스페인 수동문 <ser pp>가 안고 있는 몇 가지 문제점에 대하여

Abstract

This present study concerns the passive structures <ser pp>, <estar pp> y 'se pasiva' which coexist in the Modern Spanish. It is needed to search some appropriate reason why the periphrasis <ser pp> is still considered representative passive despite the 'se pasiva' occupying the most distribution among the three constructions. We will, therefore, examine distinctive features of each periphrasis and compare the Modern Spanish passive with the Medieval Spanish ones, converging upon the Latin origin and the diachronic passage on the ground of the passive voice change. The disappearance of the Latin passive morphology has made the periphrasis <ser pp> newly undertake the passive voice role. On the other side, the 'se pasiva' the origin of which is the Latin middle voice has not been developed as a substitute for the lost Latin passive but from the 14th century on, started to settle down as a new passive verb as well. However the multifunctional <ser pp> which had been traditionally used for perfect tense, resultative(static) voice and the newly undertaken passive voice was designated to diverge into other periphrases like <haber pp> and <estar pp>. Although <estar pp> contains the perfect participle (=pp), it can not be considered as a real passive verb because the participle in this case concerns more predicative adjective than a passive verbal element. Accordingly, we can confirm that there are two passive constructions in Modern Spanish: <́ser pp> and the 'se pasiva'.