As hinted at before, the main claim of the present approach to the aspectual contribution of the past participle is that it is fundamentally distinct from overt perfective markers in aspectual languages in terms of being restricted to denoting a perfective reading iff the underlying predicate is sufficiently simple as well as sufficiently telic. In fact, the aspectual contribution of past participles, tentatively sketched in 18 , has to grasp which kinds of events may be terminated by the participial morphology and which may not. This is addressed in The aspectual contribution of the past participial morpheme may thus still be close to its diachronic ancestor.
To be precise, the straightforward correlation that may be worked out is that the deverbal adjectives which solely occur in stative constructions, like the ones in 12 and 13 as well as those in co-predicative and absolute uses see footnote 9 , denote a result, but only ever do so if no CAUSE is introduced. In these cases, the external argument is not just suppressed, but altogether absent in the event structure as indicated by the impossibility of BY -phrases introducing a referent in stative passive and stative perfect contexts. As an implicit external argument was introduced on the past participle as part of the reanalysis of the deverbal adjective towards a proper verbal participle, the resultative component is not sufficient anymore to impose perfective properties on transitive predicates.
Hence, HAVE had to become an auxiliary that would not just provide an explicit referent for the implicit external argument, but also provides relevant perfect properties cf. These may not be reduced to the aspectual contribution of perfectivity, though, as this fails to grasp the Universal Perfect and leads to redundancy in the expression of perfectivity in unaccusative contexts, which are subject to 38a. Rather, the relevant perfect semantic contribution by HAVE should be more flexible in terms of establishing a perfect time span cf. Accordingly, we will assume that the contribution imposed by the perfect auxiliary HAVE boils down to what is formulated in Before we turn to some examples of how these assumptions account for perfect periphrases and their auxiliary selection as well as the imperfectivity of passive data, let us consider how these ingredients interact with one another as well as the underlying event structure.
The relevant ingredients are represented in 40 see also Wegner These ingredients are mirrored in a straightforward manner in the auxiliary selection of perfect periphrases in languages resorting to auxiliary alternation. The examples in 41 are simple in the sense that only one component introduces aspectual properties. Thus, it may form a perfect periphrasis without the compositional support of an auxiliary, which is why BE may be inserted in those languages that employ it for the formation of perfect periphrases.
Grewendorf 83 ; Abraham With atelic intransitive predicates as well as transitives featuring a causative phase, as in 42 and 43 , the imperfectivity of the past participle demands the introduction of the auxiliary HAVE. The precedence of the participial situation in turn induces the interpretation that TSit has ceased via implication. While this naturally accounts for languages with auxiliary alternation like German, Dutch and Italian, HAVE -only languages like English, Faroese and Spanish at first sight seem to pose some challenges in that they also combine HAVE with unaccusative and hence perfective participles, as observable in Considering the individual contributions of HAVE and the aspectual head, however, this is unproblematic: posteriority and perfectivity are distinct contributions that are not in complementary distribution.
Ackema ff. Accordingly, the latter is not only governed by argument structure but crucially also by the need to induce relevant perfect properties. Further evidence for these assumptions does not only stem from the aforementioned imperfectivity of bare instances consider Pulled by three horses, the carriage quickly gains speed , but crucially also from the perfect periphrases themselves.
In fact, the Universal Perfect in English shows that atelic eventualities mostly states but occasionally also activities allow for the participial TSit to keep holding, as in The stative occurrence in 45a is perfectly natural, whereas it is debatable whether activities like the one in 45b are marked. In German, both kinds are marginal, but what is striking is that the only interpretation one might retrieve from cases like 45c is one in which the participial event is still ongoing. Furthermore, it provides evidence for the assumption of posteriority as denoted by HAVE in that some sub-eventualities of the situation at hand necessarily lie in the past the left boundary is made explicit by the adverbial modifier , whereas the participial event has not ended as the right boundary is not fixed but rather taken to stretch into the present by implication.
This identity approach to the properties of past participial periphrases is in line with the diachronic reanalysis and analogical extension of the auxiliaries in question. HAVE was first primarily combined with past participles based on transitive predicates, although it could occasionally also occur with unaccusatives in English and Dutch cf.
B E , on the other hand, was used solely for the formation of perfect periphrases featuring unaccusatives, but this combination soon lost ground in English due to the generalisation of HAVE to such contexts cf. Other languages like German and Dutch, on the other hand, were not subject to this, as they retained a different passive auxiliary, namely BECOME , which was lost in the history of English cf. In either case, the HAVE -perfect was analogically extended to contexts that were not properly grasped by competing constructions, i.
The present paper has argued in favour of the identity of past participles in passive and perfect periphrases on the basis of both diachronic as well as synchronic considerations. While the former made clear that the historical predecessors of past participial forms already combined argument structural the grammatical absence of an external argument as well as aspectual properties resultativity , synchronic data shows that the contribution of the reanalysed eventive past participles is still two-fold: i the insertion of an implicit external argument to be existentially bound unless HAVE steps in , and ii aspectual properties that render a given situation perfective iff the underlying predicate denotes a simple change of state.
These properties properly account for the passive imperfective as well as anticausative perfective characteristics of past participles in the context of semantically vacuous auxiliaries BE and BECOME , yet also grasp the availability of active perfect periphrases with HAVE. This perfect auxiliary has taken on the ability to license an external argument and serves to establish a perfect time span in terms of denoting posteriority. Eventually, an identity approach along these lines provides an answer to the long-standing mystery of why perfect ive and passive participles receive a homophonous spell-out.
At the same time it serves to uncover the intricate properties of past participial items and the auxiliaries they occur with, where the traditional assumption that BE and BECOME are empty is supported, whereas HAVE may affect the properties of perfect periphrases in crucial ways. In doing so, the present approach provides a fresh perspective on the determinants of auxiliary selection and offers novel insights concerning the interplay of aspect, argument and event structure: based on the aspectual contribution of the participial marker, perfectivity correlates with anticausativity, whereas causative properties evoke imperfectivity and thus demand additional support in order to give rise to a perfect interpretation.
What certainly deserves some attention in future research is the behaviour of bare instances, which seem to share the past participial properties, but are embedded within a range of functional contexts that impose their own restrictions. This promises to shed light on the categorial nature of past participles in their various uses and may consolidate an identity view if the underlying properties also shine through in these contexts.
Furthermore, as indicated by the brief discussion of some Slavic cases above, what may turn out to be particularly worthwhile is an extension of these considerations in an attempt to uncover the parameterisation of past participial non- identity. The present paper eventually speaks out in favour of an aspectual view, which is however crucially contingent on event structure.
Pamarėska - Linguifex
While this, as we will see shortly, may indeed be shown to dissolve into an independent syntactic reflex, a principled distinction in the behaviour of passive and perfect ive participles in this respect could in principle point to a difference in the grammatical properties of the two forms. Showing that there is no such distinction moderately adds to the identity view proposed in the present paper. As an anonymous reviewer points out, this arguably boils down to merely categorising a root. See Wegner for some considerations regarding the parameterisation of past participial non- identity with a special focus on this contrast.
This has also been brought to my attention by Josep M. Fontana p. While this discussion shows that a lot more is to be said about the diachrony of participial periphrases potentially also with respect to Germanic , passive and perfect ive participles may still be taken to have evolved from the same form: the initial form is just the eventive passive participle. This form is subject to adjectivisation before regaining its eventive properties at the expense of adjectival characteristics in the context of the auxiliation of HAVE , which induces an active perfect interpretation.
This ambiguity vanishes in German, where the passive auxiliary werden differs from the copula sein. While the event structural ingredient in the case of a CAUSE is taken to concur with the availability of an external argument, we will remain rather agnostic about whether event and argument structure are expressed by the same or different functional heads. In fact, the perfect auxiliary might merely serve as a signal for a perfect interpretation.
However, the assumption that such a signalling function comes about by convention alone is highly questionable, i.
And arrive it has. While ordering indeed seems to be a salient factor especially in Dutch , the intricate picture that presents itself is manifold, where the nature of the auxiliary may still be one of several relevant factors. INF clean-make see Coopmans Den Dikken holds the infinitival morphology responsible for taking up passive properties in such cases, which could then also be taken to exceptionally grant recoverability. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing me to this interesting example. A reason for this may be that German aspectual verbs are not lexically associated with perfective properties unlike their Dutch counterparts, for which this will be assumed in the following.
The unifying factor between these and the aspectual verbs of Dutch may boil down to the conventional or lexical association of perfective properties, namely an endpoint, which triggers a proper perfect interpretation. However, such cases do not provide conclusive counter-evidence against the semantic vacuity of BE. Rather, this may well just be an instance of ellipsis where the combination of a past participle that is clearly passive with the auxiliary BE is sufficient to recover the simple change of state properties associated with the elided auxiliary.
The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic
Note further that assuming BE to be aspectual is problematic in the wake of examples like the one in footnote Crucially, the resultative reading stems from the deverbal adjective in these cases and had not yet been associated with HAVE via reanalysis. In fact, the adjunct status of these cases requires the contextual embedding to determine whether posteriority is to be imposed. However, as an anonymous reviewer rightfully points out, it is not intuitively clear why achievements like find and lose are associated with a CAUSE.
Nevertheless, the presence of a CAUSE may be justified on the basis of causative alternations The ice melted, The sun melted the ice , where the external argument is undoubtedly associated with this predicate. Even in cases that do not partake in the causative alternation, there is room for a more abstract CAUSE e. The reason for this, however, may be found in the restrictions imposed by embedding a participial modifier: the simultaneity-interpretation imperfectivity is barred if what is denoted is a punctual change of state, which may crucially not span the situation denoted by the main clause.
However, such exceptions seem to be subject to specific contextual constraints. In fact, the context has to force an unbounded progress-reading cf. Primus 83ff. However, an anonymous reviewer remarks that the morphology does not spell out such combinations of heads in these cases. While it is true that exponents of the former kind like the present approach also hinge on the functional environment in which a given participial form is embedded, the participial form itself crucially combines or amalgamates aspectual and diathetic properties or assumes that there is no such contribution at all.
This is neglected in those approaches that simply shift off one or the other to the functional environment. The external arguments in question need not be proper agents, though. It suffices for them to meet some of the requirements that let the pendulum swing towards the agent rather than patient end of the spectrum in these cases.
Despite the fact that the subjects in these cases are not nominal, third person singular agreement comes about. Most relevant for our purposes is that the transitive variants of these predicates comprise an external argument, which is either subject to existential binding or may overtly be licensed by HAVE. The presence of this argument and an associated CAUSE -predicate thus predicts that these transitive predicates are licit for passivisation and form their active perfect with HAVE in languages making use of auxiliary alternation.
We will not enter the intricate discussion of whether the encoding of the external argument differs substantially from what we find with transitive predicates that do not have intransitive anticausative counterparts. In passive contexts, it is subject to existential closure, which is unexpected given that PRO is usually not restricted in this sense and should allow for an arbitrary interpretation in cases like those in 31 , where existential closure is not available.
The same arguably also holds for pro, whose properties are still mysterious see the discussion in Landau Apart from this, the variables are also expected to be subject to case-assignment and it is not clear how they license BY -phrases. Note that the latter vanishes once we add a present participial layer and is less salient in the past tense The letter was read. The prisoner is being released. Rather, we have to zoom in on more intricate event structural properties. The underlying assumption here is that the aspectual head is only weakly perfective in the sense that it only affects its immediate complement, i.
Gehrke ; ; However, similar cases may easily be found e.
In fact, their marginal status may be traced back to competing formations with present morphology and their denotation of progressive properties in German. This is also the preferred option in English, which is why an atelic progress like the one in 45b rarely crops up as a Universal Perfect. Since the present progressive morphology is incompatible with statives, this competition-based effect is absent in cases like 45a.
I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments as well as Berit Gehrke and Olga Borik for guest editing this special issue on participles. Further thanks are due to Josep M.
Fontana and Leah Bauke for valuable remarks. Abraham, Werner. Event structure accounting for the emerging periphrastic tenses and the passive voice in German. In Garry W. Iverson eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Das Perfektpartizip: seine angebliche Passivbedeutung im Deutschen. Ackema, Peter. Syntax below zero. Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation. To have the empty theta-role. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Passive in Norwegian and in English.
Linguistic Inquiry Passive and participle agreement in Norwegian dialects. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua Aronoff, Mark. Tidsskrift for sprogforskning 2. Baker, Mark. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Passive arguments raised. Ballweg, Joachim. Belitschenko, Iwan. Zu Besonderheiten der temporalen Bedeutungen der Partizipien im Deutschen im Vergleich zu den Temporalbedeutungen der finiten Verbalformen.
Reihe Belletti, Adriana. Past participle agreement. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Benveniste, Emile. Mutations of linguistic categories. Austin: University of Texas Press. Implicit arguments. Henk van Riemsdijk eds. Oxford: Blackwell. Bierwisch, Manfred. Verb-cluster formation as a morphological process. In Geert E. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. BE-ing default: The morphosyntax of auxiliaries. Paris: Klincksieck. Breul, Carsten.
The perfect participle paradox: Some implications for the architecture of grammar. English Language and Linguistics German and English past participles in perfect and passive contexts: An identity view. Sprachwissenschaft The syntactic function of the auxiliaries of time. Participle fronting in Bulgarian as XP-movement. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and verb phrases 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bruening, Benjamin. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Burzio, Luigi. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Chomsky, Noam.
Aspects of the theory of syntax. Comrie, Bernard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coopmans, Peter. Language types: Continua or parameters? Cowper, Elizabeth. Perfective [-en] IS passive [-en]. Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Dal, Ingerid. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage 4th edn.
Revised by Hans-Werner Eroms. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. The voices of syntax: Voice and argument-structure alternations. Parasitic Participles. Linguistics Dowty, David. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language Drijkoningen, Frank. The syntax of verbal affixation Linguistische Arbeiten Eckardt, Regine. Grammaticalization and semantic change. Deutsche Sprache 3. Embick, David. Voice and the interfaces of syntax.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. Locality, listedness and morphological identity. Studia Linguistica On the structure of resultative participles in English.
The properties of perfective and eventive passive participles: An identity approach
Fabb, Nigel. In Pomorian active voice has four moods: Indicative , Imperative , Conditional and Indirect , but the last one isn't usually considered to be a mood. This tense describe present or ongoing events without a definite time. Conjugation types are marked with numbers.
In Pomorian Proper there is no dual for verbs, but in dialects forms for "we two", "you two" and "they to" are still in use. This is the basic tense to describe actions in the past. Like in Present tense the stress pattern of a verb is usually predictable. They usually indicate an action that happened before another action or to indicate that an action is complete.
source url These tenses are used to indicate ongoing incomplete actions. Though being similar to English Continuous tense, they are used almost exclusively in literature in Pomorian. This way of expressing the continuous tense is much more common in spoken Pomorian. This mood is used to describe orders and commands. This mood is different from other moods and is not always considered as such, because it isn't composed of conjugatable verbs but only active participles in the nominative case.
There is no future tense in this mood. This mood is not used in daily spoken language, but in literature, especially in folklore, usually describing actions happened a long time ago. The Pomorian passive voice is different from the active voice, always being formed analytically, like in all the Balto-Slavic languages. The n-participle indicates an imperfect mood while the t-paticiple - a perfect mood. In order to avoid redundancy, the following table only includes the third masculine person of singular.
In Pomorian supine is used mostly with motion verbs and indicates purpose or in the phrase meaning "to be going to". In Pomorian adverbs have the basic stem of their corresponding adjectives and are not inflected though they have three degree of comparison just like adjectives.
Adverbs can have only an indefinite non-pronominal form. Prepositions are used to clarify an object's position or direction. Each noun case can take different prepositions but only some prepositions can be used with different cases. Usually a preposition is not used, when a case ending can carry a meaning of a word. Instead the case already "tells" all the information necessary and thats why using the preposition would be too excessive.
Dialectal variations are listed in the table after slashes, non-standard but also being frequently used. Unlike in other Balto-Slavic languages composition in Pomorian is a very productive way to form new words. The process occurs readily in Germanic languages. Along with affixation it is used to create words for describing new meanings and these newly-created words can be very long and thus used mostly in literature.
Examples of both composition and affixation are shown in the table below:. However due to its' case system and verb conjugations the word order is actually free. The place of words in a sentence plays rather a semantic role and not the grammatic one. There could be other meanings depending on different words position like adjectives, adverbs, or the context when a sencence is a part of a text. While theoretically considered head-initial, Pomorian shows a great freedom in directionality, mostly because of its complex morphology.
If the complementizer phrase was topicalized, then it would come before its noun. Like in the noun phrase, there is no strict directionality of the verb phrase in Pomorian. The word order is basically free and a verb can have any position in a sentence. Unlike previous examples, Pomorian dependent clauses show strict head-initiality with complementizers preceding their dependent phrases, just like in English and all the Balto-Slavic languages.
This case determines that Pomorian is actually a head-initial language. For example:. Those dialects form three dialectal groups: Western 1,3 , Central 2,4,5,6 and Eastern 7,8. The most widely spoken dialect is Central-Western one having native speakers. Western and Eastern dialects have approximately native speakers each, Central-Eastern has about speakers and Southern has less than speakers, who can say some basic sentences but cosidered extinct by most scholars.
In died Anna Ribbeck - the last known speaker of the Hel dialect Heliska guora. It was a dialect once spoken in three villages on the Hel peninsula and since the XXth century only in a small town of Jastarnia. This dialect had some distinct features absent from the rest dialects, such as the back vowel fronting, a lack of palatalization and a stress fixed on a first syllable. Also its' syntax was highly influenced by German. There are some differences in phonology and morphology among dialects while the syntax stays pretty much the same. A borrowing from Polish could be also possible, but it doesn't explain the accent of the word.
Small texts in the Pomorian Proper and dialects. Swadesh list for Pomorian Proper and dialects. Some common words list for Pomorian Proper and dialects.
The l-participle shows agreement with the subject, and is claimed to undergo XP movement to SpecTP in order to check the phi-features of T. Special attention is given to the question of typological differences among Slavic languages, especially with respect to the inventory of compound tenses and auxiliary cliticization.
It is assumed that the variation arose because of an overlap in marking aspectual distinctions by both aspectual morphology and aspectual past tenses in Proto Slavic and Old Church Slavonic. One way to remove this overlap was a morphological reduction of auxiliaries into clitics and suffixes. It is demonstrated that this reduction is reflected in syntax, and leads to a reanalysis of l-participle raising as a head movement operation. Register Log in Shopping cart 0.
You have no items in your shopping cart.