Title: Meaning and Grammar : an Introduction to Semantics Author: Chierchia, Gennaro.; Mcconnell-Ginet, Sally
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Birelational Analysis of the Russian Imperfective
A birelational analysis of the Russian imperfective Daniel Altshuler Dept. of Linguistics Rutgers University [email protected] Abstract This paper provides two puzzles for a theory of aspect. The first concerns the quirky behavior of the Russian imperfective with regard to its culmination properties: it seems to function like the perfect aspect in certain cases, but like the progressive in others. The other puzzle concerns how the Russian imperfective constrains the temporal location of a described event: it relates distinct event parts to a given temporal parameter. Which part is at play depends on how this parameter is specified. If it is specified by an adverbial, then an event is located in time. If it is specified by the discourse context, then a consequent state is located in time. I solve the former puzzle by appealing to the structure of atomic vs. non-atomic events and solve the latter by appealing to two temporal inputs required by an aspectual marker. These inputs reveal that aspectual meaning involves both temporal information and information about discourse connectivity. 1 Introduction Moens & Steedman 1988 proposed that events have the tripartite structure shown below in Fig.1. The culmination point of an event is its inherent telos—i.e. a point at which an event ceases to take place. An achievement solely consists of a culmination point—i.e. it is over as soon as it is instantiated. An accomplishment (or culminated process), on the other hand, consists not only of a culmination point, but also a preparatory process, which in turn consists of a series of preparations leading to a culmination and in certain cases, the consequence of this culmination or an event’s consequent state (cf. -
Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences I
Syntactic architecture and its consequences I Syntax inside the grammar Edited by András Bárány Theresa Biberauer Jamie Douglas Sten Vikner language Open Generative Syntax 9 science press Open Generative Syntax Editors: Elena Anagnostopoulou, Mark Baker, Roberta D’Alessandro, David Pesetsky, Susi Wurmbrand In this series: 1. Bailey, Laura R. & Michelle Sheehan (eds.). Order and structure in syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure. 2. Sheehan, Michelle & Laura R. Bailey (eds.). Order and structure in syntax II: Subjecthood and argument structure. 3. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia. Deletion phenomena in comparative constructions: English comparatives in a cross-linguistic perspective. 4. Franco, Ludovico, Mihaela Marchis Moreno & Matthew Reeve (eds.). Agreement, case and locality in the nominal and verbal domains. 5. Bross, Fabian. The clausal syntax of German Sign Language: A cartographic approach. 6. Smith, Peter W., Johannes Mursell & Katharina Hartmann (eds.). Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme. 7. Pineda, Anna & Jaume Mateu (eds.). Dative constructions in Romance and beyond. 8. Kastner, Itamar. Voice at the interfaces: The syntax, semantics, and morphology of the Hebrew verb. 9. Bárány, András, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas & Sten Vikner (eds.). Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar. ISSN: 2568-7336 Syntactic architecture and its consequences I Syntax inside the grammar Edited by András Bárány Theresa Biberauer Jamie Douglas Sten Vikner language science press Bárány, András, Theresa -
Modes of Comparison∗ Christopher Kennedy University of Chicago To
To appear in the Proceedings of CLS 43. Modes of Comparison∗ Christopher Kennedy University of Chicago 1Introduction The ability to establish orderings among objects and make comparisons between them according to the amount or degree to which they possess some property is a basic component of human cognition. Natural languages reflect this fact: all lan- guages have syntactic categories that express gradable concepts, and all languages have designated comparative constructions, which are used to express orderings be- tween two objects with respect to the degree or amount to whichtheypossesssome property (Sapir 1944). In many languages, comparatives are based on specialized morphology and syn- tax. English exemplifies this type of system: it uses the morphemes more/-er, less and as specifically for the purpose of establishing orderings of superiority, infe- riority and equality, respectively, and the morphemes than and as to identify the STANDARD against which an object is compared, as illustrated by (1a-c). (1) a. Mercury is closer to the sun than Venus. b. TheMars Pathfindermissionwas lessexpensivethanprevious missions to Mars. c. Uranus doesn’t have as many rings as Saturn. Languages like English also allow for the possibility of expressing more complex comparisons by permitting a range of phrase types after than/as.Forexample,(2a) expresses a comparison between the degrees to which the same object possesses different properties; (2b) compares the degrees to which different objects possess different properties; and (2c) relates the actual degree that an object possesses a property to an expected degree. (2) a. More meteorites vaporize in the atmosphere than fall totheground. b. The crater was deeper than a 50 story building is tall. -
Compositionality Without Word Boundaries
Acknowledgments We would like to express our gratitude to the following colleagues for their valuable assistance in reviewing abstracts for Semantics and Linguistic Theory 22: Barbara Abbott Ted Fernald Andrew Koontz-Garboden Mats Rooth Dorit Abusch Tim Fernando Marcus Kracht Daniel Rothschild Maria Aloni Marcelo Ferreira Angelika Kratzer Susan Rothstein Luis Alonso-Ovalle Hana Filip Manfred Krifka Hotze Rullmann Peter Alrenaga Kai von Fintel Kiyomi Kusumoto Jerry Sadock Pranav Anand Danny Fox Bill Ladusaw Uli Sauerland Ana Arregui Itamar Francez Utpal Lahiri Philippe Schlenker Ron Artstein Lyn Frazier Fred Landman Bernhard Schwarz Nicholas Asher Jon Gajewski Peter Lasersohn Florian Schwarz Rebekah Baglini Mark Gawron Daniel Lassiter Roger Schwarzschild Alan Bale -
Bare Nominals Are Able to Have Deictic And
5 10 Veneeta Dayal 15 Rutgers University, Department of Linguistics 18 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901 (USA) Ph: 732 932 7289 Fax: 732 932 1370 20 [email protected] July 3, 2009 1 45. Bare Noun Phrases 1. Introduction 25 2. Empirical landscape 3. Theories of variation: syntactic parameterization 4. Theories of variation: semantic parameterization 5. Theories of variation: number, definiteness and lexicalization 6. Challenges for theories of variation 30 7. Conclusion 8. References The distribution and interpretation of bare NPs varies across languages. This article surveys the range of these possibilities and the theoretical accounts that deal with it. 35 Bare NPs are canonically associated with reference to kinds and the semantic operations involved in kind formation are central to the discussion. Differences between singular and plural terms with respect to kind formation, the relationship between kind formation and the semantics of definite and indefinite NPs, the correlation between lexical exponents of a semantic operation and its availability as a covert type shift, and the 40 syntactic location of semantic operations are among the issues explored in these accounts. The study of bare NPs thus overlaps with the study of genericity, number marking and (in)definiteness. The primary focus here is on recent research which addresses the issue of cross-linguistic variation in semantics. Current challenges for theories of variation are also discussed. 2 45 1. Introduction The study of bare NPs spans thirty years of semantic research and can be divided almost evenly into two phases. The first focused on the proper analysis of English bare plurals, with particular emphasis on the role of reference to kinds and the principles of 50 quantification at play in statements with such NPs.