Volume 56, Issue 3 - Special Issue: Multifunctionality and syncretism in non-finite forms; Guest Editors: Ksenia Shagal, Pavel Rudnev and Anna Volkova

This article is an introduction to a collection of papers discussing the identity of form and diversity of function in non-finite verb forms from a variety of perspectives. We start by illustrating the phenomenon and introducing the main functions that non-finite forms can have in the languages of the world. We provide a concise typological overview of the attested combinations of these functions and show how and to what extent these patterns are reflected in the traditional labels, such as participles, converbs, verbal nouns, and infinitives. We briefly discuss the main approaches to the phenomenon under study that have been proposed within both functional and formal frameworks. Finally, we provide a summary of the papers comprising this Special Issue, highlighting the perspectives adopted in the individual contributions.

This contribution addresses the general theme of Multifunctionality and syncretism in non-finite forms . When we see a particular form in a number of different environments yielding different effects, what does it mean to say that this reflects multifunctionality rather than syncretism? As a refinement of multifunctionality the notion of ‘multi-effectuality’ is introduced: one element participates in different derivations, performing one and the same operation, but yields different interpretive effects depending on the environment . The analysis takes as a starting point the role of the affix -en in Dutch. The canonical view is that when attached to a verb stem, -en functions either as an infinitival marker or as a nominalizing affix. It is shown that this view cannot be maintained. The “functions” of -en are unified by analyzing it as projecting an ‘eventuality expression’, with different effects depending on the syntactic environment. The analysis is extended to English, focusing on the contrasts between Dutch and English infinitives and on the role of the English -ing affix in gerunds and participles. The discussion proceeds with an analysis of Frisian with its two forms of the infinitive and concludes with some reflections on the relation between syntactic and semantic categories.

The paper proposes a constructionist analysis of two highly syncretic non-finite forms in Irish, traditionally referred to as the verbal noun (VN) and the verbal adjective (VA). The VN can fulfil the function of the infinitive, the ‘present participle’ in the periphrastic progressive, the argument supporting (AS) nominal and the R(eferential)-nominal. The VA can function as the passive participle in periphrastic passives/resultatives, the ‘passive’ adjective, the active participle (showing further syncretism with the genitive of VN) and the ‘active’ adjective. The basic idea is that the two syncretic forms receive a unified analysis (i.e. same structure). The VN is viewed as a kind of “elsewhere” realization of [vP[Root]] in all contexts except for [T fin [VoiceP [vP [Root]]]]. VA spell-out is implemented when the morphosyntactic bundle carries no features that positively define the input as verbal or nominal. The height of affix attachment is indicative of the type of participle involved. Verbal passive/perfective participles and corresponding adjectives embed the external argument introducing projection (VoiceP), whereas active verbal participles and adjectives lack it. The extensive multifunctionality and syncretism in Irish seem to be closely linked to the lack of the AspP layer in the structure of non-finite verbs, nominals and adjectives as well as the lack of overt transitivizing morphology.

This paper investigates non-finite forms in Kazym Khanty (Ob-Ugric, Uralic). In Khanty, almost all subordination makes use of one of the two non-finite forms: -ti ( nfin.npst ) or - əm ( nfin.pst ). We propose that their uses are best treated under the headings ‘bare non-finites, ‘head-agreement non-finites’, and ‘verb-agreement non-finites’. The three classes are defined based on the subject agreement pattern used in non-finite constructions. Different syntactic tests, such as interaction with argument alternations, island effects, and adverbial modification, are used to show the morphosyntactic nature of the classification. The three classes differ in the amount of functional structure they involve: bare non-finites can vary from v P to TP, head-agreement non-finites are of AspP–TP size, and verb-agreement non-finites are CPs dominated by a nominal shell. The findings support both Givón’s Binding Hierarchy and the Implicational Complementation Hierarchy proposed by Wurmbrand and Lohninger, showing that both are also true for languages where all the subordination is done by means of a single form. We also discuss the Khanty data in light of Cristofaro’s Subordination Deranking Hierarchy and argue that the amount of functional structure does not correlate with the degree of deranking/balancing of the embedded clause.

In Jê languages, verbs appear in a non-finite form that fulfills a double function: licensing marked TAME semantics in main clauses, and licensing embedded clauses. However, the Panará language lost its non-finite verbal form. This paper examines Panará verbs from both a synchronic and diachronic angle, and in a broader comparative approach with regards to the morphosyntactic behaviour of verbs in the other Jê languages. The main claim is that the non-finite forms prevalent in the Jê family underwent a reanalysis in Panará, resulting in fully finite clauses in all environments.

Non-finite verbs in Turkic are typically categorised as participles, converbs, and sometimes infinitives, with multiple uses of a form within one category considered to constitute multiple functions. This multifunctionality approach predicts that all non-finite verb forms within each of the categories should have the same range of syntactic functions. We show that this is not the case. Based on analysis of a representative set of Turkic languages (Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Sakha, Tatar, Turkish, and Tuvan), we propose a categorisation based on morphological and syntactic properties of non-finite verbs, resulting in four categories: verbal nouns, verbal adjectives, verbal adverbs, and infinitives. Under this approach, forms that are typically labelled as participles end up categorised as verbal nouns, verbal adjectives, or both, and forms that are typically labelled as converbs end up categorised as verbal adverbs, infinitives, or both. Some forms even span these two divisions. When a non-finite verb form appears to exist in multiple categories, we consider this to be a case of syncretism; this is, there is a member of one category that has the same form as a member of another category. We propose historical trajectories that may have led to the types of situations that are attested, examine the limitations of this approach, and discuss its wider implications.