{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022290545734050732, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.320388349514563, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Implicit Projected Argument in Spanish Impersonal‐ and Passive‐Se Constructions

This article argues for the presence of an implicit projected argument in Spec,Voice in Spanish impersonal- and passive-se constructions. The main empirical support comes from an available inalienable-possession interpretation of the sole overt DP when it is a body part in both constructions. This interpretation is only possible in the presence of a syntactically present c-commanding possessor. I argue that the implicit projected external argument serves as the inalienable possessor of the body part. Neither the periphrastic passive nor the anticausative-se construction in Spanish allows an inalienable-possession interpretation of the sole overt DP when it is a body part. In these instances, I claim, no implicit argument projects in Spec,Voice. I discuss how the presence of a projected argument in Spec,Voice is responsible for by-phrase restrictions in impersonal- and passive-se constructions and person restrictions in passive-se constructions; the lack of a projected implicit argument in Spec,Voice of both the periphrastic passive and the anticausative-se construction is responsible for the lack of the person restrictions in both, and the lack of by-phrase restrictions in the periphrastic passive.