We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Phi-Agreement in Past Participle Constructions.
- Authors
Castillo, Concha
- Abstract
I argue in this paper that agreeing past participles are merged externally in the derivation in V endorsed with a feature [+resultative], whereas nonagreeing past participles are bound to value a feature [+perfective] against the have-auxiliary. Phi-agreement on the former kind of participle occurs since the meaning [+resultative] denotes a property of the logical object, which happens to merge in the position of sister to V-en. As postulated in standard frameworks, phi-agreement consists in that the V-en form values uninterpretable phi-features against the DP object. In contrast with agreeing past participles, non-agreeing past participles are merged externally in the form of V and they get their -en suffix in v valued against the haveauxiliary once the latter enters the derivation. The meaning or interpretation of this -en suffix is [+perfective] or [+anterior]. No phi-agreement occurs between these V-en forms marked [+perfective] and their logical object (whenever they select for one) since [+perfective] is a property of the event or situation as a whole, and not of the object. It is further suggested that the specific Agree relation that is phi-agreement appears not to be subject to configurations of asymmetric c-command, but to just occur on external Merge of the DP that bears the corresponding valued, interpretable phifeatures.
- Subjects
GOVERNMENT-binding theory (Linguistics); PARTICIPLE phrases (Grammar)
- Publication
Alicante Journal of English Studies / Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 2016, Issue 29, p25
- ISSN
0214-4808
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.14198/raei.2016.29.02