Where propositional arguments and participial relative meet

Éva Dékány & Ekaterina Georgieva {dekanyeva/ekaterina.georgieva}@nytud.hu

Research Institute for Linguistics (Budapest)

Workshop “On the nouniness of propositional arguments” (DGfS43) University of Freiburg, 23–26 Feb 2021

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & Nouniness (DGfS 43) 1 / 74 Introduction

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 2 / 74 Aims

We aim at explaining why it is crosslinguistically common that participial relative clauses (pRCs) and deverbal (DVNs) share the same suffix.

(1) [Ali-nin pişir-diğ-i] yemek Ali-gen cook-dik-poss:3sg food ‘the food Ali cooked’ [MST, pRC]

(2) Ali-nin kitab-I oku-duğ-un-u Ali-gen book-acc read-dik-poss:3sg-acc ‘(that) Ali read the book’ (as a direct obj) [MST, DVN] (Kornfilt 2003)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 3 / 74 Aims

This is called the -nominalizer polysemy.

It is observed in Uralic, Altaic, Quechua and Tibeto-Burman languages (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993: 2.2.5; Serdobolskaya & Paperno 2006; Shagal 2018; Noonan 1997).

" Given that this is a wide-spread phenomenon, it requires a principled, structure-based account, where the exponents for the participle and the DVN are connected.

We investigate this phenomenon in Udmurt and Khanty (Uralic) as well as Modern Standard Turkish and Uyghur, with some reference to Kazakh (Turkic).

We argue that no real polysemy is involved, but we use it as a descriptive term.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 4 / 74 Claims

The participle-nominalizer polysemy arises when the structure of DVNs properly contains the structure of pRCs.

The containment involves a null nouny element present in DVNs and absent in pRCs.

This containment can arise in three different configurations.

" the participle–nominalizer polysemy corresponds to different underlying structures; no one size fits all analysis

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 5 / 74 The discussion of the participle-nominalizer polysemy will be framed in the analyses dealing with nominalizations and mixed extended projections (see Borer 1997; Borsley & Kornfilt 2000; Alexiadou 2001; Alexiadou et al. 2011, a.o.)

The participle-nominalizer polysemy is somewhat reminiscent of another highly debated topic: noun complement clauses (NCC) and (finite) relative clauses (Arsenijević 2009; Haegeman 2012; de Cuba 2017, a.o.)

Even though our main goal is not to approach our data from the perspective of the phenomena found in the case of finite embedded clauses, we will discuss (non-finite) NCCs

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 6 / 74 Roadmap

1 Introduction

2 Unifying participles and nominalizations

3 Case study 1: Udmurt pRC: bare, DVN: mixed projection

4 Case study 2: Modern Standard Turkish pRC: nominalized, DVN: mixed projection

5 Case study 3: Uyghur DVN: AspP modifies a covert N

6 Conclusion

7 Appendix

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 7 / 74 Unifying participles and nominalizations

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 8 / 74 Assumptions about the shared suffix

Null hypothesis: the shared suffix spells out

‚ a functional head in the extended VP (with or without a nominalizer) ƒ a nominalizing head which requires an extended VP as its complement.

" Thus, the suffix is either "verby" or "nouny".

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 9 / 74 Assumptions about the shared suffix

We claim that the suffix is a verbal head in the languages under consideration

The suffix has an aspectual meaning (thus, we label it Asp, see also Embick 2004)

In Udmurt, Khanty and Uyghur, the perfect past/evidential marker is diachronically related to the ptcp suffix

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 10 / 74 Against a nominalizer analysis of the shared suffix

pRCs in Udmurt have no discernible nominal properties

the shared suffix occurs in other, clearly verbal contexts, e.g., in passives or as perfect tense forms in Udmurt, Kazakh and Uyghur (Ótott-Kovács 2016; Asarina 2011)

pRCs and DVNs in Modern Standard Turkish do have nominal properties, but DVNs are not pluralizable (Kornfilt 2003); the presence of n is said to correlate with Num marking (Alexiadou et al. 2011)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 11 / 74 Background assumption about pRCs

similar to finite RCs (but have no relativizer and may lack a left periphery) compose with the head N via an FP

(3) DP

FP D

v+P F0

vP v+ F NP

verb noun

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 12 / 74 Proposal

We claim that there are two parameters that may vary across languages:

(i) pRCs: extended VPs with or without

(4) DP (5) DP

FP D FP D

AspP F0 DP F0

vP Asp F NP AspP D F NP -sfx verb noun vP Asp noun -sfx verb How to tell if a pRC is nominalized: genitive subject, poss , D-like morphology

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 13 / 74 Proposal

(ii) DVNs: the extended VP of the participle is turned into a mixed extended projection or it modifies a covert noun

(6) DP (7) FP

AspP D AspP F0

vP Asp vP Asp F NP -sfx -sfx verb verb covert noun

How to tell if there is a covert N: it alternates with an overt N with the same properties (On mixed extended projections see Borer 1997; Borsley & Kornfilt 2000; Alexiadou 2001, a.o.)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 14 / 74 Case study 1: Udmurt pRC: bare, DVN: mixed projection

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 15 / 74 pRCs and DVNs in Udmurt

the suffix -m is employed in both pRCs and DVNs

(8) [kil’em ar-in pukt-em] korka ˘ ˘ last year-ine build-asp house ‘the house that was built last year’ [pRC]

(9) [Kol’a-len tolon kik pispu mertt-em-ez] ˘ Kolya-gen yesterday two tree.acc plant-asp-poss:3sg šońer evel. ˘ ˘ true neg.cop ‘Kolya’s planting two trees yesterday was wrong/(a) bad (idea).’ [DVN]

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 16 / 74 A closer look at Udmurt pRCs

Udmurt pRCs are eventive (3-way division: eventive, resultative, stative participles, cf. Kratzer 2000; Embick 2004); they contain an extended verbal projection:

1 manner/duration  2 and frequentative morphology  3 Acc 

(10) [pići dirjaz tros pol kńiga ˘ young time.during.poss:3sg many times book.acc liddź-it-il-em] murt ˘ ˘ ˘ read-caus-freq-asp person ‘a/the person who was made to read a book several times as a child’

They have no nominal properties: overt subjects are not Gen marked; there is no Poss suffix on the participle; no D-like morphology.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 17 / 74 Udmurt pRCs: analysis

Relative clauses in Udmurt have the structure in (11):

(11) DP

FP D

AspP F0

vP Asp F NP -m verb noun

pRCs are truncated clauses, AspPs no nominal layer on top of AspP (accounts for the lack of nominal properties)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 18 / 74 The subject of Udmurt pRCs

The subject is either PRO or, if overt, is instrumental-marked:

(12) [PRO/Ivan-en liddź-il-em] kńiga ˘ ˘ Ivan-ins read-freq-asp book ‘the book read by someone/Ivan’

Nominative subjects are ruled out (in the present-day language):

(13)* [mi mertt-em] pispu-os 1pl.nom plant-asp tree-pl ‘the trees planted by us’ (Georgieva & Ótott-Kovács 2016)

It has been argued that Udmurt pRCs can also have Gen subjects, but we show that they are possessors (see the Appendix)

(see Brykina & Aralova 2012; Serdobolskaya et al. 2012; Georgieva & Ótott-Kovács 2016; Georgieva 2018; Dékány & Georgieva 2020)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 19 / 74 The subject of Udmurt pRCs (cont.)

We suggest that internal to the non-finite AspP, no structural case is available for the subject (Dékány & Georgieva 2020) → the subject is a PRO or is expressed in a PP (14)

(14) FP

AspP F0

vP Asp NP F -m PP vP noun

subject-Ins verb

NB: the agent of passives is also Ins marked (F. Gulyás & Speshilova 2014)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 20 / 74 Udmurt pRCs: implications

Our analysis is in line with several proposals for according to which (certain) pRCs are reduced (Krause 2001; Hale 2002; Aygen 2011)

We have also adopted a structural approach to case in order to explain the Ins-subjects of pRCs

The reduced vs full CP analysis of pRCs in Turkic also often involves a structural approach to case (e.g., Krause 2001)

Recent studies: pRCs are (bare) vPs + configurational approach to case (e.g., Satık 2020; “nominative as caselessness”, cf. Kornfilt & Preminger 2015)

" Problematic, given that Nom-subjects are ungrammatical in Udmurt pRCs

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 21 / 74 DVNs in Udmurt

Udmurt DVNs contain an extended verbal projection (cf. frequentative morphology, Acc object, adverbial modification) Nominal properties: Gen subject, Poss morphology on the verb

(15) [Kol’a-len tolon kik pispu mertt-em-ez] ˘ Kolya-gen yesterday two tree.acc plant-asp-poss:3sg šońer evel. ˘ ˘ true neg.cop ‘That Kolya planted two trees yesterday was wrong/(a) bad (idea).’

(see Brykina & Aralova 2012; Serdobolskaya et al. 2012; Georgieva & Ótott-Kovács 2016; Georgieva 2018; Dékány & Georgieva 2020)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 22 / 74 DVNs in Udmurt

Proposal: DVNs in Udmurt are mixed extended projections the extended verbal projection is embedded directly under D the subject becomes a derived possessor (16):

(16) DVNs in Udmurt DP

0 subject-geni D

AspP D -poss vP Asp -m

ti verb

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 23 / 74 Support for the structure of DVNs

possessors are Gen marked

(17) [Pet’a-len puni-jez] ute. ˘ Petya-gen dog-poss:3sg bark.prs.3sg ‘Petya’s dog is barking.’

the subject of DVNs is Gen

(18) [Dišetiś-len dišetskiś-jos-li urok-jos-iz ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ teacher-gen student-pl-dat lesson-pl-acc valekt-em-ez] minim jaraz. ˘ ˘ explain-asp-poss:3sg 1sg.dat appeal.pst.3sg ‘That the teacher explained the lessons to the students appealed to me.’

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 24 / 74 Support for the structure of DVNs (cont.)

possessors of objects are Abl marked (see Assmann et al. 2014)

(19) [Pet’a-leś puni-ze] śud-i. ˘ Petya-abl dog-poss:3sg.acc feed-pst.1sg ‘I fed Petya’s dog.’

object DVNs have an Abl subject

(20) [Dišetiś-leś dišetskiś-jos-li urok-jos-iz ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ teacher-abl student-pl-dat lesson-pl-acc valekt-em-ze] vań-zi todo. ˘ explain-asp-poss:3sg.acc all-3pl know.prs.3pl ‘Everybody knows that the teacher explains the lessons to the students.’

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 25 / 74 Subject idiom chunks

Subject raising to Spec,DP is supported by the fact that subject idioms retain their idiomatic meaning in nominalizations: ‘Mari boys shooting = wood cracking from the cold’

(21) Today it was a very cold winter day. Azbar-e potem val=no, yard-ill go.out.evid.1sg cop.pst=add porpi-os-leś ib-il-iśk-em-zes ˘ ˘ Mari.boy-pl-abl shoot-freq-intr-asp-poss:3pl.acc kili-sa, berlań korka pir-i. ˘˘ ˘ hear-cvb back house.ill go.in-pst.1sg ‘I went out to the yard, but after I heard the wood’s cracking from the cold, I went back inside.’

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 26 / 74 Interim summary

The participle-nominalizer polysemy in Udmurt arises due to the fact that both structures contain AspP. However:

pRCs are bare (i.e., non-nominalized) AspPs DVNs are nominalized AspPs, i.e., mixed extended projections

The same analysis can possibly be extended to Kazakh (see Ótott-Kovács 2016, 2020), and the discussion in the Appendix.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 27 / 74 Case study 2: Modern Standard Turkish pRC: nominalized, DVN: mixed projection

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 28 / 74 pRCs and DVNs in MST

The suffix -DIK is employed in both object pRCs and DVNs (Borsley & Kornfilt 2000; Göksel & Kerslake 2005; Kornfilt 2001 et seq.)

(22) [Ali-nin pişir-diğ-i] yemek Ali-gen cook-asp-poss:3sg food ‘the food Ali cooked’ [pRC]

(23) Ali-nin kitab-I oku-duğ-un-u Ali-gen book-acc read-asp-poss:3sg-acc ‘(that) Ali read the book’ (as a direct obj) [DVN] (Kornfilt 2003)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 29 / 74 pRCs and DVNs in MST

Both pRCs and DVNs contain an exteded verbal projection (Acc object, adverbial modification, etc.)

Both have nominal properties: Gen marked subject; Poss morphology on the participle.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 30 / 74 pRCs in MST

pRCs have obligatory Poss morphology on the participle, cross-referencing the φ-features of the subject (Göksel & Kerslake 2005) as in (24a); PRO subjects are disallowed (24b):

(24) a. [bu sene dik-tiğ-i] ağaç this year plant-dik-poss:3sg tree ‘the tree that s/he planted this year’ b.* [bu sene dik-tiğ] ağaç this year plant-dik tree ‘the tree planted this year (by sb)’ [MST]

" pRCs in MST are crucially different from pRCs in Udmurt/Kazakh, but are similar to Udmurt DVNs

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 31 / 74 In line with Kornfilt (2000, 2003) et seq., we propose that both pRCs and DVNs in MST are nominalized as in (25):

(25) pRCs and DVNs in MST (= DVNs in Udmurt/Kazakh)

DP cf.: Siloni (1995), Hazout (2001), (FP) D Doron & Reintges (2005), -poss Belikova (2008), a.o. AspP F

VP Asp

verb

(25) can merge as a complement of V or modifier of N We will revisit the structure in (25) in Section 5.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 32 / 74 Support for the verby nature of -DIK

We analyse -dik as a verby suffix, on a par with the suffixes found in the other languages under consideration (pace Doron & Reintges 2005)

Additionally, we adopt a decomposition analysis of this suffix: the -di element is a verbal head in the inflectional domain; corresponds to the Asp suffix in the other languages the -k element can in principle be either an n or C. The analysis has been proposed by, e.g., Göksel (2001) (for an overview of mono- vs bi-morphemic accounts of -dik see Gürer 2015)

Advantages of the decomposition analysis: Accounts for the differences, e.g., wrt -size, between pRCs in Turkish, on the one hand, and pRCs in other Turkic languages (e.g., Kazakh/Kyrgyz/Tatar), on the other. The presence of a C head could possibly explain certain puzzling pieces of data (see Section 5)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 33 / 74 Case study 3: Uyghur DVN: AspP modifies a covert N

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 34 / 74 The polysemy in Uyghur

involves the -Kan/-qan/-gen/-ken

(26) [Ötkür oqu-Kan] kitap ozun. Ötkür read-asp book long ‘The book that Ötkür read is long.’ [pRC] (Asarina 2011: 78) (27) Ötkür [Tursun-n1N tamaq yi-gen]-i-ni Ötkür Tursun-gen food eat-asp-poss:3sg-acc bil-i-du. know-impf-3 ‘Ötkür knows that Tursun ate food.’ [’DVN’] (Asarina & Hartman 2011)

NB: (26) is a non-nominalized pRC; on nominalized pRCs see the Appendix.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 35 / 74 Covert noun analysis

Udmurt and Turkish: when the AspP has a nominal external distribution, a nominalizer (D) embeds AspP

In principle, there is one more way in which AspP can assume an nominal external distribution: if it modifies a covert noun with the meaning ‘fact’ or ‘event’.

This is the case in Uyghur (see Asarina & Hartman 2011).

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 36 / 74 Covert noun analysis (cont.)

The AspP can be either an RC modifier or a complement of N.

(28) ‘DVN’ (= N+RC) (29) ‘DVN’ (= AspP complement) VP VP

FP V NP V

AspP F0 AspP N covert N vP Asp F NP vP Asp -sfx -sfx verb covert N verb

Asarina & Hartman (2011) argue that both structures are attested in Uyghur

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 37 / 74 Alternation between covert and overt Ns

Crucial observation:

in ‘nominalization’ use, it is always possible to insert an overt N after the participle

(30) fact, sign, news, time, etc.

→ alternation between covert and overt Ns

Some Ns take participial clauses as RC modifiers, others take them as complements

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 38 / 74 Covert noun analysis: implications

While languages like English can choose between two strategies: that-clauses and NCCs, Uyghur non-finite embedding is of the latter type (with either overt or covert N)

NB: According to Asarina & Hartman (2011), (c)overt Ns combine with the participial clause either in RC or complement configuration

Asarina (2011) analyses all participial clauses as complements of nouns, but proposes that participial clauses are extraposed to Spec,DP to account for their surface position (pp. 221–223)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 39 / 74 ‘Nominalizations’ in Uyghur

Nominalized Ptcp: the covert N freely alternates with an overt lexical N.

(31) Ötkür [Tursun-n1N tamaq yi-gen] (heqiqet)-i-ni Ötkür Tursun-gen food eat-asp fact-poss:3sg-acc bil-i-du / di-d-i. know-impf-3 say-pst-3 ‘Ötkür knows/said (the fact) that Tursun ate food.’ [Uyghur] (Asarina & Hartman 2011)

NB: Asarina & Hartman (2011) analyze this participle as a complement of N (it can feature the -liq complementizer of complement clauses)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 40 / 74 ‘Nominalizations’ in Uyghur

Non-nominalized Ptcp: the covert N freely alternates with an overt lexical N.

(32) [Sem ket-ken] (waqit)-d1n kijin, men tamaq you leave-asp time-abl after I food ji-d-im. eat-pst-1sg After you left, I ate. (Asarina & Hartman 2011)

Idiosyncratic restrictions are the same for overt Ns and their covert counterparts → supports the covert N analysis

NB: while the participle lacks a gap, Asarina & Hartman (2011) analyze it as an RC (it cannot feature the -liq complementizer of complement clauses) NB2: Their analysis only relies on the (lexical) restrictions of Ns; Ps don’t impose restrictions on the type of clause they combine with

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 41 / 74 ‘Nominalizations’ in Uyghur: linearization

With a covert N, the obligatory nominal suffixes (Poss, Case) attach to the linearly adjacent non-finite verb at PF

(33) Ötkür [Tursun-n1N tamaq yi-gen] (heqiqet) -i-ni Ötkür Tursun-gen food eat-asp fact-poss:3sg-acc bil-i-du. know-impf-3 ‘Ötkür knows (the fact) that Tursun ate food.’ (Asarina & Hartman 2011)

With a covert N, the obligatory nominal suffixes (Poss, Case) attach to the linearly adjacent non-finite verb at PF

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 42 / 74 Mixed projections vs covert Ns

Identical strings, different underlying representations

(34) ‘DVN’: participle + covert N (35) DVN: mixed projection DP DP

NP D AspP D -(poss)-case -poss-case AspP N vP Asp covert N -sfx VP Asp verb -sfx verb

both: V-sfx-(poss)-case

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 43 / 74 Complement clauses in Kazym Khanty

Kazym Khanty employs the same type of DVNs as Uyghur, but it has no covert Ns.

" An overt, semantically light and morphologically defective N (wer ‘deed’, cf. Starchenko 2019) must fill the N position.

(36) [ń0w nEmasija Xot losit-@m] wEr-ń ma he deliberately house dismantle-nfin.pst deed-3sg I w8-s-Em know-npst[3sg] ‘I know he has deliberately dismantled the house.’ (Starchenko 2019)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 44 / 74 Against a covert N analysis for Udmurt

There is an alternation bw. overt and covert Ns, but only for certain object Ns (Dékány & Georgieva 2020).

No overt N ‘fact’ or ‘event’ exists in the first place.

Thus, no overt N corresponding to ‘fact’ or ‘event’ can appear next to DVNs, and our criterion of alternation is not met.

The covert N analysis would not explain the difference in Ins/Gen marking on the subject

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 45 / 74 Against a covert N analysis for Udmurt

Mixed projections cannot appear with predicates like true/false; these predicates require NP arguments, possibly comprising a covert N with a clausal complement (see Moulton 2020 and references therein)

(37) a. #Bo(’s) arriving early is just plain false. b. [Lo de que María compró una casa] es falso. the of that Maria bought a house is false ‘That Maria bought a house is false.’ [Spanish]

Udmurt DVNs pattern after English gerunds → no covert N is present: (38) [Kol’a-len tolon kik pispu mertt-em-ez] ˘ Kolya-gen yesterday two tree.acc plant-asp-poss:3sg šońer evel. ˘ ˘ true neg.cop *‘That Kolya planted two trees yesterday is just plain false.’

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 46 / 74 Against a covert N analysis for MST

Two strategies in MST:

1 DVNs

(39) Ben [Hasan-ın gel-diğ-in]-i bil-iyor-um. I Hasan-gen come-dik-poss:3sg-acc know-prs-1sg ‘I know that Hasan came.’ [DVN]

2 DVNs as complements of overt Ns like ‘fact’, ‘news’, ‘rumor’, etc.

(40) Ben [Hasan-ın gel-diğ-in] gerçeğin-i I Hasan-gen come-dik-poss:3sg fact-acc bil-iyor-um. know-prs-1sg ‘I know the fact that Hasan came.’ [DVN+overt N = NCC]

(Kornfilt 2003: 181)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 47 / 74 Against a covert N analysis for MST

Question: can DVNs be analysed on a par with Uyghur, i.e., alternating with a covert N?

(41)[ DP [Asp+P [vP ] ] ] ‘mixed extended projection’ (Kornfilt 2003)

or

(42)[ NP [DP [Asp+P [vP ] ] ] covert N ] ‘covert N analysis’ (Lees 1965; Aygen 2011)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 48 / 74 Against a covert N analysis for MST

Empirical arguments against this analysis: DVNs and NCCs differ wrt and syntactic distribution (see Kornfilt 2003)

Subjects of emotive predicates can be only NCCs, but not DVNs:

(43) [Ali-nin ev-den kaç-tığ-ı] *(söylentisi) Ali-gen home-abl escape-dik-poss:3sg rumor ben-i üz-dü. I-acc sadden-pst.3sg ‘The rumor of Ali’s running away from home saddened me.’ (Kornfilt 2003: 187-188)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 49 / 74 Revising our analysis of DVNs in MST

The diagnostics used by Kornfilt (2003) do indeed show that DVNs behave differently from (non-finite) NCCs.

Our analysis, however, cannot explain the different distribution with emotives: DVNs are DPs, thus, they are expected to occur in argument position.

The decomposition analysis of -dik: if we assume a CP layer, the distributional restrictions of DVNs could be tied to the C head. NB: Kornfilt (2003) analyses the suffix as monomorphemic, hosted in M(ood)P, but a CP is present in the structure.

Thus, MST DVNs could be analysed as CP-nominalizations. NB: Grimshaw (2000) argues that a DP cannot immediately dominate a CP; CP-nominalizations are advocated by Kornfilt & Whitman (2011), and Pietraszko (2019) for Bantu.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 50 / 74 Puzzling data

Unlike in Udmurt, Turkish DVNs can be used with predicates like true/false:

(44) [Hasan-ın gel-diğ-i] doğru değil. Hasan-gen come-dik-poss:3sg true not ‘Hasan’s coming/having come is not true.’ (Kelepir 2001: 14)

Suggestive of a covert N?

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 51 / 74 Conclusion

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 52 / 74 Conclusion

We presented three ways in which the participle-nominalizer polysemy might arise: ‚ bare pRC + mixed projection for DVN Udmurt

ƒ nominalized pRC + mixed projection for DVN Modern Standard Turkish

„ ‘DVN’ projected from a covert N head Uyghur

NB: This typology relies on 2 parameters

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 53 / 74 Towards a typology

Type ‚ Type ƒ Type „ Type Udmurt MST Uyghur Nominalized pRC   /  Argument mixed nmlz    

Type ‚ and ƒ minimally differ wrt their pRCs Type is not expected to be attested: if a language employs nominalized pRCs, then these would also be used as arguments as nominalized pRCs are, in effect, mixed projections. pRCs in Uyghur (Type „) are problematic, see the Appendix

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 54 / 74 Thank you for your attention!

We would like to thank our Udmurt consultants, Ekaterina Suntsova and Yulia Speshilova, for sharing their language with us. We are also grateful to Sercan Karakaş for providing us Turkish examples, and Eszter Ótott-Kovács for the discussion of Turkic data. This research has been supported by the research projects “Nominal Structures in ” (NKFI FK 125206) and “Implications of endangered Uralic languages for syntactic theory and the history of Hungarian” (NKFI KKP 129921).

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 55 / 74 Appendix

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 56 / 74 Against an adjectival treatment of the shared suffix

Some approaches take pRCs to be outwardly adjectival: [aP a [VP]]

This makes sense for languages exhibiting adjectival on participles, or where all N-modifiers show A-morphology

But this does not happen in our languages

Typical argumentation: i) participles, like adjectives, can be used as complements of the compula, ii) prenominal N-modifiers are adjectives, participles are prenominal N-modifiers → they are adjectives

That all prenominal N-modifiers have the morphology and distribtuion of adjectives is demonstrably not true cross-linguistically

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 57 / 74 Motivating the Asp label

In Udmurt, -m-clauses are mostly anterior to the assertion/topic time in contrast with -n-clauses which express a posterior event → relative time, i.e., aspect (anterior vs. prospective)

(45) Tolon Maša no Pet’a [buskel’-zi-leś ˘ yesterday Masha and Petya neighbor-poss:3pl-abl kućapi baśt-em-zi] śariś veraśk-i-zi. ˘ ˘ ˘ puppy.acc buy-asp-poss:3pl about talk-pst-3pl ‘Yesterday, Masha and Petya talked about how they had bought a puppy from their neighbor.’ (Georgieva 2018: 124)

" EV-T (= buying) AST-T (= yesterday) UT-T

These clauses are mostly used with Ps that express a situation anterior to the matrix event, e.g., bere ‘after’ (see Brykina & Aralova 2012, for exceptions see Georgieva 2018: 55-56)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 58 / 74 Motivating the Asp label (cont.)

Possible counterexamples in Udmurt: the contrast in (45) is observed only with some Ps; other Ps allow for both -m- and -n-clauses with no difference in meaning (Georgieva 2018) DVNs selected by verbs of perception have a simultaneous reading (Serdobolskaya et al. 2012)

Asarina (2011: 80-83) argues for Uyghur that (i) the suffix is ambiguous in RCs (present or past/perfective interpretation with stative verbs; past interpretation with non-stative verbs); (ii) present, past or future interpretations are possible in nominalizations with non-stative verbs

Most of these exceptions fall into well-known tendencies: complements of perception verbs do not have independent temporal reference cross-linguistically (cf. Noonan 2007) (finite) RCs can be anchored to either UT-T or Ast-T (cf. Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria 2007)

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 59 / 74 pRCs with genitive subjects

A highly debated type of pRCs: Gen-NP V-ptcp head N-poss

No consensus in the literature: (i) whether the Gen-NP is a subject or a possessor; (ii) whether it is RC-internal; (iii) non- of agreement (Kornfilt 2005, 2015; Laszakovits 2019; Ótott-Kovács 2020; Satık 2020, a.o.)

We show that in Udmurt, Gen-NPs are possessors, not subjects

We compare these findings with Kazakh and Uyghur

→ the ‘Gen-NP V-ptcp head N-poss’ pattern should be investigated on a case-by-case basis; cannot possibly be given a uniform account?

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 60 / 74 pRCs with "genitive subjects" in Udmurt

It has been claimed in the literature that pRCs can have genitive subjects, with a possessive agreement suffix cross-referencing the subject’s φ-features appears on the head noun

(46) [Pet’a-len tue mertt-em] pispu-ez umoj Petya-gen this.year plant-asp tree-poss:3sg well bude. grow.prs.3sg ‘The tree planted by Petya this year is growing well.’ (Georgieva 2018: 60)

(see Kalinina 2001; Serdobolskaya et al. 2012; Brykina & Aralova 2012; see also Georgieva 2018: 57–62) these look like nominalized pRCs; non-local agreement!

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 61 / 74 pRCs with "genitive subjects" (cont.)

Proposal: Gen-NP is actually a possessor (Dékány & Georgieva 2020) (base-generated in Spec,DP; pragmatic/syntactic linking between Gen-NP and the null subject of pRC)

Evidence in favor of this:

Œ Ambiguity: possessor reading is also available → an underspecified relationship between the possessor and the possessee (Williams 1981); can be understood as agentivity/actorhood (Kratzer 1996)

 Constraints with inanimate NPs (with Cause thematic role): can be neither possessors nor "Gen subjects" of pRCs

Ž Order of modifiers: "Gen subjects" are not inside the RC

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 62 / 74 Order of modifiers

Baseline in Udmurt

(47) Possessor > Dem > pRC > Num > Adj > N

Gen NP inside the pRC is degraded

(48) Pet’a-len ta [tue ??Pet’a-len mertt-em] Petya-gen this this.year Petya-gen plant-asp pispu-ez umoj bude. tree-poss:3sg well grow.prs.3sg ‘This tree planted by Petya this year is growing well.’ (Dékány & Georgieva 2020)

→ Gen NP is a garden-variety possessor!

NB: Ins-subjects are fine inside the pRC!

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 63 / 74 pRCs with genitive subjects in Kazakh/Uyghur?

Kazakh and Uyghur allow for two types of pRCs: (i) Nom subject + no agreement (cf. (26) from Uyghur) (ii) Gen subject + agreement on head N

(49) [Ötkür-n1ŋ oqu-Kan] kitav-i ozun. Ötkür-gen read-asp book-poss.3sg long The book that Ötkür read is long. (Asarina 2011: 78)

Importantly, (49) is different from what we find in MST pRCs: Poss sfx is found on the participle in MST (cf. (23)), but on the head N in Kazakh/Uyghur.

From the perspective of the typology proposed here, if it turned out that in type (ii), the Gen-NP is a possessor, Kazakh would be classified as a Type ‚ language, and Uyghur would be a "well-behaved" Type „ language.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 64 / 74 Kazakh pRCs

Ótott-Kovács (2020) argues that Gen-NPs are possessors in Kazakh.

Several diagnostics: possessors and "Gen subjects" cannot co-occur constraints with proper nouns paralellism with possessives (‘possessive-free genitives’ in pRCs) restrictions with relational Ns constraints with inanimate/non-agentive NPs (Ótott-Kovács 2019) NPI-subjects of pRCs

Gen-NP can be preceded by (pRC-internal) adjuncts, tough.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 65 / 74 Uyghur (nominalized) pRCs

Gen-NP appears inside the RC in Uyghur: it can be preceded by RC-internal (see Asarina 2011)

(50) [xeqiqi Ajgül-niŋ jaz-Kan] kitiv-i-ni truly Aygül-gen write-asp book-poss.3sg-acc korset! show.imp.2sg ‘Show (me) the book that Aygül truly wrote!’ (Asarina 2011: 98)

→ Analysing the Gen-NP as a possessor is problematic

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 66 / 74 References

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: nominalization, and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordăchioaia & Florian Schäfer. 2011. Scaling the variation in Romance and Germanic nominalizations. In Harry Perridon & Petra Sleeman (eds.), The in Romance and Germanic: Structure, variation and change, 25–40. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Arsenijević, Boban. 2009. Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua 119(1). 39–50. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.003. Asarina, Alya. 2011. Case in Uyghur and beyond: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Asarina, Alya & Jeremy Hartman. 2011. Uyghur Genitive Subjects and the Phase Impenetrability Condition. In Andrew Simpson (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL7) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 62), 17–31. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Assmann, Anke, Svetlana Edygarova, Doreen Georgi, Timo Klein & Philipp Weisser. 2014. Case Stacking below the surface: On the possessor case alternation in Udmurt. The Linguistic Review 31(3–4). 447–485. Aygen, Gulsat. 2011. Reduced relatives and the location of agreement. California Linguistic Notes XXXVI(1).

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 67 / 74 References (cont.)

Belikova, Alyona. 2008. Syntactically challenged rather than reduced: Participial relatives revisited. In Susie Jones (ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–15. online publication: Canadian Linguistic Association. Borer, Hagit. 1997. The morphology- interface: a study of autonomy. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Martin Prinzhorn & John Rennison (eds.), Advances in morphosyntax (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 97), 5–30. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Borsley, Robert D. & Jaklin Kornfilt. 2000. Mixed extended projections. In Robert D. Borsley (ed.), The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, 101–131. Leiden: Brill. Brykina, Maria & Natalia Aralova. 2012. Sistemy prichastii v marijskom i permskih yazykah. In Ariadna I. Kuznecova (ed.), Finno-ugorskie jazyki: fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisanija. Formal’nyj i funkcional’nyj podxody, 476–521. Moskva: Rukopisnye pamjatniki drevnej Rusi. de Cuba, Carlos. 2017. Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers. Glossa 2(1). 1–46. Dékány, Éva & Ekaterina Georgieva. 2020. Three ways of unifying participles and nominalizations: the case of Udmurt. In Artemis Alexiadou & Hagit Borer (eds.), Nominalizations: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks, 169–202. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Demirdache, Hamida & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 117(2). 330–366. Doron, Edit & Chris H. Reintges. 2005. On the syntax of participial modification. Ms., Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 68 / 74 References (cont.)

Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3). 355–392. F. Gulyás, Nikolett & Yulia Speshilova. 2014. Impersonals and passives in contemporary Udmurt. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 38. 59–91. Georgieva, Ekaterina. 2018. Non-finite adverbial clauses in Udmurt: University of Szeged dissertation. Georgieva, Ekaterina & Eszter Ótott-Kovács. 2016. Nem véges alárendelői mellékmondatok a Volga-vidéki nyelvi areában. In Zsuzsanna Gécseg (ed.), LingDok 15, 51–67. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem. Göksel, Aslı. 2001. The ol at the morphology–syntax interface. In Eser Erguvanlı Taylan (ed.), The Verb in Turkish, 151–182. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Göksel, AslI & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Peter Coopmans, Martin B. H. Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 115–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gürer, Aslı. 2015. Semantic, prosodic and syntactic marking of information structural units in Turkish: Boğaziçi University dissertation. Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 69 / 74 References (cont.)

Hale, Ken. 2002. On the Dagur Object Relative: Some Comparative Notes. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(2). 109–122. Hazout, Ilan. 2001. Predicate formation: The case of participial relatives. The Linguistic Review 18(2). 97–123. doi:10.1515/tlir.18.2.97. Kalinina, Lyudmila I. 2001. Prichastija i prichastnyje konstrukcii v udmurtskom jazyke. Izhevsk: Izdatelskij dom Udmurtskij universitet. Kelepir, Meltem. 2001. Topics in Turkish Syntax: Clausal Structure and Scope: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2000. Some Syntactic and Morphological Properties of Relative Clauses in Turkish. In Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses, 121–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2001. On the syntax and morphology of clausal complements and adjuncts in the Turkic languages. In Walter Bisang (ed.), Aspects of typology and universals, 63–82. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In Uwe Junghanns & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information, 129–216. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 70 / 74 References (cont.)

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. Agreement and its placement in Turkic nonsubject relative clauses. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 513–541. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2015. Turkish relative clauses: how exceptional are they from a Central Asian Turkic perspective? In Öner Özçelik & Amber Kennedy Kent (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics (ConCALL -1) vol. 1, 3–24. Indiana University: CeLCAR. Kornfilt, Jaklin & Omer Preminger. 2015. Nominative as no case at all: an argument from raising-to-accusative in Sakha. In Andrew Joseph & Esra Predolac (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL9), 109–120. Cambrdige, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121(7). 1297–1313. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Jonathan Rooryck & Laurie Ann Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the , 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitsdaya, Alyssa B. Wulf & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 385–399. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, University of California.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 71 / 74 References (cont.)

Krause, Cornelia. 2001. On reduced relatives with genitive subjects: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Laszakovits, Sabine. 2019. On possessed relative clauses in Kyrgyz. In Tatiana Bondarenko, Colin Davis, Justin Colley & Dmitry Privozonov (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 14), 157–168. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lees, Robert B. 1965. Turkish norninalizations and a problem of ellipsis. Foundations of Language 1(2). 112–121. Moulton, Keir. 2020. Remarks on propositional nominalization. In Artemis Alexiadou & Hagit Borer (eds.), Nominalizations: 50 years on from Chomsky’s Remarks, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Noonan, Michael. 2007. Complementation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 2: Complex Constructions, 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ótott-Kovács, Eszter. 2016. The syntax of non-finite clauses in Kazakh: University of Szeged dissertation.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 72 / 74 References (cont.)

Ótott-Kovács, Eszter. 2019. Genitive-marked subjects in Kazakh relative clauses. Talk at Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 15, Lomonosov Moscow State University, September 2019. Ótott-Kovács, Eszter. 2020. Restrictions on genitive subjects in Kazakh relative clauses. In Bilge Palaz & Larson Stromdahl (eds.), Proceedings of TU+5, 110–124. Linguistic Society of America. doi:https://doi.org/10.3765/ptu.v5i1.4786. Pietraszko, Asia. 2019. Obligatory CP Nominalization in Ndebele. Syntax 22(1). 66–111. Satık, Deniz. 2020. Turkic genitive case and agreement asymmetries. Ms., Harvard Universtiy. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004981. Serdobolskaya, Natalia & Denis Paperno. 2006. The polysemy of relativizing and nominalizing markers. Ms., Moscow Municipal University for Psychology and Pedagogics & Moscow State University. Serdobolskaya, Natalia V., Anfisa A. Ilyevskaya, Sergey A. Minor, Polina S. Miteva, Aleksandra V. Fainveits & Natalia S. Matveeva. 2012. Konstrukcii s sentencial’nymi aktantami v finno-ugorskix jazykax. In Ariadna I. Kuznetsova (ed.), Finno-ugorskie jazyki: fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisaniya. Formal’nyj i funkcional’nyj podxody (Studia Philologica), 382–476. Moskva: Rukopisnye pamyatniki drevney Rusi. Shagal, Ksenia. 2018. Participial systems in Uralic languages: an overview. ESUKA - JEFUL 9(1). 55–84.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 73 / 74 References (cont.)

Siloni, Tal. 1995. On participial relatives and complementizer D: a case study in Hebrew and French. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 445–487. doi:10.1007/BF00992738. Starchenko, Aleksey. 2019. Periphrastic nominalization in Kazym Khanty. Talk at Syntax of Uralic Languages 3, Tartu, June 2019. Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review 1(1). 81–114.

Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 74 / 74