The Aspectual Morpheme as and Feature Movement in Argument Small =
Clauses

	In this paper I deal with the syntactic and semantic nature of the =
particle as in English small clauses (SC) within Chomsky's (1995) =
Minimalist Program, claiming that it generates as head of a hypothetical =
aspectual phrase. The use of this functional head can be seen in the =
following sentence:

	(1) I consider [Peter as intelligent].

	Aarts (1992) classifies this element as part of Inflection. I will =
follow this proposal, but after Pollock's (1989) splitting of INF into =
different functional categories it needs some refinement and reviewing. =
In the line of Ouhalla (1991), I will assume that INF is divided into =
Tense and Aspect. My proposal is that SC particles are free aspectual =
morphemes which generate as head of an Aspect Phrase with which the =
entire SC (in the sense of Stowell, 1983) merges.  In the spirit of =
Cinque (1999), if a construction contains an aspectual particle, its =
derivation should include the functional category ASP under which this =
element is sheltered.
	The role of  lexical aspect (aktionsart) in the selection of the SC =
predicate and the generation of the intervening particles in ASP will =
provide an optimal derivation for the constructions under study. =
Sentences in (2-3) can illustrate my main argument.

	(2) a. I consider Mary interesting.
	      b. I consider Mary interested in Linguistics.
	(3) a. I consider Mary as interesting.
	      b. *I consider Mary as interested in Linguistics.

	Predicates are assigned an aspectual feature in the Lexicon. Following =
Demonte's (1991) terminology, predicates are marked with the features [- =
perfective] or [+ perfective], depending on whether they express a =
permanent or transient property respectively. Both types can occur =
within an SC, as it is shown in (2a-b), but if a particle like as =
intervenes only [- perf] predicates are acceptable --compare sentences =
(3a) and (3b)--. This leads me to conclude that as is an aspectual =
element which is generated under ASP and is intrinsically marked with =
the feature [- perf]. The aspectual feature of the SC predicate will =
raise covertly to adjoin to the SC ASP and it is checked at Logical =
Form, but if there is a mismatch of these features the derivation =
crashes. This is the case of (3b). The process of feature checking in =
the derivation of an SC containing as will have the representation in =
(4):

	(4) [AspP DP Subject1 [ASP' [ASP FF of X-as] [XP t1 [X' X]]]]

where X stands for any category in the role of predicate and FF for the =
formal features of X, the aspectual value among them. Basically we have =
two movements in this derivation. First, taking into account  the bare =
output conditions, the SC subject raises overtly to Spec of ASP to check =
its nominal features, although its Case feature waits until Logical Form =
to be checked at the matrix clause. Then, because ASP is weak in =
English, the formal features of the SC predicate move to adjoin to the =
ASP head after Spell-Out. It is just a feature movement If the aspectual =
features of both X and ASP match the derivation converges; otherwise it =
crashes, accounting for the contrast in (3).
	The importance of lexical aspect in the selection of SCs has been =
previously suggested by Kitagawa's (1985) difference between state of =
affairs and change of state predicates or by Raposo & Uriagereka's =
(1995) distinction between individual-level and stage-level predicates, =
but no mention of aspectual particles and their relevance in the optimal =
derivation of SCs has been made before.

References

Aarts, B. (1992) Small Clauses in English: The Non-Verbal Types. Berlin =
and New York: M de 	Gruiter.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic =
Perspective. Oxford: Oxford 	University Press.
Demonte, V. (1991) Detr s de la Palabra. Estudios de Gram tica del =
Espa=A4ol. Madrid: Alianza 	Editorial
Kitagawa, Y. (1985) Small but Clausal, Chicago Linguistic Society 21, =
210-220.
Ouhalla, J. (1991) Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. =
London/New York: Routledge.
Pollock, J. (1989) Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure =
of IP, Linguistic Inquiry 	20, 	365-424.
Raposo, E. & J. Uriagereka (1995) Two Types of Small Clauses, in A. =
Cardinaletti & M.T. Guasti 	(eds.) Syntax and Semantics: Small Clauses =
Vol. 28. London/New York: Academic Press. 	179-206.
Stowell, T. (1983) Subject across Categories, The Linguistic Review 2, =
285-312.