Abstract
Abstract The passive structure, formation, and the status of by-phrases in passives have been longstanding topics of debate, receiving substantial attention in syntactic literature. Two primary approaches to these themes have been identified: one based on movement (or smuggling), and the other representing a non-movement alternative. This study demonstrates that the non-movement approach holds a distinct advantage over the movement-based account, challenging the broader explanatory coverage claimed by the latter. Specifically, I introduce data from two varieties of Arabic that critically undermine the foundational assumptions of the movement (smuggling) approach, revealing that its predictions are not supported by the observed data. Accordingly, the analysis presented here argues that neither the passive construction with a by-phrase nor the short passive (without a by-phrase) involves a movement (smuggling) operation. One consequence of the argument advanced in this study is that it casts doubt on the central claim of the movement (smuggling) approach—namely, that the external arguments in passive and active constructions are projected in exactly the same way. In contrast, the non-movement approach, which treats the by-phrase as an adjunct, is argued to be an empirically preferred alternative.

Key words: passive formation, smuggling, non-movement approach, by-phrases, true arguments, adjuncts, Modern Standard Arabic, Najdi Arabic