What is Voice? Two competing views

@cite{kratzer-1996} @cite{pylkkanen-2008} @cite{collins-2005} @cite{storment-2026}

A formalizer-side meta-bridge surfacing a substantive theoretical disagreement neither paper sets up directly: what is the job of the syntactic head called Voice?

The two views

Pylkkänen / Kratzer view (@cite{kratzer-1996}, @cite{pylkkanen-2008}): Voice is the head that introduces the external argument. Its job is thematic — it bears a θ-relation between the external argument and the event described by the verb (Event Identification, @cite{kratzer-1996} eq. 10). All argument-structure theory follows from where Voice projects and what it bundles with (Cause-Voice bundling, @cite{pylkkanen-2008} Ch. 3 §3.3). Without Voice, no external argument is introduced at all.

Collins / Storment view (@cite{collins-2005}, @cite{storment-2026}): Voice is the smuggling projection. Its job is structural — it provides the landing site (Spec,VoiceP) into which a constituent can move, licensing A-movement past an in-situ external argument. The external argument itself is introduced by v, not Voice (@cite{storment-2026} §4.3). Voice's status as a non-phase head is what permits smuggling. The voice-as-smuggling-projection conception is "a notable departure from the view of Voice⁰ as an applicative head that introduces the external argument" (@cite{storment-2026}, §4.3).

The disagreement is partly substantive, partly terminological

The two camps do not disagree about the empirical phenomena. They disagree about which functional head does which job. Pylkkänen attributes external-argument introduction to Voice and structural licensing to higher functional projections (T⁰, Infl). Collins attributes external-argument introduction to v and structural licensing (Case + smuggling) to Voice. The label "Voice" denotes different positions in the two systems.

The orthogonality of the two predicates IsExternalArgIntroducer and IsSmugglingProjection (defined below) reflects this: a VoiceHead instance can satisfy one, both, or neither. Linglib's VoiceHead structure encodes both axes (assignsTheta and permitsSmuggling) independently, accommodating both views simultaneously.

Where this meta-bridge sits

Per the CLAUDE.md cross-theory-meta-bridges convention, this is a formalizer-side synthesis (neither Pylkkänen nor Collins/Storment formulates the contrast in these exact terms). It lives under Theories/Syntax/Minimalism/ because both views are pure-theory positions about a syntactic head, with no specific empirical phenomenon at stake. Topic-named (VoiceProjection), not stance-named.

§1. Two predicates over Voice heads

The Pylkkänen view and the Collins/Storment view make different claims about what makes a Voice head "well-formed Voice."

def Minimalist.IsExternalArgIntroducer (v : VoiceHead) : Prop

Pylkkänen / Kratzer view: a Voice head is "doing its job" iff it introduces an external argument (assigns external θ). @cite{kratzer-1996}: Voice = the head bearing the θ-relation.

Equations

• Minimalist.IsExternalArgIntroducer v = v.AssignsTheta

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Minimalist.instDecidableIsExternalArgIntroducer (v : VoiceHead) : Decidable (IsExternalArgIntroducer v)

Equations

• Minimalist.instDecidableIsExternalArgIntroducer v = id inferInstance

def Minimalist.IsSmugglingProjection (v : VoiceHead) : Prop

Collins / Storment view: a Voice head is "doing its job" iff it permits smuggling (it is the structural landing site for a constituent moving past an in-situ external argument). @cite{collins-2005}, @cite{storment-2026}.

Equations

• Minimalist.IsSmugglingProjection v = (v.permitsSmuggling = true)

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Minimalist.instDecidableIsSmugglingProjection (v : VoiceHead) : Decidable (IsSmugglingProjection v)

Equations

• Minimalist.instDecidableIsSmugglingProjection v = id inferInstance

§2. The two views are orthogonal

Linglib's VoiceHead already encodes both axes. The question is whether they coincide for the canonical Voice instances. Answer: they don't. A Voice head can satisfy either one, both, or neither — the four corners of the orthogonality square.

theorem Minimalist.voiceAgent_pylkkanen_yes_collins_no : IsExternalArgIntroducer voiceAgent ∧ ¬IsSmugglingProjection voiceAgent

voiceAgent satisfies the Pylkkänen view (it introduces the agent external argument) but fails the Collins/Storment view (agentive Voice is a strong phase head; smuggling is blocked).

theorem Minimalist.voicePassive_collins_yes_pylkkanen_no : IsSmugglingProjection voicePassive ∧ ¬IsExternalArgIntroducer voicePassive

voicePassive satisfies the Collins view (it is the smuggling landing site) but fails the Pylkkänen view (it does not introduce an external argument — the external arg is in Spec,vP per @cite{collins-2005} §2 UTAH). The passive Voice head is puzzling on Pylkkänen's view: a Voice head with no θ-role to assign.

theorem Minimalist.voiceAnticausative_collins_yes_pylkkanen_no : IsSmugglingProjection voiceAnticausative ∧ ¬IsExternalArgIntroducer voiceAnticausative

voiceAnticausative similarly fits the Collins view (smuggling target for the unaccusative-like derivation Storment uses for QI and LI) and fails the Pylkkänen view (no external argument).

theorem Minimalist.views_not_equivalent : ¬∀ (v : VoiceHead), IsExternalArgIntroducer v ↔ IsSmugglingProjection v

The two views are not equivalent: there exist Voice heads distinguishing them (in fact, the canonical instances above all do).

§3. What the disagreement amounts to

In Pylkkänen's framework, every Voice head should be an IsExternalArgIntroducer. The fact that linglib's voicePassive and voiceAnticausative are not means Pylkkänen would not call these "Voice" — she would attribute the structural-licensing function to a different (perhaps unnamed) head.

In Collins/Storment's framework, every Voice head should be an IsSmugglingProjection. The fact that linglib's voiceAgent is not means Collins/Storment would not call this "Voice" — they would call it v (which voiceAgent's thematic role and phase status more closely match in their system).

The disagreement is therefore partly labeling: which functional head gets the name "Voice." But it is also partly substantive: whether the same syntactic position can simultaneously introduce an external argument and serve as a smuggling target. Pylkkänen's framework requires Voice to do (a); Collins/Storment's framework requires Voice to do (b); and the two functions are made structurally incompatible by the phase/θ-role correlations Storment defends in §4 of his paper.

theorem Minimalist.views_jointly_unsatisfiable_for_canonical_voices : ¬(IsExternalArgIntroducer voiceAgent ∧ IsSmugglingProjection voiceAgent) ∧ ¬(IsExternalArgIntroducer voicePassive ∧ IsSmugglingProjection voicePassive) ∧ ¬(IsExternalArgIntroducer voiceAnticausative ∧ IsSmugglingProjection voiceAnticausative)

The substantive incompatibility: a Voice head cannot simultaneously satisfy both views. (Equivalently: introducing an external argument requires being a phase head, which blocks smuggling.)