The Passive and the Notion of Transitivity

The purpose of this article is to show that passivization can be better accounted for when the phenomenon of transitivity, on which it is based, is defined on semantic grounds. The notion of transfer from the subject to the object through the verb, which corresponds to the main semantic component of transitivity, is what makes passivization possible, not necessarily the presence of an object complement of the verb in the active. It appears that the notion of object, which is the main syntactic parameter on which the notion of transitivity is founded, covers very different situations and cannot serve as a reliable tool to describe the phenomenon of passivization. It is only when the transitivity notion is envisaged through a semantic angle that passivization can be accounted for in more homogeneous terms.

The verbs belonging to set 1 (Resemble, have, mean, fit, cost, weigh, etc.) have a stative value (or are used statively). Even though the structures are syntactically based on a pattern with 3 parts, and the verbs are followed by complements that have more or less the status of objects (« me » in « it fits me » can be regarded as a syntactic object but certainly not « a lot » in « he weighs a lot », which is only a complement of the verb without being an object), (Note 4) they are semantically binary, just as copula clauses are (S + V)) : there is one argument only (the subject) and a property of the subject is given. And this is what makes passivization impossible : utterances containing such verbs are used to attribute a property to the subject ; if the verb functions as a copula and is semantically binary (if the verb has one argument only, like intransitive verbs), the passive excluded. Besides, all the verbs belonging to set 1 function as be and some of them could even be replaced by it. Their binary semantic structure is identical to any utterance containing be (even though the meaning would be slightly different) : It costs 10 pounds ~it is ten pounds.
He resembles his mother ~ he is like his mother, he is similar to his mother in appearance.
The suit fits me ~ the suit is my size.
I have a car ~ the car is mine.
It means a lot to me ~ it is important to me. Marry and meet (by chance), belonging to set 2, which are reciprocal verbs, are clearly followed by object complements.
The status of what follows them is not unstable. Their pattern consists of 3 parts (he married her : her is the object complement of the verb) but the object cannot become subject because it cannot be promoted, both participants acting upon one another (reciprocal diathesis): He married her. *She was married by him. The passive could only be used with a different meaning: she was married by him : by him = by the priest. There is no reciprocal relationship anymore. Let's take meet : John met her in the street. *She was met by John in the street. (The meeting was not scheduled.) John met Mary at the station. John was met by Mary at the station. (The meeting was scheduled.) If one participant acts upon the other and vice versa, the structure is semantically binary too. It is as if there were only one argument since the object cannot be promoted.
It transpires that the syntactic division of the predicative relation does not necessarily correspond to its semantic division :

Semantic division :
This suit fits me. Property of the subject. No passive correspondent 1 2

• Syntactic division :
The car weighs two tons. No passive correspondent 1 2 3

Semantic division :
The car weighs two tons 1 2

• Correspondence between syntactic division and semantic division :
The tailor fitted me. -> I was fitted by the tailor.
1 2 3 1 2 3 To sum up, there are 2 kinds of verbs that cannot be passivized : -those that are synonyms of be (attribution of a property to the subject, set 1.) : weigh, cost, have, mean, fit, resemble, etc., whose subject is never agentive. The complement of the active cannot become subject of the passive since the object cannot be promoted, both participants being equal (A=B). The complement of the verb functions as a property of the subject.
-those that are reciprocal verbs (set 2.): marry, meet (by chance). The object cannot be promoted, both participants acting upon one another.
All these verbs are syntactically based on a pattern with 3 parts, but semantically, for different reasons, they are binary. (Note 5) Conclusion : Some verbs are transitive and followed by object complements (except for weigh, hold, number, cost, which are, in one of their uses, followed by complements of the verb which cannot be described as objects) and cannot be passivized. In some of their uses, these verbs show a discrepancy between form (ternary pattern, pattern with 3 parts) and meaning (binary pattern). This difficulty makes it necessary to examine the notion of transitivity in further detail. The notion of object complement will be questioned as well. Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 247) (Note 6) sustain that « If a core complement NP of an active clause can be converted into the subject of a related passive, then it is an object. » This corresponds to what they call « the passive test ». The object of an active clause prototypically corresponds to the subject of a related passive :

The notion of transitivity
Pat overlooked the error. [O] The error [S] was overlooked (by Pat).
The authors add that there are exceptions to the rule and that the subject of the passive does not always correspond to the object of the verb in the active. In the following example, this glass corresponds to the subject of the passive, but « it is functioning as complement of a preposition, not as object of drink » : He has drunk out of this glass.
This glass has been drunk out of.
In other words, the passive test is not always perfectly reliable as there are intransitive structures that permit passivization.
In fact, there are 4 possible combinations: Active transitive sentence with a passive correspondent, typical occurrences: the hail damaged the car. The car was damaged by the hail.
Active transitive sentence without a passive correspondent : he resembles his father.
Active intransitive sentence without a passive correspondent : someone has slept under this bed.
Active intransitive sentence with a passive correspondent: someone has slept in this bed. As can be noted, the notion of syntactic transitivity works on the whole but is not entirely relevant, as many cases are left unaccounted for.
To put it simply, there are two kinds of definitions of transitivity: formal definitions, mainly based on syntactic grounds, and other definitions based on semantics, and more particularly on the meaning of the term « transitive » and the manifold situations that it covers.

Syntactic definition
According to traditional grammars, a transitive verb involves two participants and contains one object (direct or indirect). (Note 7) Useful as it might be, this clear-cut definition is not entirely satisfactory because the notion of object is highly problematic as the word covers a whole array of different situations.
He dug a grave : the objet is « effected », and clearly points to a result : a grave is dug. The action is telic, (Note 8) i.e. viewed from its endpoint.The activity is viewed as completed.

2.
He dug the ground : the objet is affected ; the action is atelic because it is only partially carried out.

3.
He ran the marathon in 3 hours: the noun phrase (the marathon) refers to a distance but functions as an object (run a race) ; there is a passive correspondent (the passive test works here). The action is telic, viewed from its endpoint. The object is effected.

4.
The whole choir sang the wrong words : the wrong words corresponds to the object of the verb (affected object) but the adjective wrong prevents passivization : *the wrong words were sung by the whole choir. The words were sung by the whole choir is perfectly acceptable.

5.
He was thinking lewd thoughts : lewd thoughts occupies the place of an object but the verb think does not refer to an opinion here as in we are all thinking the same thing, but to something that the subject has in mind : he had lewd thoughts in mind. If lewd thoughts is an object, it can only be indirectly so as the sentence constitutes a reduced form of he was thinking about lewd things (the word things being replaced by thoughts, which is reduplication of think, producing a 'summary effect'). Passivization is impossible here.

6.
He kicked the bucket: if this sentence is interpreted literally, the bucket is the object complement of the verb kick and is affected. But the bucket cannot be described as a direct object when the expression is interpreted idiomatically. The sentence allows the passive in its literal sense only and does not allow the passive in its figurative sense. Indeed, the bucket was kicked (by him) would be interpreted literally. The bucket and kick are perceived as a single lexical item when they are interpreted idiomatically. This is the reason why the bucket cannot be the object complement of kick even though the structure seems to imply the opposite. The clause is thus intransitive.

7.
It looked like rain but I decided to chance it and left my umbrella at home: the object it has no reference and is devoid of meaning (or rather its semantic value can be deduced from the context). It is part of a fixed expression. No passive correspondent can be thought of (*It was chanced by him) because the subject of the passive must be discourse-old and have a clear referential value. (Note 9)

8.
He has a car : the noun phrase a car is an object complement and yet no passive is possible because have functions as a stative verb here.

9.
He gave her a book : her has the status of an indirect object for certain linguists, who consider this structure as derived from He gave a book to her. But it is regarded as a direct object for others, who only take the surface structure into account.

10.
John shaved himself : himself is the co-referential object of the verb shave. The structure is ternary but reflexive expressions cannot be passivized : a reflexive pronoun cannot become the subject of a sentence if it appears on its own : *Himself was shaved by John. The pronoun can only be used if it is part of a larger group : Unflattering descriptions of himself have been banned by our president. (Jackendoff). Reflexive pronouns are very seldom part of agent by-phrases. They must be rhematic or appear in a coordinated clause : you are hereby advised by Mary and myself that we are married. (Note 10)

11.
John broke a tooth on a particularly tough piece of meat: (Note 11) a tooth is the object complement of the verb break but as the object is a part of the subject (co-referential) and that the subject (John) is not at all agentive, the utterance cannot be passivized (*A tooth was broken by John on a particularly tough piece of meat.) A parallel can be drawn with reflexive diathesis here (example 10), as reflexive expressions cannot be passivized : he washed himself / *himself was washed by him.

12.
He married her : her is an object but the passive is impossible because of the reciprocal meaning of the verb.
It appears that the notion of syntactic transitivity is not easy to grasp. The link between the passive and the notion of syntactic transitivity is based on shaky foundations. Therefore Huddleston and Pullum's statement (« most verbs taking just one object permit passivization») should be qualified, as it rests on syntactic grounds only.

Indirect transitive verbs or prepositional verbs
Prepositional verbs can often occur in the passive, but not so freely as in the active. They consist of a lexical verb followed by a preposition : My mother approved of the plan. The plan was approved (of) by my mother. (of is optional here) The committee didn't face up to these problems. These problems weren't faced up to by the committee.
The organisers seem to have lost sight of the main goal. The main goal seems to have been lost sight of. (Note 12) According to Jacques Roggero's classification (1981, pp. 15-28), (Note 13) a prepositional verb is a transitive verb followed by an indirect object complement. The preposition is stranded in the passive but it is stricly specified by the verb at the same time as it introduces the noun phrase.
Let's take go into: The engineers [went [carefully] into the problem]: go into is a prepositional verb, used idiomatically here ; into the problem is the indirect object complement and the prepositional phrase (PP) is part of the verb phrase. A passive counterpart can easily be found : the problem was carefully gone into.

The engineers [went] [carefully][into the tunnel.]
: the verb is not prepositional here but simple (go), and it is followed by a prepositional phrase. The verb is used non idiomatically and the PP into the tunnel is an adjunct, which is external to the verb phrase. No passive counterpart can be thought of : *The tunnel was gone into.
In a nutshell, go into is regarded as an idiom when it is used figuratively (go into a problem) but not when it is used literally: go into a tunnel. It is followed by an indirect object complement when it is used idiomatically (in that case it is a prepositional verb) and by an adjunct when it is used non idiomatically (go is not a prepositional verb in that case; it is just followed by a prepositional phrase). As a consequence, there is a great cohesion between the verb and the preposition when the meaning is figurative, but not when it is literal, since the verb is simple in that case.
Talmy GivÒn (1990) (Note 14) goes in the same direction underlining that some verb-preposition combinations are partly idiomatic (go into, approve of, etc.) :

They cared for her well during her last year. (s'occuper de)
She was well cared for during her last year.

Non-idiomatic :
John cared for her deeply. (aimer) *she was deeply cared for by John.
He explains the contrasting behaviour of the idiomatic vs. non-idiomatic sense by noting that idiomatic verb-preposition combinations are perceived as single lexical items. We might add that this is not so much a question of idiomaticity (as some idomatic expressions cannot be passivized precisely because they are idiomatic and function as a whole [set sails, lose courage, change trains, etc.]) (Note 15) as it is a question of link between the verb and the preposition. In 1, the verb is highly prepositional (to care for someone, s'occuper de) ; the link between the verb and the preposition is very close and the prepositional phrase cannot be deleted without any change of meaning (*he cared). In 2., the verb is still prepositional (to care, aimer) but the link between the verb and the preposition is not so close. The prepositional phrase can be deleted without changing the meaning of the verb. As a matter of fact, both verbs are prepositional, both are followed by indirect object complements but one of them cannot be passivized because the link between the verb and the preposition is not close enough. But there might be another reason : care for is a stative verb and stative verbs cannot normally be passivized. If we compare John cared for her to They wrote a lot about it, we note that both verbs are simple and show but a loose link with their PP (which can be deleted, John cared, they wrote) but only the verb write can be passivized. This might come from the fact that write is an actional verb. This question will be examined further on.
To conclude, only in their abstract, figurative uses do go into, look at, arrive at, etc. accept the passive because the preposition in such cases is specified by the verb. It is then perfectly natural that the passive should normally be excluded when the preposition is less constrained, especially when it introduces an adjunct and has a temporal or a locative meaning: We never worked on Sundays. *Sundays were never worked on.
They set out despite the fog. *The fog was set out despite.
They had died near the tree. *The tree had been died near.
But there are counter-examples, which we will analyse further on : it is sometimes possible to passivize an utterance when the preposition is not specified by the verb, when it introduces an adjunct and has a locative meaning, if the PP functions as if it were a complement of the verb, as if it were affected by the process : This bed has been slept in.
He hates being sat next to.
The bridge has already been flown under twice. (Note 16) Also, the fact that a preposition is specified by a verb or verbal idiom is no guarantee that the verb can be passivized: His son took after him (tenir de). This sentence is semantically close to his son resembled him. When passivized, it takes on a different meaning and is interpreted literally: He was taken after his son means il a été pris après son père. After his son becomes an adjunct in the passive, and the verb is not prepositional anymore. So He was taken after his son cannot be the passive equivalent of His son took after him, which cannot be passivized in that sense.
They are crying out for justice. *Justice is being cried out for. (cry out for justice functions as a close unit, as a fixed expression like set sails, change buses, etc.). The passive is not possible for many idioms in which the verb and the object form a close unit. (See note 15).

Semantic definition of transitivity
When the notion of transitivity, which originates in semantics, (Note 17) is defined semantically, the syntactic definition is presupposed (transitivity entails the presence of an object) but what comes uppermost is the idea of semantic transfer. The action is transferred, carried-over, from the subject (which is more or less agentive, which can be animate or not) to the object (the patient, which can be more or less effective) through the verb. (Note 18) As Georges Lazard underlines (1994, p. 248), « La transitivité sémantique, conformément à l'étymologie du terme, évoque l'idée de quelque chose qui passe (transit) d'un participant à l'autre, de l'agent à l'objet. » (Note 19) The notion of transitivity is especially relevant when an action is involved, when the verb is dynamic and the subject agentive (whether animate or not), which permits the transfer : Peter shot Paul. Paul was shot by Peter.
Peter is the performer of the action « shot ».
The official weighed the boxer. The boxer was weighed by the official.
The bullet hit him in the neck. He was hit in the neck by a bullet. (agentive inanimate subject, « bullet » performer of the action « hit ») With a dynamic transitive prepositional verb (V+NP+PP), the transfer normally affects the first NP : John explained the situation to us. The situation was explained to us.
But it is not unusual for the noun in the PP to be affected : -He paid too much for this car.
-Well, lots of things are paid too much for nowadays. (Note 20) Too much should be the subject of the passive (pay money for something) but for this car, that is to say what we pay for, is taken to be the theme of the utterance here and is affected.
If we consider a more complex verb (a prepositional expression) like for example Make mention of, we note that the NP, mention, is normally affected by the transfer : mention is made of the whole tradition in aesthetics grounded in Kant and Hegel. (Note 21) *The whole tradition in aesthetics grounded in Kant and Hegel was made mention of. But in the following example, the noun in the PP (indirect object complement) is affected as it is thematized in the context : He did not make mention of his links with the mafia, and I do not think that they will ever be made mention of. (Note 22) The transfer normally affects the first complement of the verb, but the second can be affected too if it is thematized in context.
The passive is consequently generally not allowed when there is no transfer possible (with stative verbs for instance or verbs used statively), even if the sentence contains a syntactic object : The idea of transfer on which transitivity is based presupposes that the subject of the active is agentive. In fact, the subject of the active can be more or less agentive. The degree of agentivity of the subject is variable and depends on the verb as well. The notion of agentivity can thus be described as a continuum, and as a consequence the notion of transitivity as well. In the following exemples, the subject is decreasingly agentive, the degree of transitivity lower and lower (but never absent), and in each case the passive is possible: (Note 23)

1.
John willingly broke the vase. (willingly plays a role in the agentive role of the subject, John, and in the dynamic character of the verb break)

2.
John accidentally broke the vase. (the subject is necessarily less agentive due to the role of the adverb accidentally, despite the presence of the same dynamic verb)

3.
The wind broke the branch of the tree. (inanimate subject ; the subject is necessarily less agentive than with an animate subject (John))

4.
A broken wall girdled the low horizon. (the verb girdle is stative, the subject is inanimate. But there is some sort of dynamism since a broken wall acts upon the low horizon by girdling it. The subject is only indirectly agentive here, and the degree of transitivity is very low.
All these utterances have a passive counterpart no matter how agentive the subject is:

1.
The vase was willingly broken by John.

2.
The vase was accidentally broken by John.

3.
The branch of the tree was broken by the wind.

4.
I cannot tell what sentiment haunted the quite solitary churchyard, with its inscribed headstone; its gate, its two trees, its low horizon, girdled by a broken wall, and its newly-risen crescent, attesting the hour of eventide. (Note 24) But when the subject is not associated with the role of agent at all, there's normally no transfer possible from the subject to the object through the verb, and passivization is hardly acceptable :

1.
He received the letter. ?The letter was received by him.

3.
The suit fits me. *I am fitted by the suit. (the suit is not agentive)

4.
He kicked the bucket. (he died) *The bucket was kicked by him.

5.
His wound was oozing blood. *Blood was being oozed from his wound.

6.
The bush sprouted new shoots. *New shoots were being sprouted from the bush.

7.
The reforms will benefit women. *Women will be benefited by the reforms.
The subject is not agentive. The object can't be affected by the subject through the verb. No transfer is possible. (Note 25) In fact, like agentivity, transitivity functions as a continuum : the more effective an action is, the more transitive the clause is. If the action is not viewed from its endpoint, it is less effectively transferred to a patient. Moreover, the transitivity notion is not homogeneous and is made up of different semantic parameters, which are discourse-determined, and have to be taken into account. A verb can be more or less transitive if : -it refers to an action which is punctual (punctual actions have a more marked effect on their patients) -if the action is telic (the object is effected) -if the verb is volitional (the effect on the patient is more apparent) -if the subject is high in agency (which favours the transfer) -if the object is affected completely.
All these parameters have to be considered to define the notion of transitivity. The more agentive the subject is, the more telic the verb, the more effective the object is likely to be and the higher the degree of transitivity.
It follows that a verb is not intrinsically high in transitivity but that it can be more or less so according to the context. That is the reason why purely formal definitions of transitivity are too restrictive. In order for an utterance to be passivized, there must be some degree of semantic transitivity. But our definition of transitivity has yet to be clarified.

Transitivity as a semantic continuum
Semantic transitivity does not always presuppose syntactic transitivity (the presence of an object) and syntactic transitivity does not necessarily trigger the transitive meaning. As far as the passive is concerned, the syntactic factor is not absolute. Some clauses may contain an object without conveying any idea of transfer from the subjet to the object, making passivization impossible. As Claude Rivière points out (1997, p. 20), « la transitivité est un phénomène qui se place au niveau des relations entre actants plutôt qu'au niveau des relations syntaxiques visibles. » (Note 26) In other words, certain verbs can be syntactically transitive (SVO) without being semantically transitive, without implying any idea of transfer from the subject to the object through the verb. This is the case for stative verbs (he received the letter, the suit fits me) : actions can be transferred from one participant to another, states cannot. The pattern with three parts plays a role in the definition of transitivity of course but what generally comes first is the semantic idea of transfer which permits passivization. The idea of transfer presupposes a certain dynamism of the verb and implies that the object is more or less affected by the subject through the verb. The passive will only be possible when the verb is semantically transitive in a given context. True passives are thus passives producing an agentive effect, passives containing dynamic verbs, because the notion of transfer is fully relevant here. The more agentive the subject is, the more dynamic the verb is, the higher degree of transitivity and consequently of passiveness the sentence will contain : He dug a hole and planted the tree. Syntactic transitivity AND semantic transitivity. Passive correspondent. The transfer is carried out in its entirety. (Note 27) I have a car. Syntactic transitivity (SVO) but NO semantic transitivity. Attribution of a property to the subject. NO Passive correspondent.
He married her. Syntactic transitivity but NO semantic transitivity. The object is affected by the subject at the same time as it affects the subject. The object cannot be promoted as it is acted upon as well as it acts (upon the subject).

Reflexive diathesis.
We all had a good time. Syntactic transitivity AND semantic transitivity. Passive correspondent : A good time was had by all. A good time is not affected but it is effected and has a clear resultative value. The tense of the verb and the nature of the process denoted by the verb certainly have something to do with transitivity here. If the verb is put into the present tense, the utterance becomes hardly acceptable : We are all having a good time.
? A good time is being had by us all. The aspect of the verb, implying that the object is only partially effected, added to the stative nature of the verb, make passivization hardly possible.
He resembles his father. Syntactic transitivity (SVO) but NO semantic transitivity. Attribution of a property to the subject. NO Passive correspondent.
He kicked the bucket (to die). NO Syntactic transitivity and NO semantic transitivity. Attribution of a property to the subject. NO Passive correspondent ; the meaning would not be preserved.
Someone has slept in the bed. NO syntactic transitivity (SVO) but semantic transitivity. The bed is affected. Passive correspondent (bed is affected by sleep).
The object (of the active) must be affected in some way in order to become the subject of the passive (as a consequence of the transfer). There must be some kind of possible effect (meaning result) and/or a close relationship between the verb and its complement. The fact that the noun phrase must be affected by the verb (as a possible result of the transfer) as a consequence of its being effective in some way is what makes passivization possible with intransitive verbs as well, which, by nature, are not followed by objects. This is the reason why some intransitive verbs in certain contexts permit passivization (sleep) : their complement is affected by the action denoted by the verb. This also accounts for the fact that certain prepositional phrases can occur in the passive, others cannot. (Note 28)

With transitive verbs (direct or indirect) :
They arrived at a solution : Syntactic transitivity AND semantic transitivity (prepositional verb, transfer from they to a solution (result) through the verb. Solution : result of the process arrive. Arrive followed by a non locative NP is typically effective).
Whereas: they arrived at their cousins' : NO syntactic transitivity and NO semantic transitivity (no transfer, no result. Their cousins is not affected. Intransitive verb).
He looked at the girl : Syntactic transitivity AND semantic transitivity (the preposition is specified by the verb when the verb is prepositional. Close relationship betweeen look and at, and the preposition introduces a NP (noun phrase) which is complement of the preposition, and the whole PP (prepositional phrase) at the girl is the indirect object complement of look.) If we take the following passive sentence : So much has already been written about the Beatles. So much (the object of the active) has a resultative value (is a metaphor for 'many books'). This is how it is affected. The action write is typically effective since it has produced a result (so much).

With intransitive verbs
He looked under the bed : NO syntactic transitivity and NO semantic transitivity. The bed is not affected ; nor is it a participant. When it has a locative meaning, the preposition is (normally) less constrained. The cohesion between look and under (which is normal when the preposition introduces an adverbial phrase) is loose. The sentence does not allow passivization. Under the bed is an adjunct.

The noun in the PP (prepositional phrase) is affected.
The most classical example is Somebody has slept in the bed. The bed has been slept in. Somebody is associated with the role of agent and the bed is affected. But in the bed is an obligatory adjunct, not an object complement. Yet, there is a transfer from the subject to the adjunct (more particularly to the noun included in the PP) through the verb, even though the verb is intransitive. Consequently, the verb functions as a transitive verb and the relationship between the verb and the adjunct is close.
It is close because of the cognitive presupposition (Note 29) underlying the predicative relation here: What do you do in a bed ? You sleep in it. That kind of presupposition reinforces the relationship between the verb and the prepositional phrase, which cannot be deleted: * Somebody has slept.
Other example : The island cannot be walked across in an hour. The adjunct is obligatory and the island is affected. The principle of cognitive presupposition applies here as well: the relationship between walk and the island is natural.
On the contrary, if we take *The road was gone across, there is no semantic link between go across and the road and no cognitive presupposition. The passive is impossible.
Other examples including obligatory adjuncts that can become subjects of passive utterances : The relationship between the verb and chair is close anyway because a chair can be varnished. The construction of the verb put requires two obligatory complements, to put something somewhere (varnish = direct object complement, on the chair : obligatory adjunct). (Note 32) But the explanation cannot lie on syntactic reasons only. If we consider another example of the same type, I put my wallet in your bag the passivized sentence *your bag was put my wallet in is impossible (even though the structure is the same as in somebody put varnish on the chair, V NP PP) whereas My wallet was put in your bag is perfectly acceptable. We may hypothesize that what makes passivization possible with the chair as subject of the passive is that the chair is clearly affected. And in I put my wallet in your bag, it is not the bag which is affected but my wallet. Passivization depends here on the noun that is affected. Normally it should be the noun within the direct object complement (varnish) but sometimes, if that noun cannot be affected in the context, it is the noun from the adverbial prepositional phrase which becomes the subject of the passive.
The same could be said about : 1 They stuck pins in his body. (Note 33) 2 Pins were stuck in his body.
Stick pins somewhere requires two obligatory complements (object and adjunct). This sentence can normally give rise to one passive only : the object (pins), which is affected, becomes the subject of the passive : pins were stuck in his body. But if 'he' (or 'his body') is taken to be the theme of the utterance and is affected within a given context, it can become the subject of the passive :

He has been burned, stuck pins in, beheaded, all in effigy, of course.
Here again it is the second complement (obligatory adjunct) which becomes the subject of the passive, even if there is no real cognitive presupposition. This is only possible within a given context.
Somebody sat on the hat. The hat was sat on. The hat is affected but there is no cognitive presupposition here either. We may hypothesize that the relationship between the verb sit and the noun hat is close because to sit necessarily implies to sit somewhere. The bottle is affected. No real cognitive presupposition.

The noun in the PP (prepositional phrase) is not affected :
Naturally enough , My best friend has lived in New York cannot be passivized (*New York has been lived in by my best friend : my best friend / live in New York does not affect the city). It is indeed more difficult for a larger entity to be affected. But *New York has been lived in by Barak Obama should be possible (the city should be affected), yet it is not. One possible explanation is that there is no cognitive presupposition here and New York is too large an entity to be affected :?? What do you do in New York? You live in it. But New York has been lived in by the most famous people on earth is possible. The explanation is to be sought elsewhere than in cognitive presupposition in this case. New York can only be affected if the subject of the active refers to a larger group (more likely to affect a whole city).

Anna Siewierska's hypothesis (1984) (Note 35) is that certain sentences containing intransitive verbs like sleep and live
can be passivized if the agent by-phrase is heavily rhematic : 1 A good portion of the animal kingdom sleep through the winter.
2 The winter is slept through by a good portion of the animal kingdom.

*The winter is slept through by the bear.
According to the author, the passive becomes acceptable, even with an intransitive verb, when the agent by-phrase is sufficiently rhematic. By a good portion of the animal kingdom is more rhematic than by the bear. If the NP is insufficiently rhematic, the sentence is not grammatically correct : *The winter is slept through by the bear. It may also be hypothesized that the passive is possible because « the winter » can be said to have a resultative value (= very few animals can be seen) and as a matter of fact, and is likely to be affected in some way.
The winter cannot be affected by the fact that only bears sleep through it. This also applies to *New York has been lived in by my best friend: the sentence becomes correct if the agent by-phrase is heavily rhematic : New York has been lived in by the most famous people on earth. The agent by-phrase has to be heavily rhematic for the city to be affected.
Conclusion : with intransitive verbs, expecially when there is no cognitive presupposition, the passive is possible if the NP included in the adjunct of the active is affected in some way, and if the subject (which becomes the agent by-phrase) conveys a lot of information.
This also affects transitive verbs : the agent by-phrase, when present, is always rhematic, and is sometimes obligatory for the sentence to be grammatically correct, otherwise the sentence does not convey enough information : With stative verbs now, the subject not being agentive, the idea of a semantic transfer from the subject to the object through the verb poses a problem. If the object is to be affected, the verb cannot be totally stative : The jar holds oil. (= is full of) *Oil is held by the jar. Even if the agent by-phrase is heavily rhematic and the subject discourse-old, the passive remains impossible with purely stative verbs : *The oil coming from Italy that you gave us last year is held by the jar in front of you. *The cottage was had by two families.
Own could be passivized because it presupposes the act of buying (and is stative to a lesser degree). The sentence is more acceptable when the agent by-phrase conveys a lot of information: The cottage was owned by two families.
? The cottage was owned by John.
A BUGATTI supercar stopped by cops after an alleged 130mph motorway race with a Ferrari is owned by a speed-loving earl. (Note 41) The same could be said about the verb justify for instance, which describes a state but is not as stative as have, hold and possess : She received him with her very best politeness, which he returned with as much more, apologising for his intrusion, without any previous acquaintance with her, which he could not help flattering himself, however, might be justified by his relationship to the young ladies who introduced him to her notice.
The agent is not animate but there is some of transfer from the subject (his relationship to the young ladies) to the object (his intrusion) which permits passivization.
The following examples can be accounted for in the same way :

When he began the novel he already knew what the last words would be, not only the last words of the novel but the last words thought by Dutch Shea before he shoots himself. (Note 43)
Think is not completely stative here.
The passive should thus be impossible with purely stative verbs which presuppose that the subject is not agentive, that the object is not affected because there is no transfer.
But the passive is nevertheless acceptable with some stative verbs, especially with verbs of perception and verbs of feeling : Everyone saw the accident. The accident was seen by everyone.
The motor car with its blinds drawn and an air of inscrutable reserve proceeded towards Piccadilly, still gazed at, still ruffling the faces on both sides of the street with the same dark breath of veneration whether for Queen, Prince, or Prime Minister nobody knew. The face itself had been seen only once by three people for a few seconds. (Note 44) Huddleston and Pullum's hypothesis (2002, p. 241) (Note 45) is that with stative verbs, the syntactic dimension of transitivity prevails : « Seeing and disliking are not actions, but the syntactic relation between the members of these pairs is the same as that between the police arrested her son and her son was arrested by the police, so they can be classified as active and passive pairs. These sentences can be assigned to the active and passive categories on the basis of their syntactic likeness to clauses like those in the police arrested her son and her son was arrested by the police. » Our hypothesis is that the transfer is not of the same type as in the previous examples. Here, the subject is not agentive in the same way as it was with dynamic verbs and the object is not affected in the same way either. But the subject has some sort of responsibility (Note 46) in the process even if it is not properly speaking agentive. The idea of transfer is here linked to the notion of responsibility of the subject and this responsibility permits passivization: the accident is affected by the fact of being seen. The object is completed by the fact of being seen.

Is it possible to be liked by everyone ?
The subject is responsible for seeing and for liking or disliking. This is what makes passivization possible. The notion of responsibility allows some kind of transfer and agentivity, and should be added to the different facets or components of transitivity. In the following example, the nature of the verb watch (which is a voluntary perception verb) combined with the adverb « closely » enhance the responsibility of the subject :

Elizabeth soon saw that she was herself closely watched by Miss Bingley. (Note 49)
This also applies to : The motor car with its blinds drawn and an air of inscrutable reserve proceeded towards Piccadilly, still gazed at, still ruffling the faces on both sides of the street with the same dark breath of veneration whether for Queen, Prince, or Prime Minister nobody knew The same could be said about the pilot sustained many injuries / Many injuries were sustained by the pilot, in which the subject cannot be responsible for sustaining injuries but in which there is some agency of the subject because some sort of action is involved, the resistance to pain.
But John cares for you still resists passivization. Whereas like implies some sort of transfer which affects the object, care for is completely stative.

Conclusion
Passivization is based on the semantic definition of transitivity. If one does not distinguish syntax from semantics, there is no way of understanding why certain transitive verbs cannot be passivized ; no way of understanding either why some intransitive verbs followed by adjuncts can be passivized. The notion of transfer mainly affects dynamic verbs and agentive subjects, but the subject can be low in agency. In fact it is enough for the subject to have a small share of responsibility in the process for the object to be affected in some way and for passivization to be allowed. The object can be more or less affected, and the verb more or less dynamic but never purely stative. The notion of transitivity emerges as a property of the whole clause, and functions as a semantic continuum, which makes it necessary to take into consideration various parameters : the subject (agentive or not), the verb (dynamic or not, showing responsibility of the subject or not), the object of the active (which should be affected in order to be thematized, i.e. become the subject of the passive utterance). All such parameters account for the possibility or impossibility of passivization.
Note 22. There are two categories of prepositional expressions : those that only have one passive, and those that can have two passives, one taking the first complement as subjet, the other taking the noun in the PP as subject.

I. one passive only : a. catch hold of, draw attention to, get the better of, find fault with, make a fool of, make fun of, lose sight of They made a fool of him -> he was made a fool of.
He was made a fool of (by them). He was got the better of. The facts were drawn attention to. b. take umbrage at, make mention of, call attention to They took umbrage at my remark. -> Umbrage was taken at my remark.
Umbrage was taken at my remark (by them). *my remark was taken umbrage at.

He made mention of his unlawful activities. Mention of his unlawful activities was made.
It is less usual to find Ø in front of the noun while the subject should have a thematic value. These sentences are more natural when a marker is used before the noun : No adds a certain degree of determination to the noun. That kind of passive is much more natural.

II. two passives :
make use of, take advantage of, take care of Make use of, take advantage of, take care of give rise to two passives but one is preferable : They hardly ever made use of this possibility.
This possibility was hardly ever made use of.
? Use was hardly ever made of this possibility.
No use was hardly ever made of this possibility. In certain cases, this structure works better when the subject is more determined : Can more efficient use be made of x ray examinations in the accident and emergency department? (www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1246007 -) They took advantage of him. He was taken advantage of. ? Ø Advantage was taken of him.
Unfair advantage was taken of him. A political heeler rewarded. How Ø advantage was taken of gov. Cleveland's absence from Albany. (New York Times. Saturday, June 21, 2008.) However, "excusable homicide is where death results from a lawful act by lawful means, accomplished accidentally or by misfortune or misadventure, or accomplished with sufficient provocation, with no undue advantage and without unnecessary cruel treatment." (www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=81428) When the locutor may choose between two structures, the most important element is placed at the end. Discourse cohesion is also to be taken into account :