Subjects and non-subjects in constructions

18
(20) (Finnish)
Minua pelotti ja olin aivan paniikissa.
I:PART get.scared-CAUS-PST.3SG and be:PST.1SG fully in panic
‘I got scared and was fully in panic.’ 6
Notably, also within the formal approach, it has been suggested that such
examples can be treated as causative events without an external argument, the
instigator (Pylkkänen 1999), i.e., in our terms, assuming an antecedent
subevent but without naming it.
I summarize:
L-NTC: The event is conceptualized as an inherently consequent event:
it implies the existence of an antecedent event but makes no
assumptions as to the concept of that antecedent event and,
consequently, its trajector.
I repeat here the semantic definition of the G-NTC and S-NTC for convenience
and comparison:
G-NTC: The event is construed as an inherently consequent subevent:
apart from the onstage information, it entails and provides information
about the antecedent subevent with a controlling participant; the
antecedent subevent is described only in terms of a concept; the
antecedent subevent and its trajector remain inherently implicit and
covert. Semantically, the consequent subevent has inherently narrow
scope in respect to the antecedent subevent.
S-NTC: The event is construed as an inherently consequent subevent; it
entails an antecedent subevent with the main participant; the
antecedent subevent and its main participant must be realized by means
of a matrix clause and be referential.
Since it is the conceptualization of an event as a consequent one (i.e. the
implication of an antecedent event) that unites the three NTC types, I will refer
to the NTC as the Consequence Construction, i.e. a construction that encodes
logical embeddedness/consequence of an event. I adhere, thereby, to the view
put forward in the framework of the Construction Grammar that constructions
6 http://www.freewebs.com/one-life/tarinat/yksin.htm.