The electronic version of my dissertation (in PDF format) is a true representation (identical copy) of this printed version. If this promise proves to be false, I realize that I will be subject to fines up to and including the loss of the diploma I obtained with my thesis. The aim of the article is to establish further categories among participatory constructions and provide an analysis using the principles of generative syntax.
According to their distinction from the gerund, two large groups will be established, adverbial and relative. We will discuss them according to the functional projections they contain according to the principles of economy. In addition, a special class of verbs will be introduced that behave exceptionally well in the formation of participial adjectives.
Participles vs. gerunds
In the case of -en participles, there is less categorical ambiguity, since these share only the past tense form of most verbs (regular verbs), but are clearly distinct from participle constructions.) This means that before proceeding with the analysis, one must distinguish between gerund and participles sentences. On the other hand, stakeholders always appear in other positions; their distribution may resemble (i) adverbial subordinate clauses or (ii) relative clauses, as in (3). The above examples show that participial clauses and gerunds can be distinguished in terms of distribution: that is, gerunds can occur in argument positions and in the complement position of PPs, while participial clauses are found only in adverb positions.
It can be seen in (5) that genitive subjects and arbitrary PRO are not allowed in participle clauses while they can have nominative1 subjects.2. In addition, participle clauses do not necessarily have an –ing inflected element performing predicative functions: there may occur the –en form of verbs or, in the case of attributive relations, no verbal element at all. The former will be discussed in the next section, the latter together with while-type adverbial participle clauses (section 2.1.2).
Participle-clauses
Adverbial participle-clauses
- The With -type
- The While -type
- The Zero-type
First, participles can be adverbial in nature, which has already been shown above, and is also demonstrated in (8). For this reason, similar participles will be referred to as zero. The first issue to discuss here is whether participle clauses with features are different from gerunds.
This similarity, however, is only superficial: it is argued below that z in participial sentences is actually a. This assumption is consistent with the previous claim that participial clauses are CP or IP. The assumption is that za-do infinitive clauses like (13a) and z-type participial clauses have essentially the same structure.
However, a question remains: it needs to be explained why there are two different complementizers for infinitive and participle clauses. Regarding their distribution, it can be noted that infinitive clauses can occur in A-positions, while participle clauses can only occur in Ā-positions. In this way, it is possible to analyze with-type participle clauses as head-headed CPs that take [−tense] participle clauses as complements, and to argue that it is the C-head that assigns Accusative to the subject of the sentence. participle.
It may be noted that these types of participle clauses show that an overt inflection is only necessary when a lexical verb is present in the structure. To begin with, it is necessary to discuss whether or not the CP analysis of zero-type participle clauses is tenable. One of these is based on the fact that the other types of participle clauses have a CP structure (as shown in the previous sections), and it is desirable to have all three types in the same category.
Chomsky Thus, if zero-type participle sentences are assumed to have empty CPs, the analysis faces a serious problem because it violates ECP. Another issue regarding the analysis of zero-type participle clauses is the variation between PRO and overt DP subjects. In the case of gerunds, structural (accusative) and inherent (genitive) cases alternate (see Jeong, 2003), but in zero-type participle sentences one finds two structural cases (Nominative and.
Relative participle-clauses
Moreover, participle clauses always sit in adjunctive positions (as established earlier), and it is unlikely that any element can assign Case to the subject of its adjunct since Case Assignment must occur in other configurations. The same thing can be observed in (19): while in (19a) the participle sentence is separated from the matrix sentence by longer pauses in pronunciation (and by commas or dashes in spelling), the one in (19b) forms one intonation unit with the matrix clause. This leads to the conclusion that participle clauses can also have a relative interpretation; so it is reasonable to talk about relative participle clauses other than adverbial.
These relatives are similar to the zero type of adverbial clauses in that they also do not allow overt elements to precede their subject. In fact, relative participle clauses cannot have any overt elements that precede the element in the I-head position. As far as their distribution is concerned, it is assumed that they are placed in the same positions as finite relative clauses, i.e. they are right-side adjuncts of NP.
However, it is still an open question whether they are linked to the NP or N' level; in other words, whether they are restrictive or non-restrictive. This can be determined by following the observation of Newson et al. 2006), that only restrictive relative clauses can be pronominated with one. Based on the data presented in (20), it can be seen that relative participle clauses pattern with restrictive ones; thus, it can be assumed that both are associated with the N' level.
In other words, zero relatives and relative participle clauses appear to be in complementary distribution: in zero relatives, anything but the subject can be extracted, while in relative participle clauses only the subject can be extracted. Bošković (1997) argues that (21c) is ungrammatical because the operator in null relatives must move to the IP-adjacent position, and movement of Spec IP to that position (shown in (22)) is illegal since it is not a proper chain 7. A possible direction for further research is Bošković's (1997) claim that it is grammatical to extract the operator directly from the VP in null subject languages.
However, the chain in (10) does not satisfy this condition, since movement from Spec IP to the IP associated position involves only a segment of a node (i.e., to move from Spec IP., an element must move up at least to Specify for sentence that immediately contains IP for the chain to be grammatical) according to the definition above.
Participial adjectives
8 There are instances of what appear to be DP-augmented participial adjectives (eg mental, fun-loving, godly, purposeful), but the analysis of these is beyond the scope of this paper, as they are all compounds. For this reason, it would be unreasonable to assume that the formation of participial adjectives takes place in the lexicon (with a possible exception of a certain group discussed separately below). Thus, participial adjectives can be described as having a [-gradable] feature (like ungradable adjectives) and a [-predicative] feature (similar to adjectives like utter).
Thematic relations in participial adjectives depend on both the argument structure of the verb root of the participial adjective and the nature of the A head (i.e. whether it is –ing or –en). The data in (31) show that participial adjectives derived with –ing are associated with the argument that carries the most prominent θ-role10 in the θ-grid of the verbal head (ergatives are somewhat exceptional in this respect, so they are separately discussed) , those derived with -and with the least prominent. The case of participial adjectives derived from ergative verbs is more intriguing: (31c) shows they cannot assign an Agent θ role; in other words, their transitive use is not available in participial use.
10 Grimshaw (1992) argues that a hierarchy exists among θ-roles, with Agent being the most prominent, but although both are less prominent than Agent, the order of the Experiencer and Theme roles varies depending on the verb (cf. fear- and the scare class). Finally, there is a specific group of participial adjectives that seem to pattern with lexical adjectives rather than participles. It is the group of adjectives formed from theme-experiencing verbs (ie the scare class) whose members are gradable (can be modified by 'much') and can also be predicates themselves.
The simplest answer to this problem is to assume that these participles have become lexical, and that they are full-fledged adjectives, but that the argument is weakened by the fact that only the elements of the fearful class behave this way (and each member of that class). group does), while lexicalization would be expected to be more idiosyncratic than that. Borer (1990) notes that only the members of the anxiety class are highly modifiable in verbal form (see On the other hand, it is the data in (33) that causes some scholars to use the participial adjectives categorize those formed from members of the anxiety class differently.
A more precise form of the constraint can be seen in (35). Brekke After the last two, it must be believed that the solution to this problem is based on semantics, in relation to the structure-arguments of these verbs. Finally, an attempt was made to calculate the properties and differences of the participating adjectives. It has also been shown that it is possible to conceive of –ing and –en as A-heads with special properties, that thematic hierarchy can play a role in the formation of participial adjectives and that there are some verbs (the fear-class) which behave unlike other verbs in the formation of participial adjectives.
