Eckhard Bick - VISL

@PIV, @ADV and @SC are - unlike @ADVL - valency bound arguments, but they,
too, direct their dependency markers towards the main verb, which is one of the reasons
why older grammars often treat them as adverbials. As can be seen from (1q-1s) the
above distinctions are maintained in participle "clauses", hybrid constructions with the
syntactic distribution of an AP, but the complement valency of the corresponding verb.
A special case is the agent of the passive (1t), which, as a PP, is - form-wise - similar to
the other post-participle @A< functions, but corresponds to the "original" subject 179 ,
which, of course, is a non-adverbial argument of the verb 180 , earning its reincarnation in
the participle clause a separate tag 181 .
From a constituent point of view, the least @ADVL-compatible functions are
those of @N< and post-adjectival or post-adverbial @A< (rarely @>N and @>A),
because they are not clause/VP constituents, but nominal group constituents, either
dependent on a noun (@N