1. The past participle
(Derivation)
The past participle is marked by the morpheme /-en/ which is represented by a number of allomorphs. The productive allomorphs are the phonologically conditioned allomorphs /d/, /t/, and /id/, e.g. played, talked, faded.
Unproductive allomorphs of the past participle morpheme are as follows:
the suffix –en, e.g. taken, given, forgotten
the suffix –n, e.g. known, seen
the replacive morph (морф замещения), i.e. vowel interchange, e.g. sung (sing), found (from find)
the replacive morph+ the suffix, e.g. written (from write), told (from tell)
the zero exponent (morph), e.g. put, set, let, cut.
The past participle is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective.
The past participle has no paradigm. By way of paradigmatic correlation with the present participle, it conveys implicitly the categorical meaning of the perfect and the passive. Perfectness and passivity are not expressed morphologically, that is, by a special morpheme. That’s why participle 2 is not represented by a number forms making up private oppositions, in which the meaning of one member (the unmarked one) is expressed by the meaningful absence of the morpheme (by the zero morph) and the meaning of the other member (the marked one) is expressed by a specialized grammatical morpheme. The meaning of perfectness and passivity are embedded into the same semantic structure of the past participle being its intrinsic grammatical characteristics. Thanks to this participle 2 is employed by other verbal forms (both finite, like has made, have made, had made, am invented, is proposed, are bought, was rescued, were found, has been worked out, are being designed; and non-finite, like to have written, to be designed, to be being discussed, to have been developed, having done, having been asked, being invited) to form their paradigm and to express their categorical meanings of perfectness and passivity. Thus, there appeared a peculiar correlation between the past participles and other non-finites as far as the paradigm of the present participle, the gerund and the infinitive are concerned: the past participle is included into their structural formations
e.g. having taken, to have taken (the perfect active)
e.g. being taken, to be taken (the simple passive)
e.g. to be being taken (the continuous passive)
e.g. having been taken, to have been taken (the perfect passive)
The past participle serves as the qualifying-processual name.
The verb-type combinability of the past participle is revealed in its being combined with:
nouns/pronouns expressing the grammatical passive subject of the action (it happens in semi-predicative complexes the “complex object” and the absolute participial construction, the passive subject denotes the actual object of the action, as it is in sentences with the passive predicate)
e.g. the dog heard his name pronounced through the open door.
nouns/pronouns expressing the actual subject of the action which is introduced by the prepositions by or with
e.g. Accompanied by his father, he entered the room.
modifying adverbs
e.g. they turned into a narrow alley beautifully lit up with Chinese lamps.
The adjective-type combinability of the past participle is revealed in its being combined with:
nouns which the past participle modifies acting as the postpositive or prepositive attribute
e.g. he answered through the locked door (the prepositive attribute)
e.g. they turned into a narrow alley beautifully lit up with Chinese lamps.(postpositive attribute)
link-verbs after which the past participle acts the predicative
e.g. the benches are painted here.
Degree adverbs
e.g. Val was very impressed.
When we described the combinability of the present participle we mentioned its adverb-type combinability of the present participle which is revealed in its being combined with the modified verbs.
e.g. he walked thinking about the problems he faced.
As far as the past participle is concerned, grammarians’ opinions differ: not all of then admit that the past participle has adverbial features. Among those who admit it are the authors of the practical grammar of English, В.Л. Каушанская and others. Rhey write of the past participle’s employment as an adverbial modifier which means that the past participle does have adverbial features because the principal adverb’s syntactic functions is that of the adverbial modifier.
e.g. he did it quickly (adverbial modifier of manner)
e.g. he comes here often (adverbial modifier of place)
e.g. when questioned Annie answered vaguely that she was still considering the options (adverbial modifier of time)
e.g. this, if discovered, will ruin us(adverbial modifier of condition)
e.g. he shook his hand as though lost in wonder and love (adverbial modifier of comparison)
e.g. his spirit, through crushed, was not broken (adverbial modifier of concession)
The other syntactic functions of the past participle are distinguished by all grammarians and are those of the attribute and the predicative.
e.g. Maria’s softened look gave him a new hope (the attribute)
e.g. the benches are painted here (the predicate)/
Participle 2 expresses the embedded aspectual meaning of perfectness (completness) of the action/state denoted by the form of participle 1.
The past participle denotes either the priority of the action /state or its simultaneity with the action denoted by the predicate of the sentence.
e.g. First of all she went to the bombed building (participle 2 bombed denotes an action which is prior to “went” and a state which simultaneous with “went”. Grammarians remark that this mixture of the meaning of priority and simultaneity characterize the specific nature of the past participle).
According to М.И. Оссовская, in the compound nominal predicate the meaning of simultaneity comes to the foreground.
e.g. the sun was not yet risen, and the whole of Crescent Bay was hidden under a white sea-mist.
When participle 2 is used as an adverbial modifier, both priority and simultaneity may be expressed.
e.g. this completed, I moved off once more (priority)
e.g. he sat on the sofa, his legs crossed (simultaneity).
Posteriority is not expressed by the past participle.
Speaking about the attribute use of the past participle grammarians remark that the past participle meanings are related to the lexico-grammatical characteristic of the verb which are described as being limtive/ unlimitive (предельные-непредельные).
The attributive past participle of limtive verbs in neutral context expresses priority
e.g. A tree broken by the storm blocked the narrow passage between the cliffs and the water.(A tree had been broken)- paraphrasis
The attributive past participle of unlimtive verbs in neutral context expresses simultaneity
e.g. I saw that the picture admired by the general hardly had a fair chance with the judges. (The picture which was being admired by the public) –paraphrasis
As it was pointed before, the past participle expresses the meaning of passivity. This meaning is especially evident when participle 2 and participle 1 of the same verb are opposed in the same context.
e.g. He is the happy husband adoring and adored.
The passive meaning of participle 2 may be subdivided into 3 types:
Passivity presented as a dynamic characteristic of the passive subject; the meaning of process is expressed. This meaning is expressed by the past participle of such unlimitive objective verbs as watch, carry, speak of, stare at, listen to, laugh at. The past participle is used either attributively or as a participial construction.
e.g. He found himself forcibly steered into the back room of a wine shop.
Passivity presented as a static characteristic of the passive subject; the meaning of state
is expressed. This meaning of state is presented as the result of a previously performed action. This meaning is expressed by the past participle of limitive objective verbs and verbs of the double limitive/unlimitive nature. The past participle may be employed in any of its characteristic syntactical functions.
e.g. The Fada road is finished, the great idea is realized.
Passivity presented as a static characteristic of the passive subject; the meaning of state
is expressed. This meaning of state is not presented as the result of a previously performed action. In this case, human emotions are described. This meaning is expressed by the past participle of objective verbs, e.g. amused, annoyed, surprised, convinced, obliged, and concerned. These participles are believed not to built up verbal forms of the passive voice but the compound nominal predicates, the verb be being not the word-morpheme but the link-verb.
We have been considering the past participle’s expression of the aspectual meaning of perfectness (priority) and the meaning of passivity basing it on the example of objective verbs. The past participle of the majority of such verbs expresses both perfectness and passivity, e.g. the sum paid, the question asked, the letter written.
Participles of non-objective verbs do not show voice distinctions in comparison with participles 1, i.e. both participles 2 and participles 1 express “activity“ ,e.g. the rising sun- the risen sun. P.2 and P.1 of non-objective verbs differ in aspect meanings: P.1 expresses an incomplete, developing action; P.2 renders the meaning of the complete action, e.g. the rotting straw-the rotten straw.
The past participles of non-objective verb are rarely used in independent sentence-part positions. They are mostly included in phraseological or cliché combinations like faded photograph, fallen leaves, a retired officer. Grammarian remark that the past participles of non-objective verbs, which are used outside perfect verbal forms, are mostly verbs denoting motion and development (arrived, come, gone, risen, faded, rotten, retired, fallen).
As any verbid, the past participle is capable of expressing “secondary” and “potential” predication, i.e. it ascribes a processual property to a person or thing. It results in the employment of participle 2 in semi-predicative construction of:
The complex object which is specifically characteristic with verbs of whish and perception.
e.g. I want the documents prepared by 4 p.m.; Will you have my coat brushed up?
The complex subject which is the passive transform of the complex object
e.g. We lay there stretched out and exhausted.
The absolute past participial complex
e.g. the preliminary talks completed, it became possible to concentrate on the central point of the agenda.
Now let us tackle the issue of differentiation between participle 2 and adjectives. Grammarians remark that participles 2 are easily adjectivized and it accounts for the difficulty of differentiation between participles 2 and adjectives. М.И. Оссовская believes that only those units should be considered adjectives which have completely migrated from past participles and now denote permanent qualities, e.g. celebrated=famous, lost=hopeless.
Grammarians are not unanimous in their approach to the so-called compound participles, e.g. self-absorbed, home-made, well-chosen. Some grammarians consider them to be compound adjectives, because there are no such compound verbs as *self-absorbed, *home-made, *well-chosen from which the compound participles might be formed.
М.И. Оссовская treat such combinations as compound participles.
The past participle with the prefix un- can be subdivided into 2 types.
|
The participles of the first type originate from verbs which contain the same prefix un-. e.g. undo-undone, unfold-unfolded. |
The participles of the second type originate from verbs which contain no prefix un-. e.g. finish-finished, hear-heard-unheard.
|
Some participles 2 have parallel forms corresponding to the past participles of strong and weak verbs, e.g. struck-stricken, shrunk-shrunken, drunk-drunken, melted-molten, sunk-sunken. According to М.И. Оссовская, such units as molten, sunken are completely adjectivized. In other cases the forms are used parallelly,
e.g. Suddenly the girl became panic-striken; I was never stage struck.
As adjectives are treated such units which combine with degree adverbs like very, slightly, a little, too, e.g. She is a little upset; he was far too pleased with himself.
The occasional forms of compassion like drunker, tireder also testify to the unit’s being an adjective.
The metaphorical usage of the unit also shows its being an adjective, e.g. an offended look, a grieved air.
В.Я. Плоткин differentiate between 2 homonymous forms which are traditionally called the “past participle”. This differentiation is based on the grammatical foundation. According to В.Я. Плоткин, those forms which are used to built up perfect forms (have made, have forgotten, have read, have played) are different from forms, which are used predicatively and attributively (a broken cup, is invited). The latter are treated as adjectives by В.Я. Плоткин.
В.Я. Плоткин bases his argument on the belief that the form, which is called the past participle, does not express the characteristic verbal meaning of process/action. According to him, such forms express the meaning of state. This state is the result of an action, which may either precede the state described by the form in question (a broken cup, a closed door), or the action may be simultaneous with the resulting state (a man loved and respected).
В.Я. Плоткин believes that the meaning of priority and passivity, which are traditionally ascribed to the past participle are not the invariant meanings of this form. These meanings appear as the result of the interaction of its invariant meaning of state with the lexico-grammatical characteristic of the verb, such as being transitive/intransitive or/and limitive/unlimitive.
According to В.Я. Плоткин, the meaning of state is closer to the adjective’s invariant meaning of quality. The characteristic functioning of participle 2 as the attribute and the predicative also proves its affinity with the adjective.
Other arguments to consider the past participle to be adjectives as follows:
Not all verbs have the past participle forms which may be used predicatively or attributively
e.g. the swum boy, the boy is swum. В.Я. Плоткин stresses that were such forms really verbal and not separate words the would exist for all verbs but modal ones.
Unlike the present participle, the past participle is unable to act as an adverbial modifier
The past participle easily takes the affixes which are taken by adjectives.
e.g. unexpectedly-fully, unbroken-unnecessary, preraredness-whiteness.
The past participle and the adjective share the same stem-building suffixes.
e.g. taken, forgotten, salted.
Л.С. Бархударов does not differentiate between the gerund and the present participle calling them both the “-ing-form”. According to him, the –ing-form and the participle 2, when opposed, express the category of voice-aspectual representation (категория залогово- видовой репрезентации).
Contexts in which the participles appear to be opposed have to be divided into 2 kinds.
The first kind is the context in which the participles of transitive verbs are opposed, e.g. the man doing his work- the work done by the man. The opposition of this kind reveals difference in voice meaning, which is proved by transformation, e.g. the man doing his work (the man who does/did/is doing/ was doing the work), the work done by the man (the work which is/was/has been/had been/done by the man).
The second kind is the context in which the participles if intransitive verbs are opposed, e.g. the ship arriving at the port- the ship arrived at the port. The opposition of this kind reveals difference in aspect meanings, which is proved by transformation, e.g. the ship arriving at the port (the ship which arrives/arrived/is arrived/was arriving at the port), the ship arrived at the port (the ship which has/had arrived at the port).
The third kind is the context in which the passive form of participle 1 and the form of participle 2 of transitive verbs are opposed, e.g. the work being done by the man- the work done by the man. The opposition of this kind reveals difference in aspect meanings, which is proved by transformation, e.g. the work being done by the man (the work which is being done/was being done by the man), the work one by the man (the work which is/was/has been/had been done by a men).
The fourth kind is the context, in which the perfect and non-perfect forms of participle 1 of transitive verbs are opposed, e.g. the man doing the work- the man having done the work. The opposition of this kind reveals difference in aspect meanings. This opposition is neutralized with intransitive verbs, because the perfect form of participle 1 is synonymous to participle 2, e.g. Having arrived at the port, the ship dropped anchor= Arrived at the port, the ship dropped the anchor.