In generative linguistic tradition, it has often been assumed that the -no/-to construction is a (syntactic) variant of the canonical passive, and there have been attempts to account for it in terms of passive morphology (e.g. Comrie 1977, Borsley 1988). This paper, however, follows Polish descriptive linguistic tradition in which the -no/-to impersonal has rather unanimously been regarded as “active indefinite” (e.g. Wierzbicka 1966, Siewierska 1988).

I will first present the evidence demonstrating that the Polish -no/-to impersonal is not passive, by looking at the distribution and interpretation of the construction, as well as the morphology of the -no/-to verb form. In particular, I will demonstrate that the -no/-to impersonal has a syntactically active “covert” subject (which participates in syntactic control and raising, e.g. (5), as well as binds reflexive and reflexive possessive pronouns), that it is independent from the passive - i.e. can be applied to a predicate at the same time as the passive (6), and that - unlike the passive - it is not restricted to unergative predicates (cf. (6)). I will then make some pre-theoretical generalizations about the impersonal as opposed to the passive: I will treat the latter as an instance of re-mapping of grammatical functions of the predicate which does not alter its meaning (i.e. lexical semantics), and the former as an operation which “blocks”, or “holds up” the subject position without affecting either the semantics of the predicate or the assignment of the grammatical functions.

In the second part of the paper I will offer an account of the Polish passive and impersonal using the descriptive conventions of Lexical Mapping Theory (e.g. Bresnan & Kanerva 1989, Bresnan & Zaenen 1990, Bresnan 2000). I will carry out the discussion using the early LFG distinction within the argument structure between semantic roles and argument positions - a distinction which is implicit in current LFG work concerning, e.g., “empty” (athematic) argument roles of raising verbs (Zaenen & Engdahl 1994, Bresnan 2000). I will argue that a tier of representation which would enable us to talk about arguments independently of their thematic roles or grammatical functions is not only necessary for an adequate account of unaccusatives (cf. Blevins 2001, in which he argues that the Unaccusativity Hypothesis of Perlmutter 1978 has not in fact been undermined by alleged passives of unaccusatives in languages such as Lithuanian or Turkish), but that it may also be necessary to account for the Polish anticausative (7), as well as the Polish impersonal reflexive (8). In view of two-place unaccusative verbs such as ‘weigh’, ‘cost’, or ‘last’, an additional consequence of taking this position might be a possible revision of the Asymmetrical Object Parameter for English (Alsina & Mchombo 1993, Bresnan 2000).

Following that, I will discuss LMT's notion of “suppression” and the conventions for reassociation of arguments, and suggest a possible analysis of both the passive and the impersonal using these notions. Specifically, I will argue that passivization can be seen as “chomeurizing” the most prominent argument of the predicate by imposing on it a [+r] marking, while impersonalization - which operates on the arguments which have been specified for their final grammatical functions - could be viewed as “suppressing”, or “blocking” the subject in the way which has so far been suggested in LFG for the passive (cf. Bresnan 2000).

(1) Piotr by? bity przez kaprala.
    Peter-MASC-NOM was-MASC beat-PART-MASC-NOM by corporal
     ‘Peter was beaten by the corporal.’

(2) Tutaj tanczono.
     here dance-PART(?)-3SG(?)-NEUT(?)
     ‘There was dancing here./The dancing was done here.’

(3) Tutaj bylo tanczone.
     here was-3SG-NEUT dance-PART-3SG-NEUT
     ‘There was dancing here./The dancing was done here.’

(4) Bito Piotra.
     beat-PART(?)-3SG(?)-NEUT(?) Peter-MASC-ACC
      ‘Peter was beaten.’

(5) Chciano wyjechac.
     wanted-IMPERS leave-INF
     ‘There was eagerness to leave.’

(6) Bywano bitymi.
      was[HABITUAL]-IMPERS beat-PART-PL-INSTR
     ‘One would be beaten.’

(7) Sloik sie zbil.
    jar-MASC-NOM REFL broke-3SG-MASC
     ‘The jar broke.’

(8) Tutaj sie tanczylo.
     here REFL danced-3SG-NEUT
     ‘There was dancing here./The dancing was done here.’