|Full Title:||Participles: Form, Use and Meaning|
|Start Date:||10-Sep-2017 - 13-Sep-2017|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
|Meeting Description:||This workshop is dedicated to the form, meaning and use of all types of participles (labeled with different combinations of present, past, perfect, active, passive, imperfective, perfective, etc.), also including adverbial participles/converbs (e.g. deepričastija in Russian), both from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. While considerable attention in the recent literature has been paid to the use and meaning of past/passive participles (cf. Rapp 1997, Kratzer 2000, Anagnostopoulou 2003, Embick 2004, Maienborn 2007, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2008, McIntyre 2013, Gehrke 2012, 2015, and many others) the other participle classes have not attracted that much attention. We aim at bridging this gap by expanding the workshop theme to all possible classes of participles, ultimately in the search for an answer to a fundamental question of what is the proper characterization of participles in general. Traditionally, participles are often treated as a hybrid of a verb and an adjective. This simple characterization already raises several important issues:
- What is ‘adjectival’ and what is ‘verbal’ in the grammatical makeup of participles? Do these ‘verbal’ and ‘adjectival’ properties characterize a participle itself or are they (partially) conditioned by the context in which a participle appears?
- Can participles in predicative position be verbal or adjectival, but those in attributive position only adjectival, or can attributive participles also be reduced relatives of verbal constructions involving participles?
- What about participles that are used in periphrastic verb forms (e.g. verbal passive, perfect, progressive), do they retain adjectival properties? Is there a possible diachronic perspective, in the sense that the combination of be/have with a (possibly adjectival) participle developed into a periphrastic verbal form?
Further questions we are interested in include the following:
- How many classes of participles do we need to distinguish? Is there strong independent evidence that we need more than one class of, for instance, passive participles, as suggested in Parsons (1990), Embick (2004), Kratzer (2000)? Why, though, do those participles still fall under the same label? What is the defining property?
- What are the grammatical categories that participles express? Do the terms past/present, perfective/imperfective etc. in the characterization of a participle convey the same meaning as in verbs?
- What are the exact formal (semantic, morphological etc.) restrictions on the formation of a particular type of participle, as well as on the use of such a participle (e.g. as adjectival/verbal participle, passive, progressive, perfect, etc.)? In particular, it has been claimed that adjectival participles can only be formed on the basis of verbs that have a state component in their meaning (for passive participles, see, e.g., Rapp 1997, Gehrke 2015), that only perfective participles can be used in ‘proper’ periphrastic passives in Russian (Schoorlemmer 1995, Paslawska & von Stechow 2003), that complex relationships hold between related categories of resultativity, passive and perfect in various languages (cf. Nedjalkov 1988). The restrictions have mostly been stated for the passive participles, but are there restrictions on other classes of participles and how can they be explained from a theoretical perspective?
Olga Borik (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)
Berit Gehrke (CNRS-LLF / Paris Diderot)
|Linguistic Subfield:||General Linguistics; Morphology; Semantics; Syntax|
| This is a session of the following meeting:
50th Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea
|Calls and Conferences main page|