{"title":"古特尼西被动式","authors":"Erik M. Petzell","doi":"10.1017/s0332586524000027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Gutnish-specific <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>-passive combines <jats:sc>be</jats:sc> or <jats:sc>become</jats:sc> with a participle, directly followed by the element <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>. Unlike regular periphrastic passives, <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>-passives focus on the process rather than the result, opening up the construction for unergatives, which are unattested in the regular type. However, <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>-passives are quite limited when it comes to the subject. Internal arguments can only become subjects if they strand a preposition or a particle. Otherwise, the subject is expletive. I argue that <jats:italic>si</jats:italic> is part of the participle ending in Asp<jats:sup>o</jats:sup>, where its phi-features block agreement with the internal argument, trapping it <jats:italic>in situ</jats:italic> and depriving Asp<jats:sup>o</jats:sup> of a link to the result of the event. Originally a reflexive, <jats:italic>si</jats:italic> was reanalysed as a marker of the participle rather than the infinitive in contexts where conjugational changes had made them ambiguous. These changes never affected Fårö, where the <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>-passive is thus correctly predicted to be absent.","PeriodicalId":43203,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Linguistics","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Gutnish si-passive\",\"authors\":\"Erik M. Petzell\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0332586524000027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Gutnish-specific <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>-passive combines <jats:sc>be</jats:sc> or <jats:sc>become</jats:sc> with a participle, directly followed by the element <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>. Unlike regular periphrastic passives, <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>-passives focus on the process rather than the result, opening up the construction for unergatives, which are unattested in the regular type. However, <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>-passives are quite limited when it comes to the subject. Internal arguments can only become subjects if they strand a preposition or a particle. Otherwise, the subject is expletive. I argue that <jats:italic>si</jats:italic> is part of the participle ending in Asp<jats:sup>o</jats:sup>, where its phi-features block agreement with the internal argument, trapping it <jats:italic>in situ</jats:italic> and depriving Asp<jats:sup>o</jats:sup> of a link to the result of the event. Originally a reflexive, <jats:italic>si</jats:italic> was reanalysed as a marker of the participle rather than the infinitive in contexts where conjugational changes had made them ambiguous. These changes never affected Fårö, where the <jats:italic>si</jats:italic>-passive is thus correctly predicted to be absent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Journal of Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Journal of Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0332586524000027\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0332586524000027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
古特尼什特有的 si-passive 将 be 或 become 与分词结合在一起,分词后直接跟 si 元素。与普通的谓语动词不同,si-受动词注重的是过程而不是结果,这就使得该结构可以使用在普通类型中没有出现过的单格动词。不过,si-旁助词在主语方面有相当大的限制。内部分词只有在与介词或谓语动词相连时才能成为主语。否则,主语就是语气词。我认为,si 在 Aspo 中是分词词尾的一部分,它的 phi 特征阻碍了与内部论据的一致,使它被困在原地,并剥夺了 Aspo 与事件结果的联系。si 原本是一个反身词,在连接词变化使其变得模糊的情况下,被重新分析为分词而不是不定式的标记。这些变化从未影响到 Fårö,因此在 Fårö中,si-被动被正确地预测为不存在。
The Gutnish-specific si-passive combines be or become with a participle, directly followed by the element si. Unlike regular periphrastic passives, si-passives focus on the process rather than the result, opening up the construction for unergatives, which are unattested in the regular type. However, si-passives are quite limited when it comes to the subject. Internal arguments can only become subjects if they strand a preposition or a particle. Otherwise, the subject is expletive. I argue that si is part of the participle ending in Aspo, where its phi-features block agreement with the internal argument, trapping it in situ and depriving Aspo of a link to the result of the event. Originally a reflexive, si was reanalysed as a marker of the participle rather than the infinitive in contexts where conjugational changes had made them ambiguous. These changes never affected Fårö, where the si-passive is thus correctly predicted to be absent.