Toward a syntactic characterization of passives, ergatives and middles in Russian and Turkish

The notion of passive has been studied for years by many scholars. Most of the studies attempted to answer the question of what the passive is. However, the question remains unanswered.;This dissertation is primarily concerned with the personal passive constructions (PP) in Russian and in Turkish. It will also deal with Middles (MD) and Ergatives (ER) in both languages, and Impersonal Passives (IPP) in Turkish. In view of the evidence we will also attempt to give a definition of passivization that encompasses all the structures mentioned for both languages.;The Introduction will be devoted to a brief review of the different approaches to the passive which are introduced by the early theories of the grammar. Furthermore, some shortcomings of the theories will be pointed out. The format of the study will be introduced at the end of this chapter.;In the first chapter a survey of the Personal Passives (Perfective and Imperfective) in Russian are examined. The major semantic, morphological and syntactic properties of PPs are listed. Here I will also discuss the applicability of the definitions of passivization introduced by RG and GB Theory to these constructions.;The second chapter will be devoted to Turkish PPs and their semantic, morphological and syntactic properties. In this chapter I will introduce my definition of passivization for PPs in Turkish and Russian.;In chapter three Turkish IPPs are introduced. Here I will show how it interacts with other passive forms in Turkish. I will argue that neither theory provides satisfactory definitions for these constructions.;Chapter four deals with the MDs and ERs in Russian and Turkish. Here various meanings, synonymy relations and usage are compared. I will present how RG and GB Theory treat these constructions, then I will attempt to propose a possible solution to them. Also, I will show that crucial differences between the constructions being analyzed here.;Chapter five will be devoted to a comparative analysis of the usage of PP constructions in Russian and in Turkish which are introduced within the frame of the first two chapters.;In the conclusion I will present a summary of my findings claiming that there are entirely independent processes for PPs, MDs, ERs and IPPs in both languages and they are not the result of one general rule of passivization.