Syntactic structure of participial clauses in Meadow Mari

2017. No. 54.

Volkova A. A.

It is generally assumed that the syntactic structure of participial relative clauses is impoverished, “reduced” in comparison to that of regular RCs (see a. o. Burzio 1981; Chomsky 1981; Hazout 2001; Siloni 1995; Stowell 1981). Participial RCs are often analysed as VP-like structures (for some, embedded under a nominalizing node, Doron & Reintges 2005; Hazout 2001; Siloni 1995, a. o., but see Kayne 1994 who argues that participial clauses have a C, but crucially not a T). The participial RCs typically (i) don’t license usual CP-material (wh-phrases, complementizers); (ii) don’t have an independent temporal reference; (iii) don’t have subjects. Based on the data of Meadow Mari (Uralic) I contend the two latter statements and show that Meadow Mari pRCs can have independent temporal reference and subjects. I further contrast the behaviour of reflexives in embedded infinitival and participial clauses and argue that even if there is a C level in pRC, it is quite different from that of infinitivals. 

Keywords: анафора, относительные конструкции, причастия, participle, anaphora, Uralic languages, binding, связывание, марийский язык, уральские языки, Meadow Mari, relative clause constructions, left periphery, левая периферия

Publication based on the results of: Исследование архитектуры причастных оборотов на материале марийского языка (2016)