Collins (Syntax 8:81–120, 2005) proposes a smuggling approach to English passives that solves some problems associated with the traditional analysis. This article will show that while English passives involve smuggling, Mandarin passives do not; we offer an explanation for this difference. We first provide evidence that Mandarin passives can have not only control structures (as previously assumed) but also the possibility of a raising derivation involving A-movement, thus ruling out control as the sole reason for the absence of smuggling. We then attribute the absence of smuggling in Mandarin to the existence of vP-internal movement, which implies that Chinese allows multiple Specs of vP while English does not. This analysis helps tie together a number of otherwise unrelated differences between these languages (vP-internal movement, quantifier float, and constituency). We see the results as falling within the basic tenets of the theory of UG: While UTAH and Minimality are presumably universal requirements, individual grammars may employ different strategies to satisfy them.

中文翻译：

---

控制和提高被动性，以及普通话为什么不走私

Collins（Syntax 8：81–120，2005）提出了一种针对英语被动语的走私方法，该方法解决了与传统分析相关的一些问题。本文将说明，尽管英语被动语种涉及走私，而普通话被动语则不涉及走私。我们对此有一个解释。我们首先提供证据证明，普通话被动语不仅可以具有控制结构（如先前所假设的那样），而且还可以具有涉及A-动量的提高派生的可能性，因此将控制排除为没有走私的唯一原因。然后，我们将普通话缺乏走私归因于vP内部运动的存在，这意味着中文允许多种vP规范，而英语则不允许。这项分析有助于将这些语言之间在其他方面不相关的差异联系在一起（vP内部移动，数量浮点数和选区）。我们认为结果属于UG理论的基本原则：UTAH和Minimality可能是通用要求，但个别语法可能会采用不同的策略来满足它们。