40 лет Санкт-Петербургской типологической школе

From the preceding examples, it is clear that the aspectual properties of the participle can change according to the construction. Examples (7a) and (7b) are of the descriptive type and code the state of the entity. As in (6a), the participle behaves like an adjective, but of verbal nature, and which with the auxiliary constitutes a syntactic predicate. Thus, it seems difficult to speak of the «orientation» of a participle. On the other hand, (7c) belongs to the domain of passivisation, even though the agent is not specified: the participle is oriented toward the patient of the basic transitive verb. The comparison between examples (7b) et (7c) merits special attention as it shows how the adjunction of a coordinated participle (popravena «(is) repaired») leads to the transformation, as noted by Maslov [1988: 77], of the stative meaning of the completive če e sčupena that we identified in (5a) as «an actional passive perfect» («had been broken and repaired»). Thus, the auxiliary transforms the resultative participle into a verbal unit (a passive verb) which functions as a one-place predicate [Desclés & Guentcéva 1993: 91].

If this type of syntactic condition is not limited to Russian, as Maslov[19] affirmed, the data show that the interpretation of a given construction with — n/-t is always context dependant. This can be illustrated with two Russian examples borrowed from [Knjazev 1988:344]:

(8a) My dvaždyj prošli mimo levogo bašennogo kryla zamka….

Vpervyj raz okna byli zakry-t-y.

windows were close.PF-PPP-PL

«We passed twice by the left tower wing of the castle. The first time the windows were shut».

(8b) Rita noč'ju zatejala ssoru: trebovala zakryt' okno….

Takprepiralis' dolgo, i Rita, razumeetsja, vzjala verx:

okno bylo zakry-t-o.

window was close.PF-PPP-SG.NEUTER

«At night Rita began a quarrel insisting that the window should be shut. They carried on for a long time and it was Rita who had the upper hand: the window was shut».

According to Knjazev, in (8a) the construction okna byli zakryty «the windows were shut» is an objective resultative, whereas in (8b) the construction okno bylo zakryto «the window was shut» is an actional passive. In other words, the construction in (8a) has the meaning of a state and implies: a) on the semantic level, one participant only about which a contingent property is predicated through the past passive participle; b) on the syntactic level, the structure is of the predicative type where the predicate, even though it has the form of a past passive participle, has the status of an adjectival determiner. On the other hand, the construction in (8b) has the meaning of a resultative state having, on the semantic level, three characteristics [DesclSs & GuentcMva 1993: 91]: 1. it implies a preceding event and the existence of an agent (specified or not); 2. it determines a property of the patient; 3. the property is not necessarily contingent upon the implied preceding event. On the syntactic level, the auxiliary operates on the past passive participle, associated with an abstract passive predicate which includes the notion of an unspecified agent, in view of its transformation into a verbal unit [ibid].

The resultative state, which I have just defined, must not be confused with the resultant state. Indeed, in languages such as Bulgarian, where there is an overt expression of the perfect (9b) and of a periphrastic passive (9a), these two notions are clearly distinguished:

(9a) Otvori čekmedžeto i razbra: parite

open.PF.AOR drawer.the and understand.PF-AOR money.PL bjaxa otkradnati.

was steal.PF.PPP

«He opened the drawer and understood: the money had been stolen».

(9b) Otvori čekmedžeto i razbra: bjaxa

open.PF-AOR drawer.the and understand.PF.AOR were

otkradnali parite

steal.PF.APP.PL money.PL

«He opened the drawer and understood: someone had stolen the money».