Principles of Argument Structure (Excerpt 2: VoiceP)

 In this chapter I compared two conceptions of VoiceP, the Projection Theory and the Realization Theory. I discussed a number of analyses using Kratzer’s 1996 framework. In each case, they either (a) violate the Terminological Assumption (6), or (b) are empirically inaccurate or incomplete. 

I suggested the Realization Theory (e.g., Collins 2005a) as an alternative way to think about voice. Lastly, I argued that the Kratzerian conception of VoiceP as introducing the external argument is actually inconsistent with the Merge-based theory of argument structure outlined in chapter 1.

There is by now a large literature adopting the theoretical assumptions of Kratzer 1996. It is possible that in some paper the smoking gun has been found crucially linking the projection of the external argument to VoiceP. Alternatively, the whole project is doomed to fail since it conflates two very different syntactic systems: argument structure and voice.