Introduction - MITweb.mit.edu/rbhatt/www/QP1 Participial Relatives and Ergativity... · Web...

Participial Relatives and Ergativity Er-Xin Lee

IntroductionIn order to investigate the structure of participles, we use their appearance in

reduced relatives as a probe. The very fact that in various reduced relatives can be

constructed out of certain participles and not others leads us to investigate the

organization of participles with respect to reduced relatives in linguistically distant

languages, specifically English and Hindi-Urdu (HU).

In Section 1, we provide a brief overview of a descriptive generalization – the

have-be generalization – of participles’ ability to function as reduced relatives according

to their ability to occur with the auxiliary be. The strengths of the generalization are

discussed, specifically using English data to provide evidence. The weaknesses of the

generalization are also laid out, specifically with respect to data from HU, leading to an

exploration of a new generalization in Section 2.

The new generalization – the Ergative-Nominative generalization – seems at first

to be on the right track in positing what the have-be generalization fails to account for.

However, as further exploration into HU constructions reveal, the distinction that is

drawn between subjects that are Ergative and those that are Nominative is dependent on

whether subjects’ are External Arguments of the verbal predicates.

Thus, in Section 3, we investigate the role of External Arguments of participial

predicates with respect to reduced relative formation. Based on the facts from English

and HU reduced relatives, we argue that participles bear different structural features. In

particular, External Arguments in Perfective participles need to be externally licensed,

whereas External Arguments in Imperfective participles do not need such a requirement.

As for participles of reduced relatives, we show that for most cases, only those with no

External Arguments are able to form acceptable reduced relatives.

1


1. The have-be generalizationIn many Indo-European languages, the formation of reduced relatives has

restrictions based on the particular kinds of participles occurring in them. The languages

in which such restrictions have been attested are predominantly European languages such

as English and Italian. A summary of Burzio (1986), Iatridou, & Izvorski (1999),

Iatridou, Anagnostopoulou & Izvorski ((=IA&I) 2000), all of which address the

relationship of the auxiliaries occurring in these languages to the participles, is provided

in Sections 1.1.1-1.1.3. In those languages, the Perfect participle stands out as having

three options for the auxiliary – (i) have as the auxiliary, of which English is an example,

(ii) be as the auxiliary (cf. Bulgarian, as described in IA&I 2000 and Marvin 2000), and

(iii) auxiliary-selection for languages such as French and Italian, wherein have and be are

both candidates for the auxiliary although the exact use have- or be-Perfects is dependent

on the whether the verb is Transitive, Unaccusative, or Unergative.

The distribution of reduced relatives for many languages is thus captured by the

following generalization:

(1) The have-be generalization: an XP can function as a reduced relative only if it can appear as the complement of be. (cf. Embick 1997, 2001, Anagnostopoulou, Iatridou, & Izvorski 1999, IA&I 2000, a.o.)

This generalization is exemplified by the paradigm below:

(2) a. Active Verb, Present Partciplei. The student is eating an apple.ii. The student [eating an apple] is tall.

b. Active Verb, Past Participlei. The student has eaten an apple.ii. *The student [eaten an apple] is tall.

c. Passive Participlei. The apple was eaten by John.ii. The apple [eaten by John] was sweet.

d. Unaccusative Verb, Past Participlei. The parcels have come by mail.

2


ii. *The parcels [come by mail] are heavy.

That the English Imperfective and Passive participles are able to appear as

reduced relatives seems to be directly correlated with the fact that in the Imperfective and

Passive cases, that is, (2a) and (2c), the auxiliary in the unreduced clause is be. In

contrast, the inability of Perfective participles of both Transitive and Unaccusative verbs

to form reduced relatives in (2b) and (2d) can be linked to the XP appearing as a

complement of have.

1.1 Background on the have-be generalizationThe proponents of the have-be generalization include IA&I (2000), Embick

(1997, 2000), Mahajan (1994, 1995). The have-be generalization has been supported by

their data from a diversity of languages as well as been criticized for not being able to

adequately account for reduced relative formation.

The generalization that an XP can function as a reduced relative only if it can

appear as the complement of be which we have termed the have-be generalization, has

for IA&I been a powerful generalization in revealing the distribution of Reduced relatives

in the many European languages that they study.

Reduced relatives prove to be useful in studying whether the meaning of the

Perfect is spread over the auxiliary and its participial complement because the formation

of reduced relatives involves the separation of the participial clause from the auxiliary,

such that only the participial clause surfaces in the reduced relative. That the auxiliary

does not appear in a reduced relative is critical to the investigation of how localized the

meaning of a Perfect is.

3


1.1.1. BulgarianAs an example, the data from Bulgarian provide evidence that the auxiliary be

does not contribute to the meaning of the Perfect and hence can be isolated from the

participle. As a be-language, Bulgarian participles naturally occur with be across the

board, seen below in (3ia and c) and (3iia). In (3ia and b), the semantics of the Perfect is

Existential and the participles involved are Perfective, whereas in (3ic) the Perfect

reading in the reduced relative is not subsumed, presumably due to the difference of the

participle. The Imperfective participle in (3ii), too, can produce a Universal Perfect

reading in the reduced relative (IA&I 2000). Hence, it is strictly the type of each

participle that determines the meaning of the Perfect in the participial reading of the

reduced relatives.

(3i) Transitive:a. Ženata e pročela knigata

woman-the is read-Pfv book-the‘The woman has read the book.’

b. Ženata pročela knigata...woman-the read-Pfv. book-the‘The woman who has read the book…’

c. Ženata čela knigata...woman-the read-Neut. book-the‘The woman who has read the book…’

Unaccusative:c. Ženata e dosla navreme...

woman-the is arrive-Pfv. on-time‘The woman has arrived on time…’

d. Ženata dosla navreme...woman-the arrive-Pfv. on-time‘The woman who has arrived on time…’

(3ii) a. Ženata e celuvala Ivan ot sutrinta nasamwoman-the is kiss-Pst./Impfv. Ivan from morning-the till-now‘The woman has been kissing Ivan since this morning’

b. Ženata celuvala Ivan ot sutrinta nasam...woman-the kiss-Pst./Impfv. Ivan from morning-the till-now‘The woman who has been kissing Ivan since this morning…’

(IA&I 2000)

4


1.1.2. EnglishOn the other hand, Transitive and Accusative data from English, a have-language,

presented below in (4), show that reduced relatives cannot be formed unless the

participles are complements of be. In comparison to Bulgarian, the semantics of the

Perfect in the reduced relatives is therefore less clearly distinguished as to whether it is

attributed to the participle or auxiliary, or a combination of both. However, it is clear that

have as an auxiliary plays no role at all in reduced relatives as participles that regularly

take have cannot form reduced relatives.

(4) a. I saw the boy *(who has) [eaten the fish]b. I saw the boy *(who has) [left on time]c. I saw the boy *(who has) [walked through the park] vs.

I saw the boy *who is [walked through the park]d. The boy (who is) [singing the Marseillaise] is my brothere. I saw a house (which was) [built in 1925] (IA&I 2000)

1.1.3.ItalianBurzio (1986) presents data for Italian that are also in line with the have-be

generalization. In Italian, an auxiliary-selection language in which be and have are both

able to function as auxiliaries, participles of Unaccusative verbs that take be as the

auxiliary are able to form reduced relatives (cf. 5a and b). Unergative participles that take

have as the auxiliary conform to the have-be generalization – they are unable to form

reduced relatives (cf. 5c and d).

(5) Unaccusative verbs take be:a. Giovanni è arrivato

Giovanni be arrived‘Giovanni has arrived.’

b. il treno [arrivato entro le 3] é ripartito subitothe train arrived by 3 left again immediately‘The train which had arrived by 3 left again immediately’

5


Unergative verbs take have:c. Giovanni ha telefonato

Giovanni has telephoned‘Giovanni has telephoned.’

d. * un ragazzo [telefonato a Maria] non puòa guy telephoned to Maria cannot come

‘A guy who telephoned Maria cannot come.’

Passive verbs take be:e. Uno studente che era ammirato...

a student who was admired‘A student who was admired...’

f. Uno studente ammirato... a student admired‘A student admired...’ (Burzio 1981, 1986)

Burzio notes that the ability for reduced relatives to be constructed out of Passive

participles requires be to be the relevant auxiliary (cf. 5e and f). Crucially, Burzio also

points out a common syntactic characteristic of the Passive participles and Past

participles of Unaccusative verbs. The commonality is rooted in the “non-vacuous loss of

Subject θ-role or perhaps the possibility of a Thematic-Subject role” for Passives, and the

“vacuous loss of Subject θ-role” in Unaccusatives (not forgetting that Unaccusatives are

not assigned Thematic-Subject roles). In other words, participles of Passive reduced

relatives and of Past Unaccusatives involve arguments which do not have Subject θ-roles.

We shall return to this subject in Section 3.3 where the licensing of External Arguments

will be discussed further.

Also prevalent at the time was an analysis of reduced relatives known as Whiz-

deletion which was based on the deletion of a wh-phrase and be. Burzio’s data seem to

provide strong evidence that participial complements of be behave differently from

complements of have, hence agreeing with the basic tenets of Whiz-deletion. Burzio

(1986) draws from a Past participial clause such as (6a) with two potential readings for si

and the subsequent absence of reading (i) as in (6b) to show that Wh-be deletion should

6


not be able to cause the reading (i) to be precluded in the reduced clause. (See Appendix I

for a more detailed discussion of Whiz-deletion.)

(6) a. Gli individui che [si erano presentati] al direttore…The individuals that self be.Pfv. introduced to the director‘The individuals that (i) self had introduced/ (ii) had introduced themselves to the director...’

b. Gli individui [presentatisi] al direttore…The individuals self-introduced to the director‘The individuals (ii) self-introduced to the director…’ (Burzio 1986)

c. La donna che è stata presentata al direttore…The girl who is been introduced to the director‘The girl who has been introduced to the director…’

d. La donna presentata al direttore…The girl introduced to the director‘The girl introduced to the director…’ (Figari1, p.c)

1.1.4. Accounts of the have-be generalizationGiven the apparent dichotomy between have and be in their ability to form

reduced relatives with their corresponding participles, IA&I (2000) raise the question of

whether participles involving the auxiliary have share features of the Perfect with the

regular have, unlike participles which do not share Perfective features with be, thereby

suggesting that the nature of participles is not uniformed across different types of

participles. Therefore, in proposing a structural analysis for reduced relatives, two

separate structures for Past participles are construed by IA&I.

The structural account, which stems from Kayne’s (1993) proposal, assumes that

be is the canonical auxiliary. Other accounts by Burzio (1981, 1986), Hoekstra (1984),

Roberts (1986) and Cowper (1989a,b) take have as the auxiliary instead, although IA&I

argue that such an approach would only account for languages whose Passive and Perfect

participles do not differ in form and would fail to work for languages such as Bulgarian

1 Thanks to Gianni Figari for providing additional Italian data.Figari also remarked that (39b; below) is antiquated and is not in currency in Italian presently:

Gli individui [presentatisi] al direttore…‘The individuals (ii) self-introduced to the director…’

7


and Greek whose participles do differ. Hence, IA&I analyze have as be + an incorporated

nominal head, X. They propose that X, being right below be and right above the

participle, either incorporates to be giving rise to have (7a) or has the participle raise to it,

leaving be as it is (7b).

(7a) …

be XP (+N)

X PerfPIncorporation lose nominal trait Perf AspP

-en Asp VP

(7b) …

be XP (+N)No Incorporation Nominal featureretained X PerfP

Perf AspP

-en Asp VP

An advantage of such an analysis is that the nominal trait of reduced relatives can

be linked to the occurrence of be. Under the assumption that reduced relatives are

nominal in nature, when the nominal X incorporates to be to result in have, the nominal

feature is lost in the process and hence have does not host participles that form reduced

relatives. On the other hand, if the participle merely raises to X, the resulting complex

undergoes declension for nominals, which thus leaves it possible to function as a reduced

relative.

8


With respect to research on Hindi-Urdu (HU) reduced relatives, Mahajan (1994,

1995) also follows Kayne’s (1993) proposal that have is derived from an empty

preposition and is incorporated into be. It is further stated that in HU the empty position

is actually a postposition, the Ergative marker, which does not incorporate into be. The

main argument against the incorporation is based on HU having its auxiliary position

head-finally, thus prohibiting the auxiliary from being adjacent to the subject and

inhibiting incorporation of the postposition to be. Therefore, be remains as the auxiliary

in HU and the overt Ergative marker becomes the subject postposition.

1.2. Reduced relatives in Hindi-UrduParticiples can also be used in HU to form reduced relatives, which are always

prenominal. The ability to form reduced relatives for Imperfective as well as Perfective

participles, as shown in (8), appears to be related to the auxiliary used in HU. The clausal

counterparts of the Reduced relatives in (8) appear as complements of be, shown in (9).

(8) a. Perfective participialmẼ-ne [vo [pi:la: paR gaya:] phu:l] utha: liya:I-Erg DEM yellow ‘become’ GO-Pfv flower lift TAKE-Pfv‘I picked up the flower that had become yellow.’ (from Kachru 1973)

b. Imperfective participial[[chal-ti:] ga:ri:]-se mat utromove-Impfv.f vehicle.f-from Neg descend-Imp‘Do not descend from the moving vehicle.’ (Hook 1979)

(9) a.phu:l pi:la: paR gaya: tha:flower yellow fall GO-Pfv be.Pst.Sg‘The flower had become yellow.’

b. ga:ri: chal-ti: thi:vehicle.f move-Hab/Impfv.f be.Pst.f‘The vehicle used to move.’

Given these data, the have-be generalization seems to make correct predictions for

HU. HU is a be-language – there is no auxiliary that corresponds to have. According to

9


the have-be generalization, it is to be expected that HU is able to form reduced relatives

on Accusative verbs, thereby giving rise to reduced relatives that are impossible in

English. Indeed, the prediction is borne out as the auxiliary that appears with

Unaccusatives in the Perfect in HU is be (in contrast to have in English).

(10) a. parcel mel-se aa-ye theparcel2 mail-by come-Pfv.Pl be.Pst.Pl‘The parcels had come by mail.’

b. [[mel-se aa-ye] parcel] bhaarii hẼmail-by come-Pfv.Pl parcel heavy.f be.Prs.Pl‘The parcels that had come by mail are heavy.’

In the case of the Perfect, the auxiliary that appears in HU is be, hence the ability

to form reduced relatives from Perfect participles is again expected, as shown in (11).

(11) a. The auxiliary for the Perfect is be:kal tiin peR kaat-e ga-ye theyesterday three trees.M cut-Pfv.MPl Pass-Pfv.MPl be.Pst.Mpl‘Three trees had been cut yesterday.’

b. [[Avi-dwaaraa kal kaat-e ga-ye] peR] neem-ke the Avi-by yesterday cut-Pfv.Pl Pass-Pfv.Pl trees Neem-Gen.Pl be.Pst.Pl‘The trees which had been cut by Avi yesterday were Neem trees.’

English, on the other hand, involves have as the Perfect auxiliary, thus [the trees have

been cut by Avi] is acceptable whereas [the trees are been cut by Avi] is not. Thus, * [the

trees [been cut by Avi]] follows from *[the trees are been cut by Avi].

2 Unless indicated overtly by the Ergative case suffix –ne for subjects of Transitive Perfective sentences, the case on all other Subject NPs in HU sentences is Nominative. The Nominative case is not realized by overt case marking.

10


1.3. Inadequacies of the have-be generalizationThe have-be generalization seems to be useful in accounting for HU reduced

relatives formed from Unaccusative and Perfect participles. However, the generalization

breaks down in the case of Transitive constructions in which be appears as the auxiliary.

(12) a. *The student [read a book] is new to the school.b. *The student is read a book.

In English, the Past participle of read categorically occurs with have, not be, hence (12b)

is unacceptable. Since have is not expected by the have-be generalization to allow the

corresponding Past participle to form a reduced relative, the participle of a Transitive

verb is therefore unacceptable. The unacceptability of (12a) therefore appears to follow

from that of (12b).

(13) a. Natasha-ne kitaab paRh-ii thii Natasha-Erg book.f read-Pfv.f be.Pst.f ‘Natasha had read the book.’b. *[[kitaab paRh-ii] laRkii aa-yii hai

book read-Pfv.f girl come-Pfv.f be.Prs‘*The girl [read the book] has come.’

In HU, the Past participle of read takes be as an auxiliary (13a), which should be possible

to form a reduced relative according to the have-be generalization. However, a reduced

relative involving the Past participle is not possible. The unacceptability of (13b) is

unexpected, and reveals a critical flaw with the have-be generalization: in spite of be

being the auxiliary in the HU Transitive construction, a reduced relative formed from the

participle is still impossible. Barring the fact that a construction such as (10) involves an

Intransitive Unaccusative verb whereas (13) involves a Transitive verb, the have-be

generalization should predict identical acceptabilities for (10b) and (13b), since its basic

premise makes no mention of differences in the transitivity of the verbs. The fact that

there is a syncretism in the generalization’s prediction demonstrates that it is not a

11


sufficient generalization for the construction of reduced relatives. Hence, is there more to

be said about the use of auxiliary be as the decisive factor as to whether reduced relatives

can be formed? Or should an appeal to the differences between Transitive and

Unaccusative constructions be made? In regards to the transitivity of the verbs, which is

very much connected to the type of theta-roles that the verbs can assign to arguments,

should the ability of participles to form reduced relatives therefore be dependent on the

types of arguments that are subcategorized or licensed? We will return to these questions

in Section 3.

The above questions are vital because HU Transitive constructions are not the

only exceptions to the generalization. Marvin (2000) also shows that the participle of a

Transitive verb does not result in an acceptable reduced relative in Slovenian, as in (14a),

even though Slovenian is strictly a be-language. On the other hand, (14b) shows that a

reduced relative is possible if the participle comes from an Unaccusative verb.

(14) a. *Videl sem žensko, napisalo knjigo seen am woman.Acc.FSg written.Acc.FSg book ‘I saw the woman who wrote the book.’

b. Videl sem žensko, prispelo danes zjutraj seen am woman.Acc.FSg arrived.Acc.FSg today morning ‘I saw the woman who arrived this morning.’

Hence, we find evidence not just from HU but also from a non-Indo-Aryan

language that the presence of be as the auxiliary does not guarantee the acceptability of a

reduced relative formed from the participle that is a complement to the auxiliary.

The have-be generalization is also insufficient in that it does not apply to Passive

constructions in HU. HU being a be-language, is expected to consist of be as the Passive

auxiliary, just as in Bulgarian. The ability of the Passive participles in HU to form

reduced relatives would therefore be predicted by the have-be generalization to be in the

12


similar to English. In English, the acceptability of “the apple [eaten by the student]”

seems to be related to the Passive auxiliary in English being be. As it turns out, the

auxiliary used for HU Passives appears to be more complicated. In HU and many other

Indo-Aryan languages, there is an auxiliary that is a root related to the lexical verb go

which contributes to the Passive semantics of the Passive participle (15a). There is also a

regular be auxiliary that indicates the Perfect of the Passive. The have-be generalization

does not make any stipulation for other auxiliary verbs apart from be. In the case of

reduced relatives formed from HU Passives, the have-be generalization should not be

capable of applying to the participle as it is a complement of go and not of be. There is

the possibility that the reduced relative construction in (15b) is licensed by the Perfect

auxiliary be (which has been demonstrated in (11)), but it would have to be assumed that

the Perfect auxiliary and the Passive auxiliary are both direct complements of the

participle. If this were indeed the case, then it is a curious phenomenon that (i) a unique

auxiliary for the Passive occurs in HU and yet does not govern the Passive participle

syntactically, and (ii) the Passive auxiliary has to co-occur with the Perfect auxiliary.

Given the limitations of the current study, and for lack of more in-depth descriptions of

the Passive auxiliary in HU grammars, we can only speculate the status of go at best.

(15)a. Avi-dwaaraa kal do peR kaat-e ga-ye the Avi-by yesterday two trees cut-Pfv.Pl GO-Pass.Pl be.Pst.Pl ‘Two trees had been cut by Avi yesterday.’

b. [[Avi-dwaaraa kal kaat-e] peR] neem-ke the Avi-by yesterday cut-Pfv.Pl tree Neem-Gen.Pl be.Pst.Pl ‘The trees cut by Avi yesterday were Neem trees.’

The discussion in this section has raised a slight anomaly with the have-be

generalization with respect to HU reduced relatives formed from Passive participles

whose auxiliary is not be. As we later go on to discuss the relationship between HU

13


participles and their resultant reduced relatives in terms of the verbs’ abilities to license

External Arguments, the use of go as the auxiliary associated with the Passive does not

seem to be a significant factor in determining whether a reduced relative can be formed

from the Passive participle in HU. What is thought provoking about the discussion in this

section has been that active Past participles of Transitives in HU cannot function as

reduced relatives even though they can be complements of be. Given the differences in

English, Italian and Bulgarian reduced relatives on the one hand, and HU and Slovenian

reduced relatives on the other, it is apparent that the have-be generalization does not

provide an adequate account for languages such as those of the latter group.

However, we do still acknowledge that the have-be generalization is able to

account for English data quite sufficiently, particularly where the External Argument

account that we propose in this paper does not prove to be feasible in explaining the

unacceptability of reduced relatives formed from participles of Unaccusative Intransitive

verbs.

(16) a. *The people very recently come to the party…b. *The people been arrested…

(17) a. *The people are very recently come to the party.b. *The people are been arrested.

It can be argued that for some English dialects noun phrases such as (16a) which include

an adverb modifier as part of the reduced relative may not be absolutely unacceptable

(that is, have a ? rather than a * reading) (cf. Pesetsky 1995). Even so, it is unlikely that

the acceptability of the Passive Perfect participle in (16b) would be improved with an

adverb modifier. The ungrammaticality of (16a,b) follows directly from (17a,b). As we

present and develop on the External Argument account in Section 3 of this paper, it

14


should become clear that an analysis based on External Arguments would tend to be able

to provide a more complete account of reduced relatives not just of English or HU, but of

reduced relatives in general. We use the term External Argument here in accordance to its

customary sense in the literature wherein Transitive and Unergative Intransitives like

laugh have External Arguments, while Unaccusative Intransitives do not. However, we

concede that Unaccusatives in English pose a problem for the External Argument

analysis. Hence, for English, the have-be generalization cannot be done away with.

2. The Ergative-Nominative Generalization2.1. A new generalization

So far, we have identified that the have-be generalization characterizes the

suitability of a predicate to appear as a reduced relative. A predicate is hence suitable if it

can appear as the complement of be. The main reason that the have-be distinction has

been highlighted as a possible link to reduced relative formation is because it was first

found to be pervasive in some Indo-European languages. HU, an Indo-European

language from the Indo Aryan sub-family, is a be-language but HU reduced relatives are

not fully accounted for by the have-be generalization in the way that English reduced

relatives are.

HU is a split Ergative language, in which Ergative case-marking appears on

subjects of transitive sentences, provided that the subjects bear person features and the

sentences are in the (Past) Perfective aspect (Mahajan 1994, 1995, Masica 1991). Hence,

the Ergative case occurs only where there is a Perfective participle, as exemplified by

(18a, from Mahajan 1995). When the participle is not in the Perfective aspect, subjects in

HU either take a Dative suffix in the context of a psych verb or a Genitive or Locative

15


suffix in possessive constructions, as reflected in (18b and c). Alternatively, the subject

could simply be Nominative, as shown in (18d).

(18) a. Raam-ne vah kitaabe parii thii Ram-Erg those book-Pl. read-Pfv.f. be.Pst.f.Pl. ‘Ram had read those books.’

b. Raam-ko sar dard hẼ Ram-Dat head ache.f. be.Prs.f. ‘Ram has a headache.’

c. Raam-kii do bEhne hẼ Ram-Gen two sister.Pl. be.Prs.f.Pl. ‘Ram has two sisters.’

d. laRkii kitaab paRh-tii haigirl book read-Hab.f be.Prs‘The girl reads the book.’

In summary, the distribution of Ergative case-marking in HU is as follows:

(19) The distribution of Ergativity in HU: the subjects of Transitive verbs in Perfective aspect receive Ergative case.

The difference between HU and the other Indo-European languages that follow

the have-be generalization, as pointed out by Mahajan (1995), stems from the fact that

HU is an SOV language, which is a type of verb peripheral language (VSO languages are

also verb peripheral but not SVO languages), whereas languages like English are verb-

medial languages. A characteristic of verb peripheral languages such as HU is that they

generally do not consist of the lexical verb have, much less use have as an auxiliary verb.

Another unique characteristic is that they tend to display Ergative case-marking, whereas

verb medial languages like English display only Nominative case-marking on subjects of

Transitive predicates. Mahajan relates the two characteristics by positing a version of the

have-be generalization, outlined above in Section 1.1.4. Specifically, Mahajan states that

the source from which have is derived is inherently the incorporation of be and an empty

preposition (or in the case of HU, a postposition). Be-languages like HU lack have

because the Ergative case marker –ne, which is regarded as a postposition by Mahajan

16


and McGregor (1995) and is a sister to the subject NP, does not become incorporated

with be, whereas languages that use have as an auxiliary verb have an empty preposition

that combines with be to derive have. Hence, the presence of have in a language

necessarily rules out the presence of an overt pre- or post-position morpheme (the

Ergative case in HU); conversely the presence of the Ergative case marker rules out the

use of have as an auxiliary.

Languages like English whose reduced relatives can be predicted by the have-be

generalization rule out participles that appear with have as the auxiliary. On the other

hand, be-languages such as HU, which do not make use of have as an auxiliary and yet

only allow for reduced relatives in certain constructions but not others, should be ruled

out by Ergative case-marking on subjects, that is, assuming that Mahajan’s (1994, 1995)

account of the interplay between the auxiliary have and the Ergative marker in HU holds.

There seems to be a parallel between the have-be alternation of the have-languages and

the choice between Ergative and Nominative in an Ergative language such as HU. That

is, participles that occur with have would be predicted to not form reduced relatives in the

have-languages, and participles that occur in the same clause as subjects bearing Ergative

case would be predicted to not form reduced relatives in HU.

Hence, instead of attributing the formation of reduced relatives from participles to

the presence or absence of the auxiliary be, we could determine from the distribution of

Ergativity in HU, that is, where subjects are Ergative in the Perfective aspect, we posit

that case on the predicate’s subjects plays a role in the actual distribution of reduced

relatives. The predictability of reduced relative formation in HU follows the

generalization in (20).

17


(20)The Ergative-Nominative Generalization (for HU): Only participles whose subjects receive Nominative case can function as reduced relatives.

Let us now revisit the HU constructions from Section 1.3 that are problematic for

the have-be generalization. In the case of the Transitive past participle, in (13) and

repeated below in (21), the have-be generalization could not predict why (21a) would be

unacceptable since the auxiliary is be and not have. The Ergative-Nominative

generalization, on the other hand, is able to because the subject of a Transitive past

participle receives Ergative (and not Nominative) case.

(21) a. *[[kitaab paRh-ii]] laRkii aa-yii hai book read-Pfv.f girl come-Pfv.f be.Prs ‘*The girl [read the book] has come.’b. Natasha-ne kitaab paRh-ii thii

Natasha-Erg book.f read-Pfv.f be.Pst.f ‘Natasha had read the book.’

The second problem with the have-be generalization was that it incorrectly

predicted that the Passive participle could not be used to form a reduced relative because

the Passive auxiliary in HU is go rather than be. The acceptability of the reduced relative

in (22) follows from the fact that the subject of a Passive participle receives Nominative

case, which falls within the prediction of the Ergative-Nominative generalization. The

use of go as the Passive auxiliary is simply not a problem for the new generalization.

(22) Passivesa. Avi-dwaaraa kal do peR kaat-e ga-ye the

Avi-by yesterday two trees cut-Pfv.Pl GO-Pfv.Pl be.Pst.Pl‘Two trees had been cut by Avi yesterday.’b. [[Avi-dwaaraa kal kaat-e ga-ye] peR] neem-ke the Avi-by yesterday cut-Pfv.Pl GO-pfv tree Neem-Gen.Pl be.Pst.Pl‘The trees cut by Avi yesterday were Neem trees.’

The Ergative-Nominative generalization demonstrates that it too can account for

HU reduced relative constructions that do support the have-be generalization. In (23a),

the subject of the Unaccusative predicate, ‘parcels,’ bears covert Nominative case. A

18


reduced relative, in (23b), can also be formed. The Passive and Imperfective or Habitual

participles in (24) and (25) respectively can also form reduced relatives. The cases on the

subjects, ‘Avi’ and ‘laRkii,’ are both Nominative, hence the fact that the participles can

function as reduced relatives is predicted.

(23) Unaccusativesa. parcel mel-se aa-ye the

parcel mail-by come-Pfv.Pl be.Pst.Pl‘The parcels had come by mail.’

b. [[mel-se aa-ye] parcel] bhaarii hẼ mail-by come-Pfv.Pl parcel heavy.f be.Prs.Pl‘The parcels that had come by mail are heavy.’

(24) Passivesa. Avi-dwaaraa kal do peR kaat-e ga-ye the

Avi-by yesterday two trees cut-Pfv.Pl GO-Pfv.Pl be.Pst.Pl‘Two trees had been cut by Avi yesterday.’

b. [[Avi-dwaaraa kal kaat-e ga-ye] peR] neem-ke the Avi-by yesterday cut-Pfv.Pl GO-pfv tree Neem-Gen.Pl be.Pst.Pl‘The trees which had been cut by Avi yesterday were Neem trees.’

(25) Imperfectives/Habitual Participlesa. laRkii kitaab paRh-tii hai

girl book read-Hab.f be.Prs‘The girl reads the book.’

b. [[kitaab paRh-tii] laRkii] book read-Impfv.f girl‘The girl [reading the book]…’

So far, we have shown that the Ergative-Nominative generalization, is also

capable of making the right predictions about the ability of the participles to form

reduced relatives. However, in the next section, a weakness of the Ergative-Nominative

generalization is revealed as we show that the Ergative-Nominative generalization is too

strong: it overgeneralizes that all Nominative subjects in HU can be relativized as

subjects of reduced relatives. The Ergative-Nominative generalization (as we have it up

to this point) does not state anything about Ergative case; it suggests that since subjects

never bear Nominative case in HU Perfective verbs, and given that the distribution of

19


Ergativity occurs in conjunction with Transitive Perfective verbs, that therefore reduced

relatives cannot be formed when the subject is Ergative.

2.2. Problem with the Ergative-Nominative GeneralizationThe Ergative-Nominative generalization seems to be able to account for reduced

relatives formed from Imperfective (or Habitual), Unaccusative Intransitive and Passive

participles. In this section, we turn to another class of Intransitive verbs in HU, the

Unergatives and show that the Ergative-Nominative generalization is unable to make the

right predictions. In HU Unaccusative and Unergative constructions, shown in (26)

below, the past participles license Nominative subjects. While the participles of

Unaccusative verbs form reduce relatives, as in (27a) below, those of Unergative verbs

do not, as in (27b). As stated in (20), only participles whose subjects receive Nominative

case can function as reduced relatives. According to the conditions of the Ergative-

Nominative generalization, since the subjects in (26) are Nominative, both of the

participles should be expected to undergo reduced relative formation. Thus, just as the

subject, kameez ‘shirt’, in the Unaccusative construction in (26a) is relativized as phat-ii

kameezein ‘torn shirts’in (27a), the Ergative-Nominative generalization should also allow

for the subject in (26b), kuttaa ‘dog’, to be relativized. However, the fact that bhOnk-aa

kuttaa ‘barked dog’ in (27b) does not fit into a similar type of construction as in (27a)

reveals a flaw in the Ergative-Nominative generalization: it appears that not all subjects

with Nominative case can appear with the participles in reduced relatives. Hence, in this

section, we will show that Unergative verbs differ from Unaccusatives in that subjects of

Unergatives can in fact be interpreted as having similar properties as Ergative subjects.

20


(26) a. Unaccusative Intransitivekameez phat ga-yii shirt.f tearintr GO-Pfv.f‘The shirt tore.’

b. Unergative Intransitive Kuttaa bhOnk-aa dog.M bark-Pfv.MSg‘The dog barked.’

(27) a. Unaccusative Intransitive mujhe [phat-ii kameezein] pasand hẼ

I-Dat tearintr shirt.FPl like be.Prs‘I like torn shirts.’

b. Unergative Intransitive *mujhe [bhOnk-aa kuttaa] pasand hai I-Dat bark-Pfv.MSg dog.MSg like be.Prs ‘*I liked the barked dog.’

The Ergative-Nominative generalization, when it works, works because it

captures an important aspect of the argument structure of the predicates involved: only

predicates which have External Arguments allow for Ergative subjects. Unaccusative

Intransitives do not license External Arguments and therefore the subjects can never

receive Ergative case. On the other hand, Unergative Intransitives do have External

Arguments and are thus capable of receiving Ergative case. In (28) the presence of an

Ergative subject in HU is not entirely unacceptable, whereas (29) reflects the

improbability of an Ergative subject showing up in an Unaccusative construction.

(28) ?kuttõ-ne bhOnk-aa dogs-Erg bark-Pfv‘The dogs barked.’

(29) *kameez-ne phat-aa shirt-Erg tear-Pfv‘The shirt tore.’

The flip side to the Ergative-Nominative generalization lies in the fact that when

it fails, it fails in those environments where the predicates sanction External Arguments.

In HU, we have noted that subjects of Unergative constructions are candidates for

21


Ergative marking. What seems to be postulated therefore, is the possibility for subjects of

Unergative verbs to have either Nominative or Ergative case marking. In other words, it

appears that the type of verbs plays a part in determining if the subjects can take both

Nominative and Ergative markings. In (26b), we have noted that ‘dog’ is morphologically

Nominative, whereas in (28), ‘dog’ can be Ergative. One way of looking at this

alternation in case marking is perhaps to state that the Nominative subject in (26b)

involves the simultaneous non-overt realization of Ergative case-marking on the subject.

However, such an account proves to be problematic as it would have to also account for

why there are two different cases that are assigned to a single subject, as well as the

motivations and/or ramifications for constructions involving different morphological case

markings on the subjects (that is, when the subject appears with Nominative marking, as

in Kuttaa, as opposed to Ergative marking, as in kuttõ-ne).

Another way of analyzing the two possibilities of case marking is to assume that

certain classes of verbs have the option of assigning either Nominative or Ergative case

on subjects. Kachru and Pandharipande (1979) argue against the possibility of any

systematic semantic property that might govern when Ergative case would be used

instead of Nominative case and simply leave the optionality of Ergative marking on verbs

such as ‘cough’ and ‘sneeze’ in HU as an artifact of historical development. Mohanan

(1994), on the other hand, provides an account of the predictability of Ergative versus

Nominative marking on subjects based on a semantic property that she calls ‘Conscious

Choice:’

22


(30) a. ravii davaaii pii gayaa. (*ravii-ne)Ravi medicine drink go-Pfv.‘Ravi (impulsively) drank up the medicine.’

b. ravii-ne davaaii pii daalii (*ravii)Ravi-Erg medicine drink pour-Pfv.‘Ravi (deliberately) drank up the medicine.’ (Mohanan 1994, p.74)

Other than some verbs in HU that do not seem to constitute the property of

“deliberateness,” which she labels “lexical exceptions,” Mohanan contends that subjects

of verbs can be predicted to have Ergative case when “an argument is the grammatical

subject, is associated with the meaning of ‘conscious choice,’ and the predicate is

associated with PERF aspect” (p.77). This notion of ‘conscious choice’ pertains in part to

purposeful action and in part to “the intuition underlying the term ‘agentive marker’ used

to refer to the ergative (Kachru (1980), Kachru et al (1976))” (p.73). Taking Kachru et. al

and Mohanan’s observations of the fact that depending on the type of verb, Ergative case

marking may be optionally used in subjects which would otherwise take Nominative

case, we propose that the fact that the Unergative construction in (26b) cannot form a

reduced relative is due to the subject’s ability to bear Ergative case marking.

Hence, in addressing the speculation from the previous section as to whether

Ergative subjects can be relativized as a reduced relative, and in order to provide a

consistent analysis of the data presented, we need to state more accurately that reduced

relatives can never be formed where the Transitive subject in the Perfective aspect is able

to receive Ergative case. As such, we provide a modification of the Ergative-Nominative

generalization.

(31) The Ergative-Nominative Generalization (modified):Only participles whose subjects receive Nominative case and whose subjects cannot receive Ergative case can function as reduced relatives.

23


Having pointed out that Ergative case marking on subjects prohibits the

participles to form reduced relatives and that Ergative case can only be assigned to

External Arguments, we now investigate if the Ergative-Nominative generalization can

be further broken down in terms of the licensing of External Arguments. Hence, in the

next section, we turn to the role played by External Arguments in reduced relative

formation.

3. Analysis based on the role of External ArgumentsBefore going into the specifics of the External Argument analysis, the following

is a brief characterization of the term ‘External Argument.’ As mentioned earlier,

Transitive and Unergative Intransitive verbs incorporate an argument that is merged at a

higher node than the predicate. Generally, in sentences such as Kim ate the pie

(Transitive) or Ashley laughed (Unergative Intransitive), the External Arguments (Kim

and Ashley respectively) tend to also be regarded as Thematic Agents. However, it should

be noted that External Argument and Agentivity are two separate notions—the former

pertains to the position of an argument that is syntactically external to verbal predicate

while the latter constitutes the thematic or semantic feature that is borne by an argument.

Agentivity is necessary for the presence of an External Argument, whereas the presence

of an External Argument is not necessary for Agentivity. Hence, the lack of External

Argument does not immediately suggest the lack of Agentivity.

To illustrate, Passives and Unaccusatives are distinguished from each other by the

presence of Agentivity in what occurs with the former but not the latter class of verbs.

The Passive (32a) has agentive semantics in that the ship was sunk implies someone did

the actual sinking. In contrast, the Unaccusative sentence in (32b) does not have the

24


implication of someone sinking the ship. Thus, whereas the Passive form of the verb ‘to

sink’ includes Agentivity, the Unaccusative form does not call for it.

(32) a. The ship was sunk.b. The ship sank.

The so-called ‘suppression’ of ‘subject NP’ in Passive constructions and the

‘promotion’ of ‘object NP’ in earlier accounts of D-S Structure Passivization can be

translated to accounts using Merge as the fact that an External Argument is not projected.

In a sentence such as (33) ‘The apple was eaten,’ the logical subject, the apple, is really

an Internal Argument that has been raised. Hence, the lack of External Argument permits

the formation of a reduced relative- the apple [eaten by John]. Unaccusatives, not

projecting External Arguments either, should therefore also be able to form reduced

relatives from their participles, but as pointed out in (16), not all English Unaccusatives

form reduced relatives. To this end, we postulate that the have-be generalization takes

over as the critical determinant as to whether English Unaccusative participles can

function as reduced relatives. On the other end of the spectrum, we have Past participles

of Transitive verbs, such as eat in ‘The boy ate the apple,’ which involves the projection

of an External Argument, the boy. Consequently, reduced relatives cannot be formed, e.g.

*the boy eaten the apple.

(33) The apple was eaten.Stage in the derivation: [vAG

3 [√eat [the apple]]]

No External Argument is merged.

Given the fact that only Nominative subjects may be relativized into reduced

relatives in HU and that the ability of a subject of a Transitive Perfective verb to receive

Nominative case is correlated with the absence of an External Argument, we can thus

3 Embick (2001) stipulates Agentivity as having an Agentive feature within v. Thus, we designate vAG as a category of verb that constitutes semantic agents.

25


focus on the distribution of External Argument with respect to the Perfective aspect. In

HU, Ergative subjects never occur when the verbs are in Imperfective aspect. As a

testament that the revised Ergative-Nominative generalization is accurate, the formation

of reduced relatives from Imperfective participles is possible (cf. 25). For Imperfective

participles however, we find that the reverse from that of Perfective constructions is true

about the occurrence of External Arguments, that is, the presence of External Arguments

is actually licensed by the Imperfective participles. As such, we arrive at the following

conditions on the presence of External Arguments in HU reduced relatives.

(34) The External Argument Generalization:In a reduced relative based on aa. Perfective(/Passive) Participle: External Arguments may not be present.b. Imperfective Participle: External Arguments may be present.

The above generalization corroborates Embick’s (2001) findings that languages

whose Passives and Unaccusatives are able to form reduced relatives have a common

underlying factor— both types of participial clauses lack External Arguments. As for

regular Transitive Perfective participles, the formation of reduced relatives is also

prohibited where External Arguments are present.

To sum up, if the Passive or Perfective participle of a verb involves projection of

an External Argument, it is not possible to form a reduced relative on it. In what follows,

we will provide a structural characterization of the External Argument Generalization

proposed in (34).

26


3.1. Subcategorization Requirements3.1.1. Some Assumptions about Argument Structure

Following work by Hale & Keyser (1993, 1998), we will make the following

assumptions about argument structure (35). The verbal root is assumed to come under v,

which is further stipulated as either vUNACC and vAG. With vUNACC and vAG, we essentially

distinguish the absence of Agentivity in the former and the presence of Agentivity in the

latter. The External Argument is represented by the presence of an argument to the left

and outside of v. In (35), only the Transitive construction constitutes an External

Argument.

(35) a. Unaccusative: John arrived.Structure before movement for Case takes place:[vUNACC [√arrive John]]

b. Transitive: John hit Bill.Structure before movement for Case takes place:[John [vAG [√hit Bill]]]

c. Passive: Bill was hit.Structure before movement for Case takes place:[vAG [√hit Bill]]

With respect to the licensing of the External Argument, we outline Embick’s

(2000, 2001) discussion on the status of the External Argument Property in the following

section, as well as provide a discussion on the criteria in Section 3.2.

3.1.2. The External Argument Property Embick (1997) examines participles in reduced relatives using IA&I’s have-be

generalization as a starting point, that is, he concurs with IA&I on the observation that

participles in reduced relatives are closely related to their co-occurrence with be,

specifically for English Passive participles. However, he notes that while reduced

relatives involving the Passive occur without be, as is also the case for those involving

the Perfect of a Passive (cf. (36a and b), the Imperfective or Progressive of Passive

27


participles however require the presence of the progressive form of be (36c). The

conclusion drawn is that no aspectual be is projected for (36a and b) while for the sake of

retaining the Eventive state of the Progressive, be is projected as an aspectual head for

(36c) to pick up the morphology related to the Progressive state.

(36) a. The coins [discovered in the sunken ship] date back to 1863.b. The man [arrested three times in the last month]…c. The man [being arrested for drunk driving]…

In consequence, Embick proposes that the Passive may involve a Stative reading

for Perfective Passives as well as an Eventive reading for Imperfective Passives.

Following Kratzer (1993), Chomsky (1995) and Hale and Keyser (1993), Embick (2000)

states that the verbal functional head v may contain the property of Agentivity, or AG,

which is related to the ability to license and semantically interpret External Arguments.

The difference in the presence or absence of AG is in turn relevant to the

subcategorization preferences of different aspects. As to how the difference between

Stative and Eventive Passives is played out, let us then consider the subcategorization

differences between Stative and Eventive Passives (Pesetsky 1995, Embick 2000).

(37) a. Stative Passive: Resultative aspect subcategorizes for a v[-AG]b. Eventive Passive: Completive aspect subcategorizes for v[AG] .

Agentivity is incorporated into one but not both of the readings. While the Stative

Passive calls for no AG, which automatically implies no External Argument, the presence

of AG in the Eventive Passive provides a hint for the notion that someone has to still be

performing the incomplete action (of arresting, in the case of (36c)). However, in order to

convey the Passive voice in the Eventive Passive, the subcategorization still needs to

further specify that no External Argument may be licensed. Embick (2000) backs up this

28


distinction between the Stative and Eventive Passive by using a Chichewa example from

Dubinsky and Simango (1996), which has separate Passive morphemes for the Stative

and Eventive.

(38) a. Nyemba zi-na-phik-idwabeans AGR-Pst-cook-PASS(Eventive)‘The beans were cooked.’Eventive reading: the beans having been cooked by someone.

b. Nyemba zi-na-phik-ikabeans AGR-Pst-cook-PASS(Stative)‘The beans were cooked.’Stative reading: the beans in the cooked state.

Before concluding that the External Argument is redundant given that AG alone

can differentiate the Passive readings, we have to consider how AG and External

Arguments work in other participles. In an Unaccusative clause such as [[the teardrops

fallen from her eyes]…], v does not comprise AG, unlike the v in Passive constructions,

but at the same time is similar to Passive v in that it is not being associated with an

External Argument. In regards to the case of a v that comprises no AG and yet has the

External Argument Property, we have stated in our general discussion that Unergatives

have External Arguments but no Agentivity.

Embick (2001) however differs in opinion, stating that Unergatives are able to

form Impersonal Passives by virtue of them comprising vAG and not because they have

External Arguments. The assumption that he makes is that Impersonal Passives are

associated with the presence of vAG. The evidence offered is from a particular class of

verbs from Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s (1999) Modern Greek verb class

alternations that lack Agentivity and therefore cannot form Impersonal Passive. There are

essentially two specific classes, the first of which is a class of Intransitive verbs that show

up in the Non-Active and Transitive verbs that are Active. In contrast, there is another

29


class of Intransitive, Inchoative verbs such as stegnono ‘dry’ whose active morphology

always reflects the presence of an argument in the specifier of v which does not function

as any kind of Agentive (or Causative) meaning. Nonetheless, the fact that an argument

somehow occupies the structural specifier indicates that this class of verbs somehow

accommodates External Arguments.

Thus, the fact that Agentivity and External Argument are distinct and are

mutually independent brings up the question of whether the External Argument Property

is in fact a [± external argument] feature or whether it is simply addressed somewhere

else in the syntax along with visible structural properties (Embick, 2001). Embick

assumes that if the External Argument can be encoded in a syntactically visible property

such as the specifier in the vP complement of Asp, then the absence of a specifier would

imply that no External Argument is licensed. It has to be assumed also that the vP

complement encodes all the other visible properties. Hence, Embick’s proposal is a

morphological theory in which there is no [-external argument]. The syntax of v itself is

able to determine if the presence or absence of some morphological realization of [-

external argument] is necessary.

3.1.3. Assumptions about Aspectual MorphologyFor concreteness, we will focus on English but the assumptions about the

aspectual morphology hold for HU once the relevant substitutions are made (e.g. –ing

with the Imperfective/ Habitual participial morphology, and –en with the Perfective/

Passive participial morphology in HU). The Imperfective –ing and the Perfect –en are

clearly candidates for being put under an aspectual head Aspo. The question is whether

30


the Passive –en should also be put under Aspo or whether it should be put under vAG, in

the spirit of Baker, Johnson & Roberts (=BJ&R 1989).

In BJ&R’s account of Passives, Passive -en essentially starts out at Infl, which is

governed by a VP whose head is the Passive auxiliary, as well as in sisterhood

relationship to the main verb. With –en as a Passive argument originating in a -marked

position, the only likely way for it to receive a -role is through the external assignment

of a -role by the main verb. BJ&R contend that as an argument, -en is also assigned Case

by the verb, which thereby causes the internal argument to move up to subject position to

receive Case. The advantage of such an analysis is that it avoids the complications of

having to account for the downward movement of the Passive –en through multiple VP’s

(especially where there are more than one auxiliary verb involved) to merge with the

main verb (or the upward movement of the verb through multiple maximal projections to

merge with –en). The drawback to having Passive –en start out under vAG is that it

assumes a separate treatment of the Passive participial morphology from the morphology

of Perfective and Imperfective participles.

We will put the Passive –en under Aspo because it allows for a natural treatment

of the Perfect-Passive syncretism in English (and HU), that is, we can assume that the

Passive participial morphology under Aspo is merged with the main verb via secondary

predication, the same way that Perfect participial morphology is combined with the verb

root. An analysis using Aspo also allows us to make the following generalizations:

(i) By having the participial predicates as AspP’s, we are able to keep verbal reduced

relatives categorially uniformed. Thus, in (39), the participial predicates (in

31


square brackets) are all AspP’s, rather than having Passive participial predicates

come under a separate category of vP.

(39) a. the boy [AspP eating the apple]…b. the men [AspP recently arrived from London]…c. the apple [AspP eaten by John]…

Other than the fact that there is categorical uniformity, an important motivation

for leaving such participial morphology (be it Passive or Perfect) external to the

vP is that there would be no need for vAG to have to license separate sites where

merge can take place for participial morphology of Transitive verbs on the one

hand and of Passive verbs on the other hand.

(ii) vP’s do not make good secondary predicates, that is, in the examples in (40),

the vP’s themselves cannot independently function as participial predicates. As

primary predicates, they need to undergo at least another level of predication in

order for there to have the right types of participles to serve as reduced relatives.

Should the Passive participial morphology be put under vAG as opposed to Aspo, it

would be difficult to give an account for why the participial morphology in what

is fundamentally a primary predicate would generate an acceptable predicate

without there being any secondary predication.

(40) a. *the boy [vP eat the apple]b. *the boy [vP recently arrive from London]c. *the apple [vP eat by John]

Following the above assumption that all participial morphology falls under Aspo,

we can then state the subcategorization requirements for the various Aspo’s.

32


(41)a. Aspo= -ing subcategorizes for Transitive and Unaccusative vP’s(i.e. vP’s headed by vAG with an External Argument or vUNACC 4)

b. Aspo= -enPerfect subcategorizes for Transitive and Unaccusative vP’s(i.e. vP’s headed by vAG with an External Argument or vUNACC)

c. Aspo= -enPassive subcategorizes for Passive vP’s(i.e. vP’s headed by vAG without an External Argument)

Note that we have included the External Argument as part of the

subcategorization requirement. We now need to discuss how the licensing of the External

Argument occurs, although we will remain agnostic about exactly where the External

Argument Property (cf. Embick 2001) occurs.

3.2. The licensing of External ArgumentIn the previous section, we listed the subcategorization requirements for each type

of participial morphology under Aspo. However, subcategorization is only the first step to

determining if a participial predicate can function as a reduced relative. That is, while

subcategorization makes sure that the participial morphology is merged with the

appropriate vP so as to obtain the participle, the ability for the participial predicate that is

obtained to serve as reduced relatives has to do with whether an External Argument is

absent in the full clauses.

As we have pointed out in Section 3 (34), the cases that are problematic for

reduced relative formation in both HU and English are the structures involving Past

participles of verbs that have External Arguments. In (42a), the Transitive vAG is

subcategorized by the Perfect participial morphology. The same vAG occurs with an

External Argument. The reduced relative thus formed (42ai) abstracts over the External

Argument, the boy. However, the External Argument in (42ai), as in (42aii), is not as yet

licensed. Similarly for (42b), abstraction over the External Argument occurs, but in

4 VUNACC necessarily implies that v does not incorporate any External Argument.

33


neither of the constructions in (42bi and ii) is the External Argument licensed. Therefore,

we propose that in English, the External Argument has to be licensed by the auxiliary

have. Since have does not occur in any of the constructions in (42), the External

Arguments are all not licensed and hence the constructions are unacceptable.

(42) a. Transitive Perfect Participle:(i) *The boy [eaten the apple]…(ii) * The boy λx [-en [x vAG [√eat [the apple]]]]…

b. Unergative Intransitive Perfect Participle :(i) *The boy [laughed]…(ii) *The boy λx [-en [x vAG [√laugh]]]…

The above cases can be contrasted with (43), where the reduced relative in (i) is

formed from abstracting over the Internal Argument. Because no External Argument is

involved at all, there is no need for an auxiliary to license the External Argument. Hence,

we find that the constructions in (43i and ii) are able to occur without an auxiliary. These

cases reiterate that the formation of reduced relatives from Passive or Perfective

participials hinges on the fact that there should be no External Argument that needs to be

licensed.

(43) Passive Participle(i) The apple [eaten by John]…(ii) The apple λx [-en [x vAG [√eat [the apple]]]]

As (44) and (45) indicate, the clausal counterparts of (42) are acceptable in both English

and HU. With the primary difference between (42) and (44) being the fact that have

occurs in the structures in (44), that the constructions in (44) are acceptable therefore

provides evidence that the External Argument needs to be licensed by have in English.

For HU, on the other hand, External Arguments seem to be licensed by be.

34


(44) a. The boy has eaten the apple.…[[the boy]i [have [-en [ti vAG [√eat [the apple]]]]]]

b. The boy has laughed.…[[the boy]i [have [-en [ti vAG [√laugh]]]]]

(45) a. laRke-ne seb khaa-yaa haiboy-Erg apple eat-Pfv be.Prs‘The boy was (has) eaten the/a apple.’

b. laRkaa hãs-aa haiboy laugh-Pfv be.Prs‘The boy was (has) laughed.’

The conclusion that we draw is that it is have and be that license the External

Arguments for English and HU respectively. Since have is unavailable in (42) to license

the External Argument, the subcategorization conditions cannot be fully met, causing the

reduced relative constructions to break down. Along the same lines for HU, the

unacceptability of the reduced relative (in boldface, from 13b, repeated below in (46)),

has to do with the External Argument, laRkii ‘the girl,’ not having the auxiliary be to

license it.

(46) *[[kitaab paRh-ii] laRkii aa-yii hai book read-Pfv.f girl come-Pfv.f be.Prs

‘*The girl [read the book] has come.’

Thus far, the fact that the analysis using External Argument seems to appeal to the

categorial usage of have or be might appear to be reminiscent of the have-be

generalization. The difference between the External Argument analysis and the have-be

generalization is that the External Argument analysis rules in reduced relatives on the

basis that there should be no External Argument that needs to be licensed. The have-be

generalization, takes into account the auxiliary that the participial predicate actually

occurs with, and rules in reduced relatives by virtue of the fact that participles occur with

be. However, the have-be generalization, while being able to descriptively categorize

participles that can serve as reduced relatives according to the auxiliary that they occur

35


with, cannot account for why participles that occur with be in HU (such as (46)) are

unable to form reduced relatives.

On the other hand, the External Argument analysis looks at the reduced relatives

themselves rather than the stage of derivation prior to reduced relative formation. To

form acceptable reduced relatives, we are interested in participial predicates that have no

External Arguments to form reduced relatives. Moreover, because the auxiliaries have or

be do not occur as a part of reduced relatives, their unavailability to license External

Arguments as such rules out the formation of reduced relatives from External Arguments.

More importantly, as the analysis is not concerned with which auxiliary the participles

occur with before they serve as reduced relatives, it can account for the acceptable cases

of reduced relatives both in English and in HU.

3.3. The continuing relevance of the have-be generalizationThe External Argument generalization in (34) as laid out through the analysis

based on licensing in Section 3.2 proves to be a powerful generalization in that it seems

to account for the facts in HU. However we have not considered Unaccustive

Intransitives in our discussion in the previous section. Unaccusatives have no External

Arguments and hence the External Argument generalization should predict that

Unaccusatives should be able to form reduced relatives. Yet the unacceptability of the

reduced relatives in (47) points to a shortcoming of the External Argument analysis. To

this end, we offer no compensatory account other than to suggest that an account of

reduced relatives in English would have to fall back on the have-be generalization, seeing

as the have-be generalization is able to rule out the reduced relatives based on the fact

their participles occur with have and not be.

36


(47) a. *The people very recently come to the party…b. *The people been arrested…

4. SummaryIn this paper, we started by presenting the have-be generalization and showing its

prolific ability to predict reduced relatives formed from English participles. However, we

pointed out that the have-be generalization proves to be problematic for languages whose

participles occur with be and not have, and yet are not able to have reduced relatives

using those participles. HU being one such counterexample to the have-be generalization,

demonstrates further anomalies by having a morphological case system that is suggestive

of reduced relatives arising from an Ergative-Nominative distinction. We have shown

that this distinction, although accurate to certain extents, first of all only applies to HU

and would thus be problematic as a generalization for languages such as English which

do not possess a split Ergative system. Secondly, and what is more revealing, is the fact

that the Ergative NPs in HU are subjects of verbs in the Perfective aspect, and that are

necessarily also External Arguments.

In HU it appears that only participles whose subjects cannot be marked for

Ergative case can serve as reduced relatives, thus the Ergative-Nominative generalization

translates into, or rather, gives way to a generalization that disallows External Arguments

to be licensed where reduced relatives are to be formed using Perfective or Passive

participles. In regards to what it is in the clausal structure that actually licenses External

Arguments, we propose that it is the auxiliary used Past Perfective constructions, which

is specified by the language.

In general, we found the External Argument analysis to be able to account for

reduced relatives in HU as well as in English, with the exception of English

37


Unaccusatives. Therefore, we revert to the have-be generalization as it captures a broader

range of acceptable reduced relatives in English than the External Argument

generalization. Unlike what the External Argument analysis predicts, the have-be

generalization correctly rules out Unaccusative Past participle reduced relatives in

English. The have-be generalization therefore tends to override the application of the

External Argument generalization. It is when the have-be generalization does not apply to

be-languages such as HU that the role of the External Argument generalization might be

more significant.

38


Appendix IWhiz-deletion

Much of the discussion in this paper focuses on an XP as a complement of be for

the formation of reduced relatives. This concept stems from a transformational approach

to reduced relatives known as Whiz-deletion, which posits that reduced relatives are

‘reduced’ clauses as a result of the deletion of a sequence involving a wh-phrase and

some (matrix or auxiliary) form of be. Although no longer in currency, the notion of

Whiz-deletion nonetheless lends the ‘reduced’ concept to current discussions of reduced

relatives. Whiz-deletion, in essence, permits participles resulting from the deletion of a

[wh+be] and not a [wh+have] sequence to surface as participles in a reduced relative.

Undoubtedly, we see that the problems raised for a have-be analysis in the present

discussion also pertain to Whiz-deletion, being that the presence of be is strongly argued

in both accounts to be pivotal to the resultant participial relatives.

However, although the have-be and Whiz-deletion analyses may stem from

categorizing participles that occur with be together with the ability to form reduced

relatives, there are fundamental differences between the two approaches- differences that

encroach into the debate of deep- and surface-structures. I present below criticisms

directed at Whiz-deletion. These criticisms do not apply to the have-be analysis by virtue

of the fact that the have-be approach sidesteps the issue of the surface deletion of a wh-

element. While the have-be generalization does not get tangled in the question of whether

a wh-phrase occurs underlyingly, Whiz-deletion tends to be too specific on this count in

that it assumes not only the underlying occurrence of wh-phrases in reduced relatives, but

that all ‘reduced’ clauses have to be formed from the deletion of the wh-element and the

proper accompanying auxiliary.

39


Hence, Whiz-deletion is disfavored and has been argued against by Huddleston

(1971), Hudson (1973) and Williams (1975). The main criticism against Whiz-deletion

concerns the question of whether the reduced clauses that this analysis obtains are as

straightforward as the simple deletion of a [wh+be] sequence. For instance, Hudson

(1973) notes that English reduced relative constructions with past participles, such as

(48a), can be identified underlyingly with the corresponding past tense, as in (48b), as

well as with a construction in the Perfect aspect, as in (48c). The reduced form in (48a)

can also correspond underlyingly with (48d), yet the rules for reduced relative formation

at that time fail to account for how (48a) might be derived from (48d) since there is no

wh-element involved in (48d). Therefore, Hudson raised a point that if deletion were to

be considered as the crucial process in forming reduced relatives, then it is necessary to at

least also explore the deletion of sequences of auxiliaries such as having been, and not

just the deletion of [wh+be].

(48) a. Books published before the nineteenth century are very expensive to buy.

b. Books that were published...c. Books that have been published...d. Books having been published...

Burzio’s (1986) Italian data (from Section 1.1.3, reproduced below as (49)) also

provide a counterexample to the deletion of [wh+be]. In (49a), where the relative clause

involving the reflexive nominal element si potentially encodes two distinct readings (i)

and (ii), the straightforward assumption as to the readings that would result from the

Whiz-deletion would be that both (i) and (ii) would be expected in the reduced clause. Yet

the only acceptable reduced relative reading is (ii), as shown in (49b). The criticism is

40


therefore that Whiz-deletion is not strong enough to account for the lack of one of the

readings from the full relative clause.

(49) a. Gli individui che [si erano presentati] al direttore…The individuals that self be.Pfv. introduced to the director‘The individuals that (i) self had introduced/ (ii) had introduced themselves to the director...’

b. Gli individui [presentatisi] al direttore…The individuals self-introduced to the director‘The individuals (ii) self-introduced to the director…’ (Burzio 1986)

Another problematic sign is that certain clauses with the wh-phrases do not

correspond in meaning to clauses which are so-called ‘reduced.’ The clauses in (50, from

Williams 1975) illustrate that the Imperfective participles in the first clause of each pair

of clauses appear to stand autonomously in meaning in relation to the second clause,

which resemble full relative clauses. It should be noted that Tense does not play a part in

the ungrammaticality of the second clause in each pair.

(50) a. The first man knowing all the answers will get the prize.b. *The first man who is knowing all the answers…

c. A woman resembling my mother…d. *A woman who was resembling my mother...

e. The company owning the building…f. *The company which is owning the building…

Using other examples involving Imperfective participles, Williams demonstrates

that clauses bearing the wh-phrase and be are differentiated from ‘reduced’ clauses in that

they are able to be extraposed, to host sentential subjects and adverbs and to act as result

clauses, while the ‘reduced’ forms are unable to exhibit the same functions. Thus, the

implication is that the connection between clauses involving [wh+be] and reduced

relative clauses is not as direct as the simple subtraction of the [wh+be] sequence in the

former to produce the latter. The different semantic functions and syntactic properties of

41


each type of clauses suggest that reduced relatives do not have to be derived from the full

relative clauses.

42


Appendix II Potential Counterexamples

In this paper, while we have presented a generalization, the External Argument

generalization, which seems to apply to reduced relatives of HU and English (with the

exception of English Unaccusatives), and seems to work more generally than the

Ergative-Nominative generalization or the have-be generalization (which work for more

specific languages and not others), we have not been able to show that the External

Argument analysis can function as a stand-alone generalization for reduced relatives, at

least not for English. To account for the English Unaccusative data, we have proposed

that the have-be generalization works in concert with the External Argument

generalization, that is, the have-be generalization will be used where the External

Argument fails to apply completely in a language, such as in English, where the External

Argument generalization works for the most part except for Unaccusatives.

Bulgarian takes be as an auxiliary:

(51) a. Maria e pisala knigataMaria is write-Perf.Prt.FSg the-book‘Maria has written the book.’

b. Zapoznah se sas zena-ta napisala knigatamet.1Sg Refl with woman-the write-Perf.Prt.FSg book-the‘I met the woman who has written the book.’(Lit: I met the woman written the book)

However, evidence from Bulgarian may prove to be problematic as (i) the

External Argument generalization does not seem to apply at all, and (ii) the actual make-

up of the participles may be ambiguous. The reduced relative thus formed diverges from

the prediction of the External Argument generalization since an External Argument is

actually licensed by the Past/Perfective participle of a Transitive verb. Thus, like the

unacceptability of English reduced relatives formed from Unaccusatives that cannot be

accounted for by the External Argument analysis, we will have to assume that the ability

43


for Bulgarian to form reduced relatives is predicted by the have-be generalization, since

the acceptability of (51b) can indeed be verified by the fact that the participle occurring

with be in (51a).

Unfortunately, this counterexample occurring in Bulgarian gives further evidence

that the External Argument generalization cannot be a stand-alone generalization for

reduced relatives. At this point, we are unable to account for why the External Argument

generalization fails to account for the Bulgarian data. However, one clue that might point

to the exceptional characteristic of Bulgarian participles used in reduced relatives might

be that there appears to be two different forms of the Past/Perfective participle. We are

not able to tell if the difference in form of the participle in (51a) pisala ‘written’ and the

other participle in (51b) napisala ‘written’ is morphological, with both participles but still

signaling the same participial function, or if they are two separate participles performing

different functions of the Perfect and having different subcategorization requirements.

Consider also the Passive:(52) a. knigata napisana ot ženata

book-the write-Pass.Prt by woman-the‘The book written by the woman.’

b. knigata beše napisana ot ženatabook-the was write-Pass.Prt by woman-the‘The book was written by the woman.’ (Roumyana

Pancheva)

The Passive participle does not take the same form as the Past participle, which

may be suggestive of participles that may function entirely autonomously of the

auxiliary, in which case the have-be generalization may not even come into play.

Alternatively, if we were to pursue the line of argument from the External Argument

generalization, we would have to posit different subcategorization requirements for the

participles, which may be an uneconomical move. Either way, these possibilities are

44


merely speculative. The problem with Bulgarian participles definitely needs more

attention than what the discussion afforded in this paper.

The other potential counterexample is Modern Greek. There is a Perfect

participle, which can appear in both Active and Passive forms, that shows up as the

complement of have (c.f. (53)).

(53) a. * H Maria exi xtisi to spiti to 1963 The Mary has built-Act the house the 1963 ‘Mary has built the house in 1963.’

b. To spiti exi xtisi to 1963The house has built in 1963‘The house has been built in 1963.’ (From IA&I 2000)

Embick (1997) deems the auxiliary have atypical, presumably because even

though have occurs with participles, reduced relatives can nonetheless be formed.

However, there is an anomaly in the reduced relatives in that Passive participles used in

reduced relatives in Modern Greek (54c) appear to be different in form than the

participles in regular Passive clauses (54a, b).

(54) a. …pu skediasteke which design-Perf-3Sg.‘which was designed’

b. …pu exi skediastei which has/had design-Perf-3Sg.‘which has/had been designed’

c. to skediasmeno ktiriothe design-Part. building‘The designed building’ (From Mackridge 19855)

Whenever the verbal root is not marked for Tense, it becomes the so-called

Passive participle, or the Passive Past participle, which is synthetic and functions as a

5 Many thanks to Mark Brown for helping with the translation of Modern Greek examples from the Modern Greek grammars.

45


verbal adjective. It “indicates action or state that is past or an action completed before the

action indicated by the principal verb.” (Eleftheriades 1985, p.326).

(55) a. exo grapsei to grammahave-1Sg. written-3Sg. the letter-Acc.Sg.‘I have written the letter.’

b. exo [grammeno to gramma]have-1Sg. written-3Sg.Neut.Acc the letter-Acc.Sg.‘I have the letter written.’

Being a synthetic Passive participle, we do not know if participles ending in –

meno(s) do in fact occur in constructions involving any auxiliary at all. We are also

unable to determine if it functions same way, that is, have similar subcategorization

procedures as the Passive participles that were discussed in this paper.

46


References

Alexiadou, A., and E. Anagnostopoulou. (1999) “Non-active Morphology and the Direction of Transitivity Alternations,” in Proceedings of NELS 29.

Anagnostopoulou, E., S. Iatridou, and R. Izvorski. (1998) “On the morpho-syntax of the Perfect and how it relates to its meaning,” in P.N. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto, eds., Proceedings of NELS 28, Amherst, Massachusetts, GLSA, 1-17.

Baker, M., K. Johnson, and I. Roberts. (1989) “Passive Arguments Raised,” Linguistic Inquiry 20:2, 219-252.

Burzio, L. (1981) Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cowper, E. (1989a) “Perfective –en IS Passive –en.” In Jane Fee and Katherine Hunt, eds., Proceedings of the Eighth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 85-93. Stanford Linguistics Association: Stanford.

Cowper, E. (1989b) “Thematic Underspecification: The Case of have[Italics].” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 10:85-94.

Dubinsky, S., and S.R. Simango. (1996) “Passive and Stative in Chichewa: Evidence for Modular Distinctions in Grammar,” Language 72:4.

Eleftheriades, O. (1985) Modern Greek: A contemporary grammar. Pacific Books, Palo Alto, CA.

Embick, D. (1997) Voice and the interfaces of syntax, Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Embick, D. (2000) Participial Structures and Participial Asymmetries, Talk presented at the University of Texas at Austin Linguistics Colloquium, March 27, 2000.

Embick, D. (2001) “UnAccusative Syntax and Verbal Alternations,” in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert, eds., The Unaccusativity Puzzle, Oxford Unversity Press, Oxford.

Hale, K., and S.J. Keyser. (1993) “Argument Structure,” in K. Hale and S. Keyser, eds., The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

47


Hale, K., and S.J. Keyser (1998) “The Basic Elements of Argument Structure,” in H. Harley, ed., The Proceedings of the MIT roundtable on argument structure, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.

Hoekstra, T. (1984) Transitivity, Grammatical Relations in Government –Binding Theory, Dordrecht: Foris.

Hook, P.E. (1979) Hindi Structures: Intermediate Level, Michigan Papers on South and South-East Asia 16, Center for South and South-East Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Huddleston, R. (1971) A problem in Relative Clause Reduction, Linguistic Inquiry 2:1, 115-16.

Hudson, R.A. (1973) Tense and Time Reference in Reduced Relative Clauses, Linguistic Inquiry 4:2, 251-56.

Iatridou, S., E. Anagnostopoulou, and R. Izvorski (2000) “Some observations about the Form and Meaning of the Perfect,” in M. Kenstowicz, ed., Festschrift for Ken Hale (tentative), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kachru, Y. (1973) “Some aspects of pronominalization and relative clause construction in Hindi-Urdu,” in B.B. Kachru, ed., Papers on South Asian Linguistics, volume 3.2 of Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 87-103.

Kachru, Y., B. Kachru and T. Bhatia. (1976) “The Notion ‘Subject’: A Note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri and Panjabi,” in M.K. Verma, ed. (1976), 79-108.

Kachru, Y. and R. Pandharipande. (1979) “On Ergativity in Selected South Asian Languages,” South Asian Language Analysis 1:193-210.

Kachru, Y. (1980) Aspects of Hindi Grammar, Manohar Publications, New Delhi.

Kayne, R. (1993) “Towards a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection,” Studia Linguistica 47, 3-31.

Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kratzer, A. (1993) “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.”

Mackridge, P. (1985) The Modern Greek Language: A descriptive analysis of Standard Modern Greek. Oxford University Press, New York.

48


Mahajan, A. (1994) “The Ergativity Parameter: have-be alternation, Word Order and Split Ergativity,” in Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Palo Alto, CA, CSLI 286-301.

Mahajan, A. (1995) “Universal Grammar and the Typology of Ergative Languages,” in A. Alexiadou, T.A. Hall (eds.), John Benjamins Publications.

Masica, C.P. (1991) The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press.

McGregor, R.S. (1995) Outline of Hindi Grammar. Oxford University Press.

Marvin, T. (2000) “Past Participles in Reduced relatives,” unpublished manuscript, MIT.

Mohanan, R. (1994) Argument Structure in Hindi. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax. MIT Press.

Roberts, I. (1986) The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.

Williams, E. (1975) “Small Clauses in English,” in J. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, 249-273.

49

Date post:	23-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangtram
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

Introduction - MITweb.mit.edu/rbhatt/www/QP1 Participial Relatives and Ergativity... · Web...

Documents