「を」 object marker in this 受身形{うけみけい} sentence


A native speaker told me that:  
泥棒{どろぼう}に、お財布{さいふ} **を** 、盗{ぬす}まれた。  
is correct.

However, I sure think that:  
泥棒に、お財布 **が** 、盗まれた。  
is correct.

Moreover, I am pretty sure that using the object marker, 「を」, in any 受身形
sentence is extremely uncommon. What is going on? Is a native speaker telling
me incorrect Japanese?




There are various ways to analyze passives in Japanese grammatically (see
Ishizuka, p. 174), but I will be presenting a specific view which I really
like, which is Ishizuka's.

When you passivize a sentence in Japanese (by adding -(r)are- to the verb),
you

  * lift a non-が argument of the active sentence to が, and
  * lift the が argument of the active sentence to に.

The non-が argument can be anything -- sometimes it's the を argument, sometimes
the に argument, sometimes the から argument, or sometimes even a possessive の
lower down in the structure, etc.

(Note: There is also another type of passive where there is truly a new
argument added, not pulled out from the original active sentence -- but not
all native speakers accept them and they aren't needed to discuss this
question. See Ishizuka, p. 263.)

# Your sentences

So, I would say these are the original active sentences of your passives:

> 泥棒が （私から） 財布を 盗んだ。  
>  ⇒ （私が） 泥棒に 財布を 盗まれた。

Namely, 私から gets promoted to 私が, and 泥棒が gets promoted to 泥棒に.  
(Note: The 私の version is probably just as fine an original sentence for this.)

> 泥棒が 財布を 盗んだ。  
>  ⇒ 財布が 泥棒に 盗まれた。

Here, 財布を gets promoted to 財布が, and 泥棒が gets promoted to 泥棒に.

# Semantic differences

So, while that is a little syntax which you may or may not believe, is there
an actual semantic difference between the two constructions?

### Adversarialness

In general, there is a difference in adversarialness, though in this specific
case not really.

The usual difference is that there is a connotation of the が-marked argument
in the passive sentence being "affected" (which usually gets further
interpreted as adversarial due to information structure) when it was
originally marked by:

  * "on" に (e.g., 雨が太郎に降った。⇒太郎が雨に降られた。)
  * の (e.g., 直美がケンの子どもを叱った。⇒ケンが直美に子どもを叱られた。）
  * から (e.g., 妻が夫から逃げた。⇒夫が妻に逃げられた。）

while the others (other にs, を, etc.) do not result in the が-marked argument
being "affected".

However, both of your sentences are adversarial, simply because getting your
wallet stolen always affects you negatively.

In English, consider

> John saw Mary entering the building at 6 o'clock.
>
> Mary was seen entering the building at 6 o'clock by John.

Mary is clearly more negatively affected in the latter.

However, in

> A thief stole John's wallet.
>
> John had his wallet stolen by a thief.

John was negatively affected in both just due to "thief" and "stolen".

So while 泥棒に財布を盗まれた。 forces the adversarialness, I think 泥棒に財布が盗まれた。 and
泥棒が財布を盗んだ。 are equally as adversarial anyways simply due to the words used.

### Person being stolen from

As yu_ominae points out...

泥棒に財布を盗まれた。 requires an explicit understanding of someone being stolen from /
there being a wallet owner. If you look at the syntax, this is because the
thing in the が-position (which is omitted, but only due to context making it
clear) is who it is being stolen from or the owner of the wallet.

On the other hand, 泥棒に財布が盗まれた does not require that understanding, because it
is really just like the passive in English ("The wallet was stolen by a
thief"), where, while who it is being stolen from could optionally be added as
an adjunct (私から/"from me"), it is not a part of the actual sentence.

# Source

Ishizuka, T. (2010). [Toward a Unified Analysis of Passive in Japanese: A
Cartographic Minimalist
Approach.](http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001036/current.pdf)

Relevant sections are:

  * Raising things to が: pp. 67-150.
  * Adversarial connotations: pp. 245-261.

But the entire thing is quite nice.




There are various ways to analyze passives in Japanese grammatically (see
Ishizuka, p. 174), but I will be presenting a specific view which I really
like, which is Ishizuka's.

When you passivize a sentence in Japanese (by adding -(r)are- to the verb),
you

  * lift a non-が argument of the active sentence to が, and
  * lift the が argument of the active sentence to に.

The non-が argument can be anything -- sometimes it's the を argument, sometimes
the に argument, sometimes the から argument, or sometimes even a possessive の
lower down in the structure, etc.

(Note: There is also another type of passive where there is truly a new
argument added, not pulled out from the original active sentence -- but not
all native speakers accept them and they aren't needed to discuss this
question. See Ishizuka, p. 263.)

# Your sentences

So, I would say these are the original active sentences of your passives:

> 泥棒が （私から） 財布を 盗んだ。  
>  ⇒ （私が） 泥棒に 財布を 盗まれた。

Namely, 私から gets promoted to 私が, and 泥棒が gets promoted to 泥棒に.  
(Note: The 私の version is probably just as fine an original sentence for this.)

> 泥棒が 財布を 盗んだ。  
>  ⇒ 財布が 泥棒に 盗まれた。

Here, 財布を gets promoted to 財布が, and 泥棒が gets promoted to 泥棒に.

# Semantic differences

So, while that is a little syntax which you may or may not believe, is there
an actual semantic difference between the two constructions?

### Adversarialness

In general, there is a difference in adversarialness, though in this specific
case not really.

The usual difference is that there is a connotation of the が-marked argument
in the passive sentence being "affected" (which usually gets further
interpreted as adversarial due to information structure) when it was
originally marked by:

  * "on" に (e.g., 雨が太郎に降った。⇒太郎が雨に降られた。)
  * の (e.g., 直美がケンの子どもを叱った。⇒ケンが直美に子どもを叱られた。）
  * から (e.g., 妻が夫から逃げた。⇒夫が妻に逃げられた。）

while the others (other にs, を, etc.) do not result in the が-marked argument
being "affected".

However, both of your sentences are adversarial, simply because getting your
wallet stolen always affects you negatively.

In English, consider

> John saw Mary entering the building at 6 o'clock.
>
> Mary was seen entering the building at 6 o'clock by John.

Mary is clearly more negatively affected in the latter.

However, in

> A thief stole John's wallet.
>
> John had his wallet stolen by a thief.

John was negatively affected in both just due to "thief" and "stolen".

So while 泥棒に財布を盗まれた。 forces the adversarialness, I think 泥棒に財布が盗まれた。 and
泥棒が財布を盗んだ。 are equally as adversarial anyways simply due to the words used.

### Person being stolen from

As yu_ominae points out...

泥棒に財布を盗まれた。 requires an explicit understanding of someone being stolen from /
there being a wallet owner. If you look at the syntax, this is because the
thing in the が-position (which is omitted, but only due to context making it
clear) is who it is being stolen from or the owner of the wallet.

On the other hand, 泥棒に財布が盗まれた does not require that understanding, because it
is really just like the passive in English ("The wallet was stolen by a
thief"), where, while who it is being stolen from could optionally be added as
an adjunct (私から/"from me"), it is not a part of the actual sentence.

# Source

Ishizuka, T. (2010). [Toward a Unified Analysis of Passive in Japanese: A
Cartographic Minimalist
Approach.](http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001036/current.pdf)

Relevant sections are:

  * Raising things to が: pp. 67-150.
  * Adversarial connotations: pp. 245-261.

But the entire thing is quite nice.

