-structures of the subjectless variants of the passive () and the (locative) in-
version construction () are accepted, the f-structure representations of the impersonal
passive sprzaøtane ‘cleaned, tidied-up’ and the inverted impersonal came could be, respec-
tively:
()

pred ‘sprzaøtane h(f obl)i’

" #
f: h.i
..
obl

()
 
pred ‘came h(f obj)i’
f :  tense hpasti
 
.. 
obj .

 Conclusions
The range of Polish subjectless constructions seems to constitute a useful set for testing any
syntactic theory. There is large number of constructions which appear to lack the subject,
which have distinct morphosyntactic properties, and whose subjectlessness can therefore be
attributed to different phenomena identified at different levels of representation that should
be posited for a predicate. In order to be properly distinguished, the constructions need
to be handled by a correspondence-based model, and it appears that LFG can successfully
provide one.
I have shown that two types of Polish constructions: morpholexical impersonals (type )
and truly subjectless constructions (type ) require new analyses. I have suggested that
morpholexical impersonalisation could be analysed as the provision of an obligatory pro
for the predicate’s subject. As for truly subjectless predicates, once it is accepted that they
have a valency slot that is unavailable for grammatical function mappings, the behaviour of
their remaining arguments is not unusual. However, this analysis indicates that the ‘Subject
Condition’ should be eschewed.
This last suggestion may not be as drastic as it seems because the Subject Condition
may, in fact, be seen as simply redundant. The Mapping Principles of LMT (Bresnan
:) appeal to the markedness hierarchy in () derived from the grouping of the
grammatical functions into natural classes based on their features, where the highest syn-
tactic function is the least marked:
() Mapping Principles
(a) Subject roles:
(i) a [–o] argument is mapped onto subj when initial in the argument struc-
ture; otherwise:
(ii) a [–r] argument is mapped onto subj.
(b) Other roles are mapped onto the lowest (i.e. most marked) compatible func-
tion on the markedness hierarchy.
() Markedness Hierarchy of Syntactic Functions
[–o]/[–r] subj ≻ [–r]/[+o] obj, [–o]/[+r] oblθ ≻ [+o]/[+r] objθ
In order to make full use of the markedness hierarchy, the Mapping Principles could be
reformulated to a single one as follows:
() Mapping Principle
The ordered arguments are mapped onto the highest (i.e. least marked) compatible
function on the markedness hierarchy.
 The passive (not discussed here, but see Kibort  for details) would also benefit from a slightly revised

analysis, specifically that it is an instance of alternative (non-default) mapping of grammatical functions onto
the arguments of the predicate by means of which the underlying subject is downgraded to an optional
oblique.
 The θ̂
actual LFG formulation of this mapping principle is as follows: ‘ −o is mapped onto subj when ini-
θ̂
tial in the a-structure’ (Bresnan :), where −o , referred to as the ‘logical subject’, is defined as ‘the most
prominent semantic role of a predicator’ (ibid.:). However, this formulation seems to contain superfluous
information. Specifically, due to the Subject Condition, LFG excludes the formation of predicates without
any core arguments; according to the principles of semantic classification of thematic roles for function, LFG
allows only those thematic roles which will map onto ‘subjective’ (core) or oblique (non-core) functions to be
classified as [–o]; and finally, due to the thematic hierarchy (and the Subject Condition), thematic roles which
will map onto oblique functions can never be initial in the argument structure or higher than the ‘subjective’
role. It follows from this that a [–o] argument which is initial in the argument structure (i.e. has position
adjacent to the left bracket; see also Falk :) can only be the most prominent thematic role, and it can
never be an oblique participant. Thus, the formulation of the subject mapping principle in (a)(i) is in fact
just a more concise, but still faithful, version of the LFG principle.
The new formulation derives the principles of argument to function mapping directly from
the markedness hierarchy, without the in-built condition that the first encountered argu-
ment has to be pre-specified as either [–o] or [–r], and without having to resort to the
Subject Condition at any point. In other words, it is now the markedness hierarchy it-
self which determines the default mapping of arguments to surface grammatical functions.
Thus, with the unergative transitive verb clean, the Mapping Principle in () ensures that
its first ([–o]) argument is linked to subj, and its second ([–r]) argument is linked to obj.
Similarly, with the unaccusative intransitive verb come, the Mapping Principle ensures that
its first ([–r]) argument is linked to subj because this is the grammatical function which is
the highest compatible one on the markedness hierarchy in ().
The new formulation achieves correct mappings for various classes of predicates dis-
cussed in the literature (including unaccusatives and ditransitives, for example), but avoids
stipulating specific principles where their result is already partially determined by the marked-
ness hierarchy. In this way, it avoids redundancy both in the account of the mapping itself,
as well as in the formulation of any conditions or constraints pertaining to the subject.
Since it makes redundant the Subject Condition, it enables LMT to handle inherently im-
personal predicates and other constructions that may have posed problems of analysis due
to their non-standard behaviour with respect to the subject.

References
Blevins, J. P. (). Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics . –.
Bresnan, J. (). Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language
(). –.
Bresnan, J. (). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bresnan, J. & Kanerva, J. M. (). Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: a case study of
factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry (). –. Reprinted in Stowell, T. &
Wehrli, E. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics : Syntax and the Lexicon, pp. –. New York:
Academic Press.
Dziwirek, K. (). Polish Subjects. New York: Garland.
Falk, Y. (). Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based
Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Fisiak, J., Lipińska-Grzegorek, M. & Zabrocki, T. (). An Introductory English-Polish
Contrastive Grammar. Warszawa: PWN.
Kibort, A. (). The Polish passive and impersonal in Lexical Mapping Theory. In Butt,
M. & King, T. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Pub-
lications. –. Available at [Link]
Kibort, A. (). Passive and Passive-like Constructions in English and Polish. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Available online.
Lavine, J. E. (). The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian -no/-to. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics (). –.
Nagórko, A. (). Zarys gramatyki polskiej (ze słowotwórstwem). Warszawa: PWN.
Wierzbicka, A. (). Czy istniejaø zdania bezpodmiotowe. Jeøzyk polski (). –.