Incomplete Events, Intensionality, and Imperfective Aspect

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Incomplete Events, Intensionality, and Imperfective Aspect SANDRO ZUCCHI INCOMPLETE EVENTS, INTENSIONALITY AND IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT* I discuss two competing theories of the progressive: the theory proposed in Parsons (1980, 1985, 1989, 1990) and the theory proposed in Landman (1992). These theories differ in more than one way. Landman regards the progressive as an intensional operator, while Parsons doesn’t. Moreover, Landman and Parsons disagree on what uninflected predicates denote. For Landman, cross the street has in its denotation complete events of crossing the street; the aspectual contribution of English simple past (perfective aspect) is the identity function. For Parsons, both complete and incom- plete events of crossing the street can be in the denotation of the base VP; perfective aspect restricts its denotation to the events that culminate. I present a version of Parsons’s theory that avoids the problems raised by Landman, in particular the problem posed for Parsons by creation verbs. The repaired version and Landman’s theory still differ in the way they analyze uninflected predicates. I present evidence from Slavic languages that both theories are needed. Finally, I discuss some evidence that may favor one or the other approach to the semantics of the English progressive. 1. THE P ROBLEM OF I NDIRECT A CCESS In the study of tense and aspect, one runs into statements of the following sort: ‘Carnap flew to the moon’ is true iff ‘Carnap fly to the moon’ is true relative to some time t < now. If ‘Terry build a house’ is true relative to an interval i, there is no proper subinterval of i relative to which ‘Terry build a house’ is true. If ‘Terry be at home’ is true relative to an interval i, then ‘Terry be at home’ must also be true relative to every subinterval of i. * Versions of this paper were presented at the 1995 Annual Conference of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics at Tel Aviv University and at the 1995 Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique at the Université Paris 7. I thank Andrea Bonomi, Paolo Casalegno, Anita Mittwoch, Arnim von Stechow, and Zoltan Szabo for commenting on previous drafts. I also thank Wayles Brown, Béla Hollósy, Graham Katz, Fred Landman, Peter Lasersohn, Natalia Kondrashova, Mandy Simons, Milena Sheppard, Draga Zec, and Ede Zimmermann for comments and suggestions. Some of the ideas presented here were developed in the course of a conversation with Karina Wilkinson and Roger Schwarzschild at Ithaca’s Coyote loco. My final thanks are thus to Roger and Karina. Natural Language Semantics 7: 179–215, 1999. 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 180 SANDRO ZUCCHI As these examples show, in analyzing the meaning of temporal and aspec- tual features, we make assumptions about the truth conditions of uninflected clauses like ‘Carnap fly to the moon’, ‘Terry build a house’ and ‘Terry be at home’. However, we have only indirect evidence of how these sen- tences are interpreted by native speakers, since they do not occur as independent clauses in English. I’ll refer to the problem of determining the truth conditions of the base sentences that are the input to tense and aspect markers as the problem of indirect access in the semantics of tense and aspect. Making hypotheses based on indirect evidence is common practice in the natural sciences and I have no intention of arguing that the task of providing a truth-conditional analysis of temporal and aspectual features is hopeless or misconceived because of the problem of indirect access. I’m interested instead in the relevance of this problem for the analysis of the progres- sive. I’ll argue that the choice between different approaches to the semantics of the progressive that are currently available in the literature involves choosing between different analyses of the meaning of base predicates: to decide which approach to the semantics of the progressive is empirically more adequate, we have to find evidence, even if indirect, that allows us to establish what event types these predicates denote. I’ll proceed as follows. First, I’ll review two competing theories of the progressive: the theory proposed by Parsons (1980, 1985, 1989, 1990) and the theory proposed by Landman (1992). These theories champion two different approaches to the semantics of the progressive: Landman’s theory regards the progressive as an intensional operator, whereas Parsons’s doesn’t. The reasons put forward by Landman in favor of his theory have nothing to do with the problem of indirect access; they focus, mainly, on the dif- ficulties Parsons’s theory runs into with creation verbs. I’ll argue that these difficulties can be overcome by presenting a repaired version of Parsons’s theory that avoids the problems raised by Landman and other problems as well. The repaired version and Landman’s theory still differ in the way they analyze uninflected predicates. First, I’ll present evidence from Slavic languages that both theories are needed. Then, I’ll come back to English and discuss some evidence that may favor one or the other approach to the semantics of the progressive. 2. TWO T HEORIES OF THE P ROGRESSIVE 2.1. Parsons’s Theory Parsons suggests the following analysis of the progressive and of the simple past: INCOMPLETE EVENTS 181 • ‘x is F-ing’ is true iff there is an F-event in development (or holding) to which x bears the relation J, where J is the thematic role associ- ated with the subject of F. • ‘x F-ed’ is true iff there is a culminated (completed) F-event occurring in the past to which x bears the relation J, where J is the thematic role associated with the subject of F. Here are some examples of the translations that Parsons assigns to pro- gressive sentences and simple past sentences: (1) John is crossing the street. (1¢) $e$I$t [I = now ^ t Î I ^ crossing(e) ^ Agent(e, John) ^ Theme(e, the street) ^ Hold(e, t)] (2) John crossed the street. (2¢) $e$I$t [I < now ^ t Î I ^ crossing(e) ^ Agent(e, John) ^ Theme(e, the street) ^ Cul(e, t)] According to this analysis, the events in the denotation of the predicates that are the inputs to the progressive and the simple past need not be completed (culminated) events. For example, the predicate cross the street may have in its denotation both events in which the agent gets across and events that are only partial crossings. The progressive restricts the deno- tation of the predicate to the events that are in development, the simple past to the events that culminate at some past time. I’ll refer to this analysis of the progressive as the incomplete events approach. A desirable predic- tion of this approach is that (1) fails to entail that there is a time at which (2) is true, because (1) does not say that the crossing event culminates. 2.2. Landman’s Theory According to Landman, progressive sentences, unlike simple past ones, relate actual events to possible events: • ‘x is F-ing’ is true iff there is an actual event that has a possible F- event on its continuation branch to which x bears the relation J, where J is the thematic role associated with the subject of F. • ‘x F-ed’ is true iff there is an actual F-event occurring in the past to which x bears the relation J, where J is the thematic role associated with the subject of F. The continuation branch of an event e in a world w is built according to these instructions. Follow the development of e in w and put every event 182 SANDRO ZUCCHI of which e is a stage in the continuation branch. Take the maximal event of which e is a stage in w and go to the closest world w¢ in which this event continues (i.e., in which this event is a stage of a larger event), if there is one. If w¢ is not a reasonable option for e in w, stop; otherwise follow the development of this event in w¢ until you reach the maximal event of which this event is a stage in w¢. Then, go to the closest world in which this event continues, if there is one. And so on, until there is no world in which the event continues or you reach a world that is not a reasonable option for e in the base world w. To see how the definition of continuation branch works, consider the following example. Suppose John starts crossing the street in w. This event is our initial e. Construct the continuation branch for e in w in this way. Follow the development of e in w. If John gets across in w, put the complete crossing in the continuation branch and you are done, since there is no other world in which this crossing event continues. If John does not get across in w, go to the world w1 most similar to w in which the crossing con- tinues. Here you are faced with a choice. If w1 is not a reasonable option relative to e in w, go no further. If w1 is a reasonable option relative to e in w, follow the crossing in w1. If the crossing is completed in w1, add the completed crossing to the continuation branch and stop. Otherwise, go to the closest world in which the crossing is not interrupted, and so on. According to this procedure, every time we follow the development of an event e in a world other than the base world w (the world we started from), we have to check whether the world we jump to is a reasonable option for e in w.
Recommended publications
  • Quand La Nominalisation Envahit La Subordination
    Quand la nominalisation envahit la subordination : étude sur ‘ce que’ dans les propositions subordonnées en français, selon une approche comparative, diachronique et expérimentale Ingrid Konrad To cite this version: Ingrid Konrad. Quand la nominalisation envahit la subordination : étude sur ‘ce que’ dans les propo- sitions subordonnées en français, selon une approche comparative, diachronique et expérimentale. Linguistique. Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, 2019. Français. NNT : 2019USPCC072. tel-02971026 HAL Id: tel-02971026 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02971026 Submitted on 19 Oct 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Thèse de doctorat de l’Université Sorbonne Paris Cité Préparée à l’Université Paris Diderot École doctorale Sciences du langage (ED 132) Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle / Labex EFL Quand la nominalisation envahit la subordination Étude sur ‘ce que’ dans les propositions subordonnées en français, selon une approche comparative, diachronique et expérimentale par Ingrid K Thèse de doctorat de Linguistique Théorique,
    [Show full text]
  • A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect
    Structuring Events A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect Susan Rothstein Structuring Events Explorations in Semantics Series Editor: Susan Rothstein Editorial Board Ruth Kempson, King’s College London Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Manfred Krifka, Humboldt University; Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin Fred Landman, Tel Aviv University Luigi Rizzi, University of Siena Robert Stalnaker, Massachusetts Institute of Technology This exciting series features important new research by leading scholars in the field of semantics. Each volume focuses on a topic or topics central to the field, including dynamic semantics, aspect, focus, anaphora, and type-shifting, and offers a pedagogical component designed to introduce the topics addressed and situate the new research in the context of the field and previous research. The presentational style emphasizes student accessibility without compromising the sophistication of the research involved. Explorations in Semantics is an excellent series for students and researchers in the field, as well as scholars in adjacent areas such as syntax, philosophy of language, and computational linguistics. 1 Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers of Barbara H. Partee Barbara H. Partee 2 Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect Susan Rothstein 3 Indefinites and the Type of Sets Fred Landman 4 Focus Sensitivity: Semantics and Pragmatics David Beaver and Brady Clark 5 The Proper Treatment of Events Fritz Hamm and Michiel van Lambalgen Structuring Events A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect Susan Rothstein © 2004 by Susan Rothstein 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148–5020, USA 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia The right of Susan Rothstein to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Indefinites and the Type of Sets
    Indefinites and the Type of Sets Fred Landman Indefinites and the Type of Sets Explorations in Semantics Series Editor: Susan Rothstein Editorial Board Ruth Kempson, King’s College London Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Manfred Krifka, Humboldt University; Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin Fred Landman, Tel Aviv University Luigi Rizzi, University of Siena Robert Stalnaker, Massachusetts Institute of Technology This exciting series features important new research by leading scholars in the field of semantics. Each volume focuses on a topic or topics central to the field, including dynamic semantics, aspect, focus, anaphora, and type-shifting, and offers a pedagogical component designed to introduce the topics addressed and situate the new research in the context of the field and previous research. The presentational style emphasizes student accessibility without compromising the sophistication of the research involved. Explorations in Semantics is an excellent series for students and researchers in the field, as well as scholars in adjacent areas such as syntax, philosophy of language, and computational linguistics. 1 Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers of Barbara H. Partee Barbara H. Partee 2 Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect Susan Rothstein 3 Indefinites and the Type of Sets Fred Landman 4 Focus Sensitivity: Semantics and Pragmatics David Beaver and Brady Clark 5 The Proper Treatment of Events Fritz Hamm and Michiel van Lambalgen Indefinites and the Type of Sets Fred Landman © 2004 by Fred Landman 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia The right of Fred Landman to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated: August 19Th, 2020 1 | Page Daphna Heller: Curriculum Vitae A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 1. PERSONAL Daphna Heller 100 S
    Updated: August 19th, 2020 Daphna Heller: Curriculum Vitae A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 1. PERSONAL Daphna Heller 100 St. George St., Room 4088 Toronto, ON M5S 3G3 2. DEGREES Ph.D, 2005 Linguistics, Rutgers. Thesis: Identity and Information: Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of Specificational Sentences. Supervisor: Veneeta Dayal. M.A. 1999 Linguistics, Tel Aviv University. Summa Cum Laude Thesis: The Syntax and Semantics of Specificational Pseudoclefts in Hebrew. Supervisors: Fred Landman (Tel Aviv University) Susan Rothstein (Bar Ilan University) B.A. 1996 Linguistics & Arabic Language and Literature, Tel Aviv University. Magna Cum Laude 3. EMPLOYMENT 2014- Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of Toronto. 2009-2014 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Toronto. 2008-2009 Post-doctoral Fellow, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto. Supervisor: Craig G. Chambers 2007-2008 Post-doctoral Fellow, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester. Supervisor: Jeffery T. Runner 2004-2007 Post-doctoral Fellow, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester. Supervisor: Michael K. Tanenhaus VISITING POSITIONS 2015-2016 Visiting scholar, Department of Psychology, IDC Herzliya, Israel. 4. HONOURS 1995 Academic Excellence Award commemorating fallen Israeli soldiers, Tel Aviv University, Israel. 1995 Cited on the Dean’s list for academic achievements, Tel Aviv University, Israel. 5. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND ACTIVITIES 2008- Member of the Linguistic Society of America 1 | P a g e
    [Show full text]
  • Iceberg Semantics for Count Nouns and Mass Nouns: Classifiers, Measures and Portions
    Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication Volume 11 Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches Article 6 2016 Iceberg Semantics For Count Nouns And Mass Nouns: Classifiers, measures and portions Fred Landman Tel Aviv University, Israel Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/biyclc Part of the Semantics and Pragmatics Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Landman, Fred (2016) "Iceberg Semantics For Count Nouns And Mass Nouns: Classifiers, measures and portions," Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication: Vol. 11. https://doi.org/ 10.4148/1944-3676.1107 This Proceeding of the Symposium for Cognition, Logic and Communication is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Iceberg Semantics 2 The Baltic International Yearbook of called the body) a base set, a set that generates the body under the Cognition, Logic and Communication sum operation ⊔. For count nouns, the base is the set in terms of which the members of the body are counted and to which distribu- December 2016 Volume 11: Number: Cognitive, Semantic and tion takes place. In Iceberg semantics, what allows countingto be Crosslinguistic Approaches correct is the requirement on the interpretations of count nouns that the base of their interpretation is (contextually) disjoint. pages 1-48 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1107 Already at this level we see two salient properties of Iceberg semantics: FRED LANDMAN - Atoms and atomicity play no role in the theory, so we can Tel Aviv University assume an unsorted interpretation domain for mass nouns and count nouns.
    [Show full text]
  • Grosu and Landman 1998
    ALEXANDER GROSU AND FRED LANDMAN STRANGE RELATIVES OF THE THIRD KIND* In this paper, we argue that there are more kinds of relative clause constructions between the linguistic heaven and earth than are dreamed of in the classical lore, which distinguishes just restrictive relative clauses and appositives. We start with degree relatives. Degree, or amount, relatives show restrictions in the relativizers they allow, in the determiners that can combine with them, and in their stacking possibilities. To account for these facts, we propose an analysis with two central, and novel, features: First, we argue that the standard notion of degree (a number on a measuring scale) needs to be replaced by a notion of structured degree, which keeps track of the object measured. Second, we argue that at the CP-level of degree relatives an operation of (degree) maximalization takes place. We show that the observed facts concerning degree relatives follow from these assumptions. We then broaden the discussion to other relative clause constructions. We propose that the operation of maximalization takes place in relative clauses when the head noun is semantically interpreted CP- internally, while syntactically the CP is part of a DP that also contains CP-external material. Based on this, we argue that degree relatives form part of a linguistically coherent class of relative clause constructions – we call them maximalizing relatives – which all show restrictions similar to those observed for degree relatives, and which differ semantically (and often also syntactically) both from restrictive relative clauses and from appositives. We discuss free relatives, internally-headed relatives, and cor- relatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Amount Relatives
    AMOUNT RELATIVES Alexander Grosu and Fred Landman Department of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University [email protected], [email protected] word count (excluding abstract): 23,113 Abstract We introduce amount relatives by discussing three types of relatives: those with a lexically realized amount head (d-headed relatives); those without such a head, but with an amount interpretation (d-interpreted relatives); and relatives with an individual interpretation, but with the gap in a position that does not support an individual variable (ep-relatives). We discuss in some depth several diagnostic tests - proposed in and modified from Carlson 1977a - which distinguish these types of relatives from ordinary restricted relatives. We argue that together these tests justify Carlson's claim that these constructions need to be treated as a coherent subtype of relative clauses, amount relatives. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of earlier proposals for the syntax and semantics of amount relatives (Carlson 1977a, Heim 1987, Grosu and Landman 1998), and then provide a syntax and semantics for the three types of amount relatives (extending and modifying the analysis of ep-relatives in Grosu and Landman 1998, and providing detailed analyses of d-headed and d-interpreted relatives, which were barely touched on in Grosu and Landman 1998). This analysis covers more types of constructions than that in Grosu and Landman 1998, addresses a broader set of data, and links the syntax and semantics of amount relatives to recent thinking on syntactic and semantic heads in measure and classifier constructions. In an appendix we discuss the complexities arising when the gap of the amount relative is in a modal context (including problems relating to issues of relative-internal interpretation of relative-external material).
    [Show full text]
  • A Quantificational Disclosure Approach to Japanese and Korean Internally-Headed Relatives
    A QUANTIFICATIONAL DISCLOSURE APPROACH TO JAPANESE AND KOREAN INTERNALLY-HEADED RELATIVES Alexander Grosu Fred Landman Linguistics Department Tel Aviv University ABSTRACT Grosu 2010 (JEAL 19:231-274) argues against analyses of Japanese and Korean internally headed relative clauses in terms of discourse anaphora, and in favor of an analysis which postulates a functional category ChR in the syntax of these constructions, the semantics of which allows quantificational disclosure. The present paper constitutes a follow-up on Grosu, with the inter-related goals of (i) strengthening Grosu’s arguments against discourse anaphora approaches and in favor of a grammar-based quantificational disclosure approach, (ii) improving substantively on the syntactic and semantic characterization of the functional category ChR (Choose Role), and (iii) justifying the introduction of additional mechanisms that render that analysis adequate with respect to a substantially wider set of data types. The proposals made in the present paper strengthen Grosu’s central thesis, which is that, despite undeniable partial similarities to discourse anaphora, Japanese and Korean internally-headed relatives are bona fide relatives. The paper shows the semantic fruitfulness of this analysis by discussing a series of examples of increasing semantic complexity, and by arguing that Japanese and Korean internally-headed relatives provide striking evidence for a semantic scope mechanism that has been independently discussed in the context of the semantics of plurality and cumulative
    [Show full text]