Chapter 3. Open adjuncts: participial syntax

Helland, Hans Petter; Pitz, Anneliese

doi:10.1515/9783110285864.93

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This distinction is often labeled verbal vs. adjectival passives saying that the passive interpretation can either be eventive (for the verbal passive) meaning that "the door was closed by someone at a particular time in the past" or stative (for the adjectival passive) meaning that the door was in the state of being closed. In Helland & Pitz (2012) we showed that this picture was too simplistic building on Embick's theory of resultative participles in English (Embick 2004 A resultative interpretation in which the eventive character of the past participle has been changed into a state without losing its relation to the verbal source:…”

Section: ] P a S T P A R T I C I P L E S I N C O N T R A S T [31] Pmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…helland & pitz [2] p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e s ( p 1 ) i n c o n t r a s t Present participles (P1) are non-finite sentence-like constructions missing in the general case an overt subject and phi-features (for tense, person, number) exhibiting however aspectual properties (Struckmeier 2007;Rapp & Lübbe 2011;Embick 2003;Helland & Pitz 2012). The questions we will try to answer are: How much structure do they project?…”

Section: Participles In Contrast H a N S P E T T E R H E L L A N D A mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A description in these terms seems to be largely on the right track and we will take it as additional support for positing an aspectual head in the syntactic structure. However, the aspectual properties of the participles cannot be captured by a simple +/-perfective, both the class of P2 (Helland & Pitz 2012) and the P1 require finer distinctions. The imperfective aspect (or viewpoint aspect in the Smith (1997) sense) being associated with an unbounded interval, it is clear that P1 is not inherently imperfective:…”

Section: [21] P1 -Open Adjunctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Participles in contrast

Helland

Pitz

2014

OSLa

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we propose a structural analysis of present and past participles in two constructions: open and closed adjuncts. The crucial difference between the two types of adjuncts to be accounted for concerns the availability of an explicit (for the closed type) or an implicit (for the open type) DP subject. Our analysis is based on data from French and German in the OMC corpus. These data allow us on the one hand to identify the idiosyncratic properties of the constructions in the two languages, and on the other to test our hypotheses concerning the structural properties of the various participial constructions in a cross-linugistic perspective.

show abstract

Section: ] P a S T P A R T I C I P L E S I N C O N T R A S T [31] Pmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Participles In Contrast H a N S P E T T E R H E L L A N D A mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: [21] P1 -Open Adjunctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Participles in contrast

Helland

Pitz

2014

OSLa

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Adjunct control in German, Norwegian, and English

Fischer

Høyem

2022

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an overview of adjunct control in German, Norwegian, and English, comprising adverbial infinitives, adverbial present and past participle constructions, as well as adverbial small clauses headed by the particle als in German, som in Norwegian, and as in English. We show that the height of the adjunction site (and thus, following scope-based adjunct theories, the underlying semantics of the adjuncts) determines the control possibilities. Based on a large set of data, we argue that event- and process-modifying adjuncts, i.e. adjuncts adjoined in the verbal domain (at the vP- or VP-level, respectively), display obligatory control (OC) properties, whereas sentence and speech act adverbials, which are adjoined at the TP- and CP-level, respectively, rather involve non-obligatory control (NOC). To capture these data theoretically, we propose a structural account that assumes that OC relations are syntactically licensed under upward Agree with PRO being the referentially defective probe that needs to be referentially identified in the course of the derivation by the controller, i.e. the goal. If the adjunct is adjoined in the verbal domain, such an Agree relation can be successfully established and OC is derived. If adjunction occurs in higher adjunction sites, i.e. outside of the verbal domain, feature valuation under Agree fails; as a last resort strategy, the control relation is then licensed on the basis of pragmatic factors, which yields NOC.

show abstract

Being as big as small clauses get: the syntax of participial adjuncts in German and English

Brodahl

2022

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a comparative syntactic account of participial adjuncts in German and English. While the typological literature describes German participial adjuncts as much more restricted than their English counterparts both syntactically and semantically, this paper presents empirical evidence that these differences have been exaggerated. Based on a corpus of more than 3000 participial adjuncts, it is argued that these adjuncts have a clause-like internal structure in both languages. Participial adjuncts are analysed as small clauses that can project all the way up to CP level, with a subject that is either phonetically null PRO controlled via Agree or an overt DP that is case licensed either by an element outside the participial clause or through default case. At the same time, the corpus data show that these participial constructions constitute a versatile group of adjuncts when it comes to their argument-structural properties and categorial nature. An analysis couched within the framework of Distributed Morphology is presented that can account for this diversity. This empirically based and theoretically founded account of participial adjuncts contributes to our understanding of the structural possibilities of small clauses cross-linguistically.

show abstract

Chapter 3. Open adjuncts: participial syntax

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Participles in contrast

Participles in contrast

Adjunct control in German, Norwegian, and English

Being as big as small clauses get: the syntax of participial adjuncts in German and English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About