Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T08:32:45.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Participle Constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Elizabeth A. Cowper
Elizabeth A. Cowper*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of participial constructions in English, within the feature-checking approach to inflectional morphology. It argues for a unified treatment of the perfect, passive and adjectival uses of the past participle, involving a monosemous inflectional head checking a monosemous affix. There are two classes of constructions with -ing, each of which is given a unified treatment. The analysis requires the assumption that head-adjoined structures can be generated directly, rather than arising only as a result of movement. It also demonstrates that inflectional and derivational affixation are inherently different processes. An affix may in principle be attached by either process, with each process resulting in a different output structure. With these two provisos, it is possible to maintain both Johns’ (1992) One Form/One Meaning Principle and the more restrictive Strong Monosemy Principle proposed here.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article présente une analyse des constructions participiales de l’anglais dans le cadre de l’approche à la morphologie flexionnelle en termes de vérification des traits. Un traitement unifié, impliquant la présence d’une tête flexionnelle monosémique qui vérifie un affixe monosémique, est proposé pour rendre compte des emplois perfectif, passif et adjectival du participe passé. Deux classes de constructions en -ing sont distinguées et chacune d’entre elles reçoit un traitement unifié. L’analyse proposée implique qu’il est possible d’engendrer directement des structures adjointes à une tête, contrairement à l’hypothèse voulant qu’elles ne puissent apparaître que comme résultat d’un mouvement. Cette analyse démontre que I’affixation flexionnelle et 1’affixation dérivationnelle sont des processus distincts à la base. Un affixe peut en principe être attaché par l’un ou l’autre des deux processus, chaque processus donnant lieu à une structure résultante différente. Il est ainsi possible de maintenir le principe “Une formeAJn sens” de Johns (1992) ainsi que le Principe de la Monosémie Stricte proposé ici.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 1 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1985a. The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16:373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1985b. Syntactic Affixation and English Gerunds. In Proceedings of the Fourth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Goldberg, Jeffrey, MacKaye, Susannah, and Wescoat, Michael, 1–12. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle, and Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive Arguments Raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20:219–252.Google Scholar
Bessler, Paul. 1994. Une analyse morphosyntaxique de l’accord en français. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1990. V+ing: It Walks Like An Adjective, It Talks Like An Adjective. Linguistic Inquiry 21:95–103.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. Having a Tense Time in Grammar. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 12:89–113.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [In press.]Google Scholar
Brunson, Barbara J. 1992. Thematic Discontinuity. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Brunson, Barbara J., and Cowper, Elizabeth A.. 1992. On the Topic of have . In Proceedings of the 1992 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Dyck, Carrie, Ghomeshi, Jila, and Wilson, Tom, 43–52. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 1994. On the Definition of X0 and XP. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Carter, Richard. 1988. On Linking: Papers by Richard Carter. Lexicon Project Working Papers 25, ed. Levin, Beth and Tenny, Carol. Centre for Cognitive Science. MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1989a. Perfective -en IS Passive -en . In Proceedings of the Eighth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Fee, E. Jane and Hunt, Katherine, 85–93. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1989b. Thematic Underspecification: The Case of have. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 10:85–94.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1991. A Compositional Analysis of Tense in English. In Proceedings of the 1991 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Wilson, Tom, 53–64. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1992a. Inner Tense and the Realisation of Aspect. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 7:105–112.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1992b. Infinitival Complements of have . Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37:115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1994. Intervals and Schedules: The English Progressive. In Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Koskinen, Päivi, 107–118. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cummins, Sarah, and Roberge, Yves. 1995. Romance Inflectional Morphology: In and Out of Syntax. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. [To appear.]Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1984. Syntactic Affixation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1994. [+N] as a Non-Projecting Feature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, and Massam, Diane. 1995. Lexical/Syntactic Relations without Projection. Linguistic Analysis 24:175–217.Google Scholar
Gold, Elaine. 1994. Head-Adjunction and Movement: Evidence from Yiddish. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hazout, Ilan. 1990. Verbal Nouns: Theta-Theoretic Studies in Hebrew and Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21:551–577.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369–412.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17:587–622.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving Ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23:57–87.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary L. 1988. Singl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 19:611–634.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene. 1948. The Identification of Morphemes. Language 24:414–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–442.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Reprinted in 1966 by Free Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Number Phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37:197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel Leah. 1993. The Semantics of the Go+V+ing Construction. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the Lexicon. In Formal Syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 327–360. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar