The properties of perfect(ive) and (eventive) passive participles: An identity approach

Abstract

This paper sheds light on the properties of perfect(ive) and (eventive) passive participles on the basis of a discussion of the issue of past participial (non-)identity. In fact, as there is no evidence for the substantial non-identity of the two forms, a principled case is made for the identity of past participles in passive and perfect periphrases based on diachronic as well as synchronic considerations. While the historical predecessors of past participles boil down to deverbal adjectives that combine argument structural effects (the absence of an external argument) as well as aspectual properties (resultativity), synchronic data indicates that the contribution of the reanalysed eventive past participles is still two-fold: (i) the (syntactic) suppression of an external argument (if present), and (ii) aspectual properties that render a given situation perfective iff the underlying predicate denotes a simple change of state. This accounts for the interpretations of past participles when combined with semantically vacuous auxiliaries (be and become): passive properties arise if (i) applies and (ii) thus cannot impose perfectivity (the eventive passive), and perfect properties ensue if (ii) applies but (i) does not (the be-perfect in languages showing auxiliary alternation). The perfect auxiliary have, on the other hand, may overtly license an argument that would otherwise remain suppressed and contributes relevant perfect properties (posteriority) so that combinations with have elicit active perfect interpretations (where perfectivity may but need not come about via implication).