Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:42:35.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The perfect participle paradox: some implications for the architecture of grammar1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2014

CARSTEN BREUL
CARSTEN BREUL*
Affiliation:
Fachbereich A: Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstraße 20, 42119 Wuppertal, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The topic of this article can be exemplified by the final clause of the following attested sentence: I don't know how he found out that she belonged to that lass, but find out he has. Clauses like this one show a preposed verb phrase that is headed by a plain verb whereas the non-preposed verb phrase of their canonical counterparts is obligatorily headed by a perfect participle (i.e. he has {found / *find} out). This peculiarity of verb phrase preposing, which will be referred to as the perfect participle paradox, has seldom been discussed. The article starts by showing that clauses that manifest the paradox are more frequent in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and in the British National Corpus than their non-paradoxical analogues with preposed canonical perfect participles. The article then looks at the paradox from the point of view of generative syntax, discusses and rejects previous analyses, and argues that a solution entails the rejection of two assumptions that have been associated with a lexicalist position, especially by proponents of distributed morphology. These are the assumptions that (a) a syntactic terminal is an item supplied by the lexicon and comprising a phonological representation and (b) that syntax may not manipulate the internal structure of syntactic terminals. The article proposes an analysis that is not based on these assumptions, but argues that the analysis does not entail the superiority of a distributed morphology framework.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , November 2014 , pp. 449 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to Alex Thiel and Dennis Wegner for help, discussion and proofreading.

References

Ackema, Peter. 1999. Issues in morphosyntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter & Marelj, Marijana. 2012. To have the empty theta-role. In Everaert, Martin, Marelj, Marijana & Siloni, Tal (eds.), The theta system: Argument structure at the interface, 227–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biewer, Carolin. 2007. South Pacific Englishes: The influence of New Zealand English and the Oceanic substrate languages. New Zealand English Journal 21, 58–63.Google Scholar
Biewer, Carolin. 2 008. South Pacific Englishes: Unity and diversity in the uage of the present perfect. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi & Korhonen, Minna (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 203–19. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. 2011. BE-ing default: The morphosyntax of auxiliaries. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard. 1947. English Verb inflection. Language 23, 399–418.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Breul, Carsten. 2004. Focus structure in generative grammar: An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70 (4), 737–88.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 157–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar. 2010. Modal verb usage at the interface of English and a related creole: A corpus-based study of can/could and will/would in Trinidadian English. Journal of English Linguistics 38 (2), 105–42.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax–morphology interface. In Ramchand & Reiss (eds.), 289–324.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jaqueline. 2007. On tense and aspect. Lingua 117, 367–91.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. Distributed morphology. Glot International 4 (4), 3–9.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffreyet al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The verb. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 71–213.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.) 2013. The electronic world atlas of varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://ewave-atlas.org, accessed 18 January 2014).Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Sobin, Nicholas. 2000. The who /whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 343–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leap, William L. 1993. American Indian English. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa & Williams, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (21st, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 22–23, 1997), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2), 201–25.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew & Parrot, Jeffrey K.. 2010. Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties. Lingua 120, 1135–59.Google Scholar
Oku, Satoshi. 1996. Perfective participle paradox in English VP-fronting. In Green, Antony Dubach & Motapanyane, Virginia (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics ’96 (ESCOL), 282–293. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2013. The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind & Language 28 (4), 492–521.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds.). 2007. Linguistic interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rauh, Gisa. 2000a. Wi(e)der die Wortarten! Zum Problem linguistischer Kategorisierung. Linguistische Berichte 184, 485–507.Google Scholar
Rauh, Gisa. 2000b. Don't call it ‘X’! or: Why X does not represent grammatical categories. In Janßen, Hero (ed.), Verbal projections, 1–21. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rauh, Gisa. 2010. Syntactic categories: Their identification and description in linguistic theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Urushibara, Saeko. 1997. Facets of the English past participle. In Ukaji, Masatomo, Nakao, Toshio, Kajita, Masaru & Chiba, Shuji (eds.), English linguistics: A festschrift for Akira Ota on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 130–46. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. 1988. The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L., Birner, Betty & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Information packaging. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 1363–1447.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In Ramchand & Reiss (eds.), 353–81.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2012. The syntax of valuation in auxiliary-participle constructions. In Choi, Jaehoon, Hogue, E. Alan, Punske, Jeffrey, Tat, Deniz, Schertz, Jessamyn & Trueman, Alex (eds.), Coyote papers: Working papers in linguistics, vol. 20: Proceedings of the Poster Session of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), held April, 2011, 154–62. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Linguistics Circle.Google Scholar