66 ROBERT D. VAN VALIN, JR.
RelG has corne primarily from two sets of phenomena: (1) voice construc
tions in which an underlying direct object appears as surface subject, and
(2) constructions in which new direct objects are added to a clause
("applicative constructions"). In this section it will be shown that the
notions of undergoer and core argument account for these phenomena,
thereby rendering "direct object" superfluous.
In syntactic theories employing multiple derivationally-related syntac
tic levels of representation, the notion of direct object plays a crucial role in
the statement of voice oppositions. In RelG, for example, an initial 2 (di
rect object) becomes a 1 (subject) in the next level of representation in the
derivation. In RRG, in contrast, passive is formulated in terms of the hier
archy of pivot choice in (39a): passive always involves a marked pivot
choice, with the undergoer appearing as pivot, in the default situation. No
notion of syntactic direct object is involved. There are usually (but not
always) two facets of a passive construction, the occurrence of a marked
pivot choice, and the omission of the actor or its appearance as an oblique
element in the periphery. The former is referred to as foregrounding, the
latter as backgrounding, in FVV. The universal formulation of the passive
given there is presented in (47).
(47) a. Foregrounding: ~ A = Pivot
b. Backgrounding: A = X
With respect to (47a), there are two universal defaults which are very rele
vant here. First, the default non-actor is universally the undergoer in the
clause, although there are instances in which non-undergoers appear as
pivot. Second, foregrounding passives are normally associated with PrPs.
Hence the unmarked foregrounding passive in universal grammar is "U =
PrP". "X" in (47b) is either non-occurrence or occurrence as a peripheral
oblique constituent.^41
There are many languages in which only undergoers may appear as
pivot in a passive construction; German, Italian and Indonesian are three
examples. Icelandic presents a very interesting situation in which pivot
status in passives is not restricted to the undergoer argument of a transitive
verb. The verb in (48) is a regular case-marking transitive verb; in (48a) the
nominative argument is the pivot and is an actor, and the accusative argu
ment is an undergoer, while in (48b) the undergoer is pivot in a passive con
struction.