What kind of structure is it?

[Truman]

Hello,
Please look at this sentence:

Bill, doctor turned pop star, has got fans all over the world.

Is it grammatically correct?
I've asked many native English speakers, and they all think it is right.

I'm just wondering what kind of structure the part of "doctor turned pop star" is?
Is it an absolute clause? But there's the verb "turned" so totally there are two verbs ( turned , has got) in one sentence. I just can't find any examples like this pattern in a grammar.

[philo2009]

Originally Posted by Truman

Hello,
Please look at this sentence:

Bill, doctor turned pop star, has got fans all over the world.

Is it grammatically correct?
I've asked many native English speakers, and they all think it is right.

I'm just wondering what kind of structure the part of "doctor turned pop star" is?
Is it an absolute clause? But there's the verb "turned" so totally there are two verbs ( turned , has got) in one sentence. I just can't find any examples like this pattern in a grammar.

It is technically termed an appositive noun phrase, consisting of noun 'doctor' as head modified by participial phrase 'turned pop star'.

[konungursvia]

Turned is a participle doing the job of an adjective, and isn't working as a verb here.

[Truman]

Originally Posted by philo2009

It is technically termed an appositive noun phrase, consisting of noun 'doctor' as head modified by participial phrase 'turned pop star'.

Thank you for helping me.
So did you mean "turned pop star" was a participial phrase? If "turned" here is a participial, it obviously is a past participial, which means it is a passive voice. The corresponding active voice should be "the pop star was turned", what does it mean??? Beside which in the world is the appositive noun of Bill, doctor or pop star? or altogether doctor turned pop star? Again, isn't it a complete sentence in stead of a noun phrase?

[konungursvia]

Participles do not imply passive voice.

[Truman]

Originally Posted by konungursvia

Turned is a participle doing the job of an adjective, and isn't working as a verb here.

Thanks for your answer.

If "turned" here is a participle doing the job of an adjective, its voice should be passive. So the sentence converted from the noun phrase "doctor turned pop star" should be " the pop star is turned by(or from) a doctor?" is it right?

[konungursvia]

Again, it is not about the passive voice in this case, and is not necessarily so just because a participle is used. It is not

Luke's father was turned to the dark side of the Force by the Emperor.... which is passive, but

This man, a doctor who turned himself into a singer, has forgotten all about anatomy. This is active, and reflexive, not passive.

[philo2009]

Originally Posted by Truman

Thanks for your answer.

If "turned" here is a participle doing the job of an adjective, its voice should be passive. So the sentence converted from the noun phrase "doctor turned pop star" should be " the pop star is turned by(or from) a doctor?" is it right?

Your confusion is understandable: this is a highly elliptical construction representing 'a doctor who has turned into a pop star'. It is often written with hyphens, (a doctor-turned-pop star).

Omission of articles, however, in appositive phrases is very common.

[Truman]

Originally Posted by konungursvia

Participles do not imply passive voice.

As far as I've learnt, present particples have the active voice and past participles have the passive voice.

If I have to use a past participle to mean the past tense, I have to put "having" before it.

Having turned pop star, Bill has got fans all over the world.
Although I also feel weird about the follow sentence:
Bill, doctor having turned pop star, has got fans all over the world.

[konungursvia]

I won't tell you a third time. Believe what you will. Learning English by memorizing rules doesn't work: you always forget, or do not know, the exceptions. There's really no choice-- you have to use your head, not your textbook.