sign in sign up
<<
Home , Universal grinder

Formal and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011

4. Aspect: Early work by philosophers and logicians on “Aktionsart”, or “”: Lecture 9: Tense, Aspect, Events distinctions among predicates over various sorts of “eventualities” (Emmon Bach’s term): events, processes, states (Kenny 1963, Vendler 1967). 0. Introduction...... 1! 1. Classical tense logic ...... 2! 5. Mass-count- in the nominal domain and Process vs. Event in the verbal domain. 2. Early innovations: Reichenbach’s times, Davidson’s events...... 2! 6. Interactions between aspect and quantification: Slavic – Germanic contrasts. 3. Montague...... 3! 4. Aspect: basics...... 4! 7. Subsequent work involving linguists and drawing on a great deal of linguistic research on 4.1. Lexical aspect, Aktionsart...... 4! tense and aspect systems of natural languages has stimulated the development of richer 4.2. Viewpoint aspect...... 5! 5. Mass-Count and Process-Event. Incremental Theme. Aspect...... 6! theoretical frameworks, cross-linguistic study, and the interaction of formal and non-formal 5.1. The Mass-Count distinction...... 6! semanticists, syntax-semantics- studies, more study of and its 5.2. Link's atomic/non-atomic lattices for mass/count/plural...... 7! interaction with compositional semantics. Joint work on aspect by linguists and philosophers 5.3. Processes and Events and Verbal Aspect...... 7! (Bach 1981, Bach 1986, Dowty 1979, Klein 1994, Parsons 1990, Smith 1991) (and many others) 6. Extending Link's semantics to Eventualities...... 8! leading to contemporary understanding of the distinction between “lexical aspect” and 6.1. Parallels with Mass/Count. (Bach 1986)...... 8! 6.2. The Incremental Theme...... 8! “viewpoint aspect” (Smith’s terminology). Linguists have made important contributions to the 6.3. Mass-Count and Process-Event Interactions...... 10! study of tense as well, and to the kinds of interaction between tense and aspect that are often 6.4. Type-shifting, Sort-shifting, and ...... 10! found in natural languages. 7. More progress and issues in tense and aspect: a tiny sample...... 11! 7.1. Stage-level and individual-level predicates...... 11! 1. Classical tense logic 7.2. The ontology of entities and events...... 12! 7.3. Slavic aspect...... 12! Sentences are true at times. Tense operators are like quantifiers over times. ...... 12! M,g,t || ! || = 1 means that ! is true with respect to model M and assignment g at time t. Recommended readings to learn more: M,g,t M,g,t’ ||PAST !|| = 1 iff there is some t’ earlier than t such that || ! || = 1 (Bach 1981, Bach 1986, Bennett and Partee 1972, Casati and Varzi 2006, Comrie 1976b, That is, PAST tense means something like “at some time in the past, was true”, where is the Comrie 1985, Dahl 1985, Dowty 1979, Filip 2004, Filip and Rothstein 2006, Kamp and ! ! present tense version of the same sentence. (Present tense is not represented by any operator at Rohrer 1983, Klein 1994, Landman 2000, McCoard 1978, Ogihara 1996, Parsons 1990, all; it’s assumed to be the ‘basic’ form.) Partee 1997, Partee 1999, Smith 1991, Tatevosov 2005, Vendler 1957, von Stechow 1995) ||FUT !||M,g,t = 1 iff there is some t’ later than t such that || ! ||M,g,t’ = 1 . 0. Introduction. Future and past are treated symmetrically in standard tense logic. One BIG topic we haven’t discussed at all this semester is tense and aspect, and the semantics of event descriptions of various kinds, including tensed sentences. This lecture might be considered (Whiteboard picture, showing the basic idea of “time of evaluation” vs. what we might call an “appetizer” – just a brief look at a few main ideas, with pointers to some interesting work. “event time”.) This is one area in which there is very constructive and productive interaction among researchers Compare classical modal logic: a sentence is true at a given ; “Possibly !” is true with quite different backgrounds and interests – logicians, philosophers, theoretical linguists of at w iff ! is true at some world w’ accessible from w. “Necessarily !” is true at w iff ! is true at different kinds, including both ‘formal’ and ‘non-formal’ semanticists, typologists, every world w’ accessible from w. computational linguists, and others. 2. Early innovations: Reichenbach’s reference times, Davidson’s Outline: events 1. Classical tense logic -- (Prior 1967). Related to classical modal logic (Hughes and Cresswell Reichenbach (1947) was a philosopher who noticed many aspects of natural language which 1968, Hughes and Creswell 1996). Tense and modal operators as operators on sentences; were not adequately captured in first-order logic augmented with tense operators, and sentences true “at a time” and “in a possible world”. in particular several of the mismatches between tense logic and the kinds of tense and aspect 2. Early innovations from logicians and philosophers: Reichenbach (1947) and the notion of systems found in English and German. He proposed a tense logic that might be closer to natural “reference time”. Davidson (1967) and the idea that sentences are descriptions of events (or language, for which he introduced the influential notion of “reference time”. states, processes, etc.) (Whiteboard): the 3-way distinction among Speech Time, Reference Time, and Event Time. 3. Montague (1970) combined tense and modality, combined (formal) and semantics. Examples: Simple present: S = R = E I see him. Hans Kamp, in his dissertation under Montague’s supervision (Kamp 1968) and the subsequent Simple past: R S, E=R I saw him. article (Kamp 1971), extended this approach in showing the distinction between now and the < Present perfect: R=S, E R I have seen him. Present Tense. < Past perfect: R < S, E < R I had seen him

MGU0119.doc 1 MGU0119.doc 2 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011

The idea helped, but didn’t solve all the problems linguists (and philosophers) could identify. (3) a. Once everyone alive hadn’t been born yet. (Ambiguous; contradictory on one reading.)

b. Once everyone now alive hadn’t been born yet. (Unambiguous, no contradictory reading.) Davidson (1967) introduced the idea that sentences are indefinite descriptions of eventualities. There is no present tense in (3). A similar example with explicit present tense is (4). Davidson’s proposed analysis (within first-order logic) for (1) is (2)1. (4) a. Someday Susan will marry a man she loves. (1) a. Jones buttered the toast b. Jones buttered the toast slowly in the bathroom with a knife. b. Someday Susan will marry a man she loves now. (2) a. "e [BUTTER(e,j,t) # BEFORE(e, now)] Like (3a), (4a) is ambiguous: the present tense can either refer to the present time (in which case b. "e [BUTTER(e,j,t) # SLOWLY(e) # IN(e,b) # WITH(e,k) # BEFORE(e, now)] (4a) and (4b) have the same truth conditions), or it can be analogous to a pronoun, picking up the time of event described in the main clause – a man she loves then. This was the first introduction of the “event ”, which adds one more argument to all (or perhaps not all) verbs. A verb like butter now has not just a and an argument, but Or compare (5a) and (5b): also an event argument. Two good books to read about the advantages the event argument (5) a. Will he ever admit that he is wrong? provides and the new kinds of questions and issues it raises are Parsons (1990) and Landman b. Will he ever admit that he is wrong now? (2000). There are many articles, books, and anthologies of works by linguists exploring issues related to the event argument as a real syntactic and semantic “argument”; see, for instance More on tense and , and tenses acting sometimes “referentially” and sometimes (Bach et al. 1995, Kratzer 1995, Kratzer 1998, Kratzer 2004, Partee 1984, Partee 1991, like “bound variables”: (Abusch 1988, Abusch 1997, Bäuerle 1979, Kratzer 1998, Partee Rothstein 1998, Tenny and Pustejovsky 2000). 1973, Partee 1984). Interesting work on the pragmatic element in the selection of the relevant reference time for evaluating nominal predicates (cf. the interesting temporal interpretation One particulary widespread modification of Davidson’s analysis that is widely adopted problems in sentences like John met his wife when they were both 5 years old: in principle, wife decomposes the core predication into the verbal part and the arguments of the verbs, expressed could be interpreted under the past-tense operator, but we evidently interpret it as ‘wife now’, via “thematic roles”. The result is called a “neo-Davidsonian analysis”, as in (2c) below. not ‘wife then’): (Enç 1981, Enç 1986, Enç 1987, Musan 1997).

(2c) "e [BUTTERING(e) # (e,j) # (e,t) # SLOWLY(e) # IN(e,b) # 4. Aspect: basics WITH(e,k) # BEFORE(e, now)] 4.1. Lexical aspect, Aktionsart. 3. Montague Building on work by Aristotle, Kenny and then Vendler proposed various tests for classifying Among Montague’s many important innovations, he combined tense logic and modal logic, and different sorts of verbs according to their behavior in various kinds of temporal inference expanded them beyond application just to whole sentences, but to the full range of semantic patterns. The best basic reference for linguists on this work is Dowty (1979). Other linguists types, through his typed , of which we have seen little pieces. One can define including Bach, Dahl, Smith, and Klein have built on this work and extended it. Dahl and adjectives like former and possible in his system, for instance, and not only sentence-level Comrie are non-formal semanticists who have made major contributions to the typological study operators like Past Tense and possibly. Montague also built in some elements of formal of aspect. pragmatics to be able to account for indexical elements like I, now, here and the Present Tense. Event-predicates vs process-predicates and state-predicates: Indexicals: words or morphemes whose interpretation depends on the of utterance. Indexicals are closely related to demonstratives, and the terms are not always sharply Test: Does John is verb-ing entail John has verb-ed? distinguished. For a demonstrative like this, that, there, then, he, she, one needs to know more Process and state predicates: Yes. (run, smile, live in Texas). than just the situation of the utterance but also the intentions of the speaker. But sometimes the Event predicates: No. (build a house, die, win the race, reach the top, buy a car) intentions of the speaker are just considered part of the context of utterance. Kamp on now: Before Kamp’s work (Kamp 1968, 1971), it had not been noticed that there is a Test: Co-occurrence with in 3 minutes/hours/days/weeks vs. for 3 minutes/hours/days/weeks. distinction between Present Tense and now. But Kamp’s work opened up interesting Processes and some states: good with for-adverbials, not (except with a different reading) with perspectives on the behavior of tenses in embedded contexts, where they are often “anaphoric” in-adverbials. (The reading of in-adverbials that is relevant for the test is a reading that tells how in various ways. Kamp noted that the Present Tense doesn’t always “refer” to the speech time, long the event took. The irrelevant reading is a reading that means “sometime within the interval but now (with a few special exceptions) does. The following examples are not Kamp’s own, but that starts now, or at some given reference point, and ends 3 minutes/hours/etc from that point.”) related ones that make his point. ((3) is from http://semantics-online.org/lsa311/ , which I believe is from Kai von Fintel’s class in the 2005 Linguistic Institute held at MIT.) Extended events: Good with in-adverbials, bad with for-adverbials. Instantaneous events: Bad with both.

1 I’ve added the last clause to indicate past tense; Davidson was focusing on the treatment of adverbial modifiers Some “atemporal predicates”: Bad with both. (So ‘statives’ have to be divided; there are lots of and not explicitly addressing tense. problems in trying to fit all sorts of states into suitable aspectual categories.)

MGU0119.doc 3 MGU0119.doc 4 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011

Examples: Time” and connects it to independently motivated notions of Topic in linguistics. Then he makes the following generalizations: (6) a. Process: John worked for 3 hours. *John worked in 3 hours. b. Extended event: *John built the house for 3 weeks. OK: John built the house in 3 weeks. TENSE concerns the relationship of Topic Time to Utterance Time. (Viewpoint) ASPECT concerns the relationship of Event Time to Topic Time. c. Aspectually ambiguous: John washed the dishes for 20 minutes. John washed the dishes in 20 minutes. (‘wash the dishes’ as a kind of process vs. as a kind of event) Progressive aspect: Topic time is within event time. (“looking at event from within”) d. Instantaneous event: The rock hit the window *for three minutes/ *in three minutes Perfective aspect: Event time is within topic time. (“looking at event as a completed whole”) (ignore the irrelevant reading, “in three minutes from the time when …”. Perfect aspect: Event time precedes topic time. (“looking at event from a later perspective”) Semantic analysis: 5. Mass-Count and Process-Event. Incremental Theme. Aspect. In classic temporal logic, sentences were true at ‘moments’, and there was no good way, for instance, to talk about the relation between build a house and be building a house. Bennett and 5.1. The Mass-Count distinction.

Partee introduced interval semantics, allowing that a basic sentence might be true at a moment Mass nouns (uncountable): water, grass, air, music, hope, love1. (the rock hit the window) or at an interval (John build a house). The later widespread adoption Count nouns: table, tree, song, fact, problem. of event semantics, with an event argument as first proposed by Davidson, made it even easier to analyze tense and aspect. One of the most influential ways to formalize the distinctions in 1. Grammaticized in some languages (English, Czech, Russian), not in others (Chinese, Aktionsart, or lexical aspect, builds on analogies with the distinction between mass nouns Thai). (analogous to process predicates) and count nouns (analogous to event predicates): see (Link 2. All languages have some way(s) to express "massy" quantification vs. "counting" 1983, Link 1987), collected in (Link 1998), also (Bach 1986, Dowty 1991, Krifka 1987, Krifka quantification. 1992, Krifka 1998, Partee 1999), for more on this analysis and on the connections between them 3. Where there is no grammaticized lexical distinction, all basic lexical items may be in the dual aspectual classifications of “incremental theme” verbs like read, eat, write, build. viewed as mass-like, i.e. undifferentiated with respect to individuation; countability can be added by use of classifiers, etc. (7) a. John ate an apple in 10 minutes/ *for 10 minutes (‘quantized’ , telic) (a) one fact, many facts, *much fact b. John ate soup for 10 minutes/ *in 10 minutes (‘non-quantized’ , atelic) (b) *one information, *many informations, much information c. John ate apples for 10 minutes/ *in 10 min (‘non-quantized’ plural noun, atelic) (c) one trouble, many troubles, much trouble d. John ate two apples *for 10 minutes/ in 10 minutes (‘quantized’ plural noun, telic) (d) languages: *one N, *many N, one Cl N, many Cl N (e) cf. one piece of information, one grain of wheat, etc. In general, work on lexical aspect, or Aktionsart, is concerned with the ‘temporal constitution’ of eventualities and its reflection in event predicates: are eventualities conceived of as bounded 4. Link's semantics (below) provides a good basis for showing that mass is the (telic) or unbounded (atelic), as having duration, as having definite endpoints/ beginning points, semantically unmarked member of the mass/count opposition, and also for showing similarities etc. Viewpoint aspect, which we look at next, is more about the various kinds of aspectual among mass and plural. modifications that can be made to the basic predicates, by the addition of various aspectual operators. But the line between them isn’t always clear! And since languages as well as theories 5. Mass-count is primarily a classification of predicates of things/stuff, a perspective we differ, terminology is not always consistent! Watch out! take on describing things. There are differences in the nature of things in the external world, but linguistic evidence does not support the idea of a partition of the entity domain (McCawley 4.2. Viewpoint aspect. examples: shoes/socks/footwear; hats/headgear, chairs/furniture, etc.)

What is the difference between English simple past and present perfect? There is no need for a mass/count distinction among entities themselves, then. And there (8) a. Mary ate three apples. is also no evident need for a mass/count distinction among full NPs, which are normally b. Mary has eaten three apples. interpreted either as denoting entities, or as generalized quantifiers, i.e. sets of properties, the sorts of properties that might be denoted by verb phrases, for instance, among which there is No obvious difference in truth conditions. Kamp (Kamp 1979, Kamp and Rohrer 1983, Kamp also no mass/count distinction. and Reyle 1993) argued on the basis of such distinctions as the distinction between French Passé The mass/count distinction is of importance in the internal building up of NPs, and applies Composé and Passé Simple that truth conditions are not enough; something analogous to principally to common nouns and CNPs. (Quine argued that notionally it can also apply to Reichenbach’s reference time is also needed. (In his Representation Theory, adjectives: e.g. blue is mass, and spherical is count. But that seems never to be important weight is given to a representational level containing “discourse entities”, which may grammaticalized.) include events and times as well as more entity-like entities, for capturing these things.) Determiners are not themselves mass/count but they may differentially select for mass/count, Klein (1994) has a nice account that draws both on the Reichenbachian tradition and on work in (e.g. many vs. much) so the main points in the grammar where mass/count matters are in places formal semantics. He introduces the notion of “Topic Time” where Reichenbach had “Reference where determiners and nouns combine.

MGU0119.doc 5 MGU0119.doc 6 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011

6. Meaning shifts. While the existence of the mass-count distinction in languages like 2. As with nouns and entity domain, probably better not to posit an essential distinction English, Czech, and Russian is indisputable, the classification of particular nouns as one or the within the domain of situations or "eventualities" (Bach), but to see the distinction as one among other is subject to shifts, with or without explicit derivational morphology. process predicates and event predicates, choices in description of aspects of reality. Examples:

(a) beer, two beers; pivo, dv! piva, dv! pive"ka ("portions") (1) (Comrie 1976a) # $%&'( %)* +)$ (b) wine, a good wine ("kinds") # ,&$%&'( %)* +)$ (c) Lewis's "Universal Grinder": now there is chair all over the floor. # ,-&$%&'( %)* +)$

(2) Three ways of looking at orbiting. 5.2. Link's atomic/non-atomic lattices for mass/count/plural. (a) The moon is in orbit around the earth. (stative) "Domain of entities not just a non-empty set but endowed with an algebraic (b) The moon has orbited the earth for millenia. (process) structure" (Link 1983, Link 1998) (c) The moon has orbited the earth 10 times in the last 9 months. (event)

The of each count noun (including both singular and plural forms) is taken to 3. Aspect is grammatically more complex in many languages than mass/count have the structure of an atomic join semilattice, where the entities denoted by the singular form distinction, because many languages have a grammaticized aspectual system, and it may be are the atoms and the "plural entities" denoted by the plural form are the non-atomic elements. distributed over various parts of the grammar. In the noun domains, the "operators" are mainly The denotation of a mass noun, on the other hand, is taken to have the form of a non-atomic determiners, grammatical structure fairly clear; in the verb domains, the operators may be (not-necessarily-atomic) join semilattice. auxiliary verbs, modal verbs, adverbs of quantification, affixes (derivational or inflectional), etc. Distinctions to worry about (with sometimes conflicting uses of terminology) include Figure 1 Figure 2 process/event/state (semantic, ontological), telic/atelic (event types; linguistic or ontological?), perfective/imperfective (aspectual); which are properties of things in the domain, which are (blackboard) properties of verbs, which of VPs or verbal complexes, or "inflectional phrases" or sentences?

6. Extending Link's semantics to Eventualities. 3. Lattice structure helps show what mass and share, how mass and count differ, and how mass:count::process:event. 6.1. Parallels with Mass/Count. (Bach 1986) The denotation of each event predicate is taken to have the structure of an atomic join 4. Unified interpretation for those determiners (and other expressions) that are semilattice, where the "minimal" events denoted by the predicates are the atoms and the "non- insensitive to atomicity, i.e. which have same interpretation for mass and count domains: the, minimal" events denoted by the predicates are the non-atomic elements. The denotation of a all, some, no. state or process predicate, on the other hand, is taken to have the form of a non-atomic a. the horses $ (not-necessarily-atomic) join semilattice. the water sup(||P||) (supremum of the given semilattice) % 1. much:many :: for 3 hours: 3 times the horse & 2. shifts via "Universal Grinder" (idea from David Lewis, reported in (Pelletier 1971), via b. most horses/ most water/* most horse: most requires measure; most natural conventional packaging, and shifting to "kinds". measure on plurals is cardinality measure, but atomicity not intrinsic per se. (a) every concrete count noun can have a mass counterpart via the Universal Grinder. c. three, every : interpretation requires atomic lattice. (b) every concrete "instantaneous" event can have a process counterpart via the Universal Slow-Motion Camera. (falling, noticing, arriving, crossing the finish line, exploding). 5. Mass lattice more general (unmarked) than count; languages without mass/count (But note (thanks to Elena Paducheva): The “slow-motion camera” shift is not universally distinction describable as if all mass. available as a productive meaning shift in every language: some Russian verbs allow only an iterative reading for derived imperfectives.) 5.3. Processes and Events and Verbal Aspect 1. Three kinds of connections between mass/count and process/event 3. The "progressive paradox" and comparable "partitive problem" (i) Nominalizations (Mourelatos 1978): process verbs nominalize to mass nouns (a) John was writing a symphony when he died. (b) This is part of a symphony. (production, singing), event verbs to count nouns (explosion, arrival). (Further lexical shifts can apply, of course.) (ii) Direct structural analogies (Bach 1986): process verb is to event verb as mass 6.2. The Incremental Theme noun is to count noun. More below. (Dowty 1989, 1991, Filip 1992, 1993, 1996, 1999, Krifka 1986, 1987, 1989a, 1989b, 1992). (iii) Interactions and mutual constraints: eat soup is a process, eat an apple is an Here I am summarizing briefly from Filip (1999); she gives a nice summary of Krifka’s and event. More below: this needs the notion of incremental theme. Dowty’s work: the two of them jointly are responsible for the idea.

MGU0119.doc 7 MGU0119.doc 8 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011

The phenomena to be explained can be seen in the examples in section II below: with On this account, the object of eat is an Incremental Theme because parts of the thing some verbs, the “quantization” status of one of its NP arguments has an effect on whether the eaten correspond to parts of the eating event. The object of throw is not an Incremental Theme, resulting VP is quantized (event-denoting, telic) or cumulative (process-denoting, atelic). because parts of the thing thrown do not correspond to parts of the throwing event. Note: in the case of verbs of motion, the thing that moves (which Dowty calls “Holistic The Krifka-Dowty idea: Theme”) is not an incremental theme; but the Path generally plays a role corresponding to (1) cumulativity vs quantization is a notion that can be modelled in terms of atomic vs. incremental theme. Sometimes the term Incremental Path Theme is used, because syntactically, non-atomic lattice structures in both the entity domain and the eventuality domain. (See also paths are generally expressed differently from ordinary Incremental Themes, and are often left Bach 1986, Link 1987). (This is also reviewed in Partee 1997, 1999). implicit or only partially specified (e.g. one end point may be specified by a PP such as to Chicago.) Cumulative: soup, apples (bare mass noun, bare plural count noun) Quantized: the soup, an apple, the apple, two apples (3) The homomorphism provides a semantic explanation of the basic correlation between Cumulative: run, sit, stir, watch, eat soup, eat apples, build houses (states, processes) quantization of the Incremental Theme and aspect of the resulting verb phrase: Quantized: die, break, build a house, eat the soup, eat an apple The generalization: Definition (Krifka 1986, repeated as (23) in Filip 1999, p. 94) When the Incremental Theme is cumulative, the corresponding verb phrase is atelic; when the (23) A predicate P is cumulative iff Incremental Theme is quantized, the verb phrase is telic. 'x'y [P(x) & P(y) ( P(x ) y)] (provided P is a predicate that applies to at least two distinct entities; otherwise cumulativity is undefined for P). 6.3. Mass-Count and Process-Event Interactions. In words: P is cumulative iff whenever it applies to x and to y, it applies to the (R. Macaulay, Verkuyl (Verkuyl 1972), Vendler (Vendler 1967), Dowty (Dowty 1979, Dowty mereological sum of x and y. 1982), Hinrichs (Hinrichs 1986), Krifka (Krifka 1987, Krifka 1989, Krifka 1992, Krifka 1998), Link (Link 1983, Link 1987, Link 1998), Filip (Filip 1992, Filip 1993, Filip 1996, Filip 1999)) A predicate P is quantized iff 'x'y [P(x) & P(y) ( ¬y

Examples for 30 min. in 30 min. "up" Cumulative: If x is soup and y is soup, then x plus y is soup; if e1 can be characterized by ‘run’ (a) John ate soup a * * and e2 can be characterized by ‘run’, then the mereological sum of e1 and e2 can be (b) John ate the soup (*) a a characterized by ‘run’. It’s harder to say this nicely in the metalanguage in the case of verbs – one often resorts to nominalization, saying “if e1 constitutes (some) running and e2 constitutes (c) John ate apples a * * running, then e1 plus e2 constitute (some) running”. But in the case of verbs, it’s more (d) John ate 2 apples (*) a a customary to use the “in 2 hours”/ “for 2 hours” test.

“an apple”: if x is an apple and y is an apple, then it is not in general the case that x plus 2. Czech: aspectually marked verbs constrain the interpretation of unmarked bare mass y is an apple. (It happens only when x and y happen to be the same apple.) and plural nouns in Incremental Theme role. (Filip 1992) (similar facts in Russian.) “break”: If e1 is a breaking event and e2 is a breaking event, then e1 plus e2 is not in (a) Pil kávu. He drank/was drinking (some) coffee. general a breaking event. (b) Vypil kávu. He drank up (all) the coffee. (c) Pletla svetry. She knitted/was knitting (some) pullovers. Quantized: If x is an apple, then no proper part of x is an apple. (That’s equivalent to: If x is an (d) Upletla svetry. She knitted-PF (all) the pullovers. apple and y is an apple, then y is not a proper part of x.) If x is an event of building a house, then no proper part of x is an event of building a house. 3. No such effect with non-Incremental Theme arguments. Conversely, if x is “apples”, then there may be proper parts of x that are “apples”. And if (a) Agnes watched birds/the birds [for 30 min./ *in 30 min.] e is “running”, then there may be proper parts of e that are “running”. (b) D!ti vid!ly ch.est/0e. The children saw (some/the) rattlesnakes. (c) D!ti uvid!ly ch.est/0e. The children saw-PF (some/the) rattlesnakes. (2) The homomorphism idea behind incremental theme: A part of the meaning of certain episodic predicates, those that have incremental themes, is the entailment that there exists a 6.4. Type-shifting, Sort-shifting, and Markedness. homomorphism between the lattice structure (part-whole structure) associated with the 1. Items that are formally unmarked with respect to a given distinction can shift relatively easily Incremental Theme argument and the lattice structure associated with the event argument. among interpretations; items that are formally marked may not be able to shift without a change I.e., if there is such an entailment with respect to a certain argument, that argument is an in formal marking. Lexical items shift interpretation more easily than grammatical constructions. Incremental Theme, or has the property “Incremental Theme”. The semantics of a grammatical construction may “coerce” (force) a lexical shift.

MGU0119.doc 9 MGU0119.doc 10 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011

(a) "Blond" can shift between individual-level and stage-level interpretation; "being Other structures sensitive to stage-level/individual-level predicates (see Kratzer (Kratzer blond" is i-level only, "with blond hair" is stage-level only. “Red” is stage-level when 1995)and Diesing (Diesing 1992)): predicated of a nose or cheeks, individual-level when predicated of a dress. (11) Adjectival complements of perception verbs (Siegel 1976a, Siegel 1976b) (b) English "wash the dishes" is unmarked for perfectivity or , can shift easily (a) Mary saw Bill naked. (Stage-level) between process and event readings under the influence of adverbs, etc. (b) *Mary saw Bill intelligent. (Individual-level) (i) He washed the dishes for 30 minutes (but only got half of them done/ but didn't get any of them very clean.) (12) Existential there-construction (Milsark 1974, Milsark 1977) (ii) He washed the dishes in 30 minutes. (Conventional "packaging" of activity, with (a) There were dogs available. (st-level) conventional beginning and end.) (b) *There were dogs intelligent. (i-level)

Slavic verbs, (almost) all marked for aspect, do not shift without supporting 7.2. The ontology of entities and events. morphological change. Event vs. entity as a matter of perspective; frequently interchangeable.

(c) English "be sick", "be empty", "be dark", can shift to inchoative readings easily: Via nominalization, virtually anything can be regarded as an entity or individual (Cresswell (i) When it was dark, they all came in. 1973), and we tend to nominalize when we want to talk about anything, including events, times, (ii) I met him after he was sick. (ambiguous) actions, etc. -- byl nemocn/ / onemocn!l Less typical combinations (Partee 1991): NPs with stage-level modifiers (13), and sentences (d) Slavic bare mass nouns and plural nouns shift easily to "definite" or "indefinite" DP with i-level main predicates (14). interpretations. English bare nouns have much more restricted interpretations, since English does not generally leave unmarked. (13) How can there be a cherry that has no stone? ... A cherry when it's blooming, it has no stone. 2. Dowty, Krifka: homomorphism from the lattice structure associated with the (14) A quadratic equation usually has two different solutions. (Lewis 1975) Incremental Theme to the lattice structure associated with the event. Filip: use unification-based approach: "verbal predicate and an Incremental Theme NP 7.3. Slavic aspect. each provide partial information about a single linguistic object, a complex verbal predicate. [...] The Slavic languages are known for having particularly rich aspectual systems, and there has Constraints imposed by the language require that information coming from these two sources be been a great deal of work done on Slavic aspect within many different theoretical and compatible. [...] Languages may differ with respect to the localization of the relevant descriptive frameworks. Within Russia, important recent and current work has been done by information in the surface syntax and morphology. In Czech, it is the verbal predicate that Elena Paducheva (1994, 1996, 1998), including recent work joint with Mati Pentus (Paducheva specifies more information than the Incremental Theme NP. In English, on the other hand, it is and Pentus In press) partially integrating Paducheva’s earlier work with recent formal semantics typically the Incremental Theme. The apparent "flow" in one direction is due to this imbalance approaches, and by Sergej Tatevosov. Tatevosov has recently added a formal semantics in the encoding of information in the surface structure." perspective to his own work (Tatevosov 2005).

In both language groups, an “unbounded” verbal predicate and an “unbounded” Incremental Hana Filip has done a great deal to bring the formal semantics insights of Dowty and Krifka to Theme together lead to an atelic, imperfective, process-type sentence. Adding marked the study of Slavic aspect, adding a great deal of important work of her own (Filip 1992, 1996, perfectivity to the verb (Slavic) or bounded quantification of the Incremental Theme (e.g. with 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005). There is new work connecting Gen Neg and Russian aspect: see an article in English) leads to a telic, perfective, event-type sentence. (Levinson 2005).

7. More progress and issues in tense and aspect: a tiny sample. References Note: Robert Binnick maintains a large on-line bibliography of work on tense and aspect. It can 7.1. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. be found at www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/TENSE/ . The site also includes links to downloadable abstracts and papers, and links to sites of others working on tense and aspect. (9) Carlson (1977, 1980): the interpretation of bare plurals. See also Diesing 1992. And Casati and Varzi, in addition to their article (Casati and Varzi 2006) in the online Stanford (a) Opera tickets are available. (Stage-level: existential interp.) Encyclopedia of Philosophy, also have an online bibliography (Casati and Varzi 1997). (b) Opera tickets are expensive. (Indiv-level: generic interp.) Abusch, Dorit. 1988. Sequence of tense, intensionality, and . In WCCFL 7: Proceedings of the (10) Interpretation: "Stage-level" predicates express properties of spatio-temporal manifestations Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Hagit Borer. Stanford, CA: CSLI of individuals, typically "temporary" properties, "episodic". "Individual-level" predicates Publications. express properties of individuals, including "kinds". Bare plurals denote kinds; predicating a Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of Tense and Temporal {\em De Re}. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:1-- stage-level property of a kind gets interpreted as saying that the kind has instantiations 50. manifesting the given property. Bach, Emmon. 1981. On time, tense and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In Radical Pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 63-81. New York: Academic Press.

MGU0119.doc 11 MGU0119.doc 12 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=emmon_bach. Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, eds. Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 39-96. Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:5-16. Reprinted in Paul Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://plaza.ufl.edu/hfilip/quantpuzzle.pdf. Portner and Barbara H. Partee, eds., Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, Oxford: Blackwell Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11 (Special issue (324-333) http://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/13-Bach- on Slavic semantics edited by Wayles Browne and Barbara H. Partee) 55–101. The.Algebra.of.Events.djvu. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jBhMDlhZ/jsl11.1.pdf. Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Introduction. In Filip, Hana. 2004. On Accumulating and Having it All: Perfectivity, Prefixes and Bare Arguments. In Quantification in Natural Languages, eds. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and Perspectives on Aspect, eds. Henk Verkuyl, Henriette de Swart and Angeliek van Hout, 125-148. Barbara H. Partee, 1-11. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group. http://plaza.ufl.edu/hfilip/utrecht.10.15.pdf. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bachetal93_IntroQNL.pdf. Filip, Hana. 2005. Measures and indefinites. In Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect, eds. Bäuerle, Rainer. 1979. Temporale Deixis – Temporale Frage. Tübingen: Narr. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 229-288. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Bennett, Michael, and Partee, Barbara. 1972. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Santa http://plaza.ufl.edu/hfilip/Measures.Indefinites.pdf. Monica, California: System Development Corporation; reprinted with an Afterword by Indiana Filip, Hana, and Rothstein, Susan. 2006. Telicity as a semantic parameter. In Formal Approaches to University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, 1978. Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Slavic Linguistics (FASL 14). The Princeton Meeting, eds. James Lavine, Steven Franks, Hana Filip Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell and Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva, 139-156. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Slavic Publishing, 59-109. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/BennettPartee72_LogicofTenseAsp_Part1.pdf Publications. http://plaza.ufl.edu/hfilip/fasl14.Filip.Rothstein.pdf. plus https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/BennettPartee72_LogicofTenseAsp_Part2.pdf. Hinrichs, Erhard. 1986. Temporal Anaphora and of English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:63- Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 82. 1:413-458. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 35-74 Hughes, George, and Cresswell, Max. 1968. An Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Methuen. http://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/02-Carlson- Hughes, George, and Creswell, Max. 1996. A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge. A.Unified,Analysis.of.the.English.Bare.Plural.djvu. Kamp, Hans. 1971. Formal Properties of Now. Theoria 37:227-273. Carlson, Gregory N. 1980. Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland Publishing Co. Kamp, Hans. 1979. Events, Instants and Temporal Reference. In Semantics from Different Points of Casati, Roberto, and Varzi, Achille. 1997. 50 Years of Events: An Annotated Bibliography 1947 to 1997: View, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Urs Egli and Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Springer. Philosophy Documentation Center (online). http://www.pdcnet.org/eventsbib.htm. Kamp, Hans, and Rohrer, Christian. 1983. Tense in Texts. In Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Casati, Roberto, and Varzi, Achille. 2006. Events. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online), ed. Language, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze and Arnim von Stechow, 250-269. Berlin: de Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: CSLI, Stanford. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events/. Gruyter. Comrie, Bernard. 1976a. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related problems. Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic. Introduction to model theoretic semantics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. of natural language, formal logic, and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Comrie, Bernard. 1976b. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kamp, Johan Anthony Willem (Hans). 1968. Tense Logic and the Theory of Linear Order, Philosophy, Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UCLA: Ph.D. dissertation. Cresswell, M. J. 1973. Logics and Languages. London: Methuen. Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London and New York: Routledge. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, ed. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, eds. Gregory Nicholas Rescher, 81-95. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press. N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125-175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press [original Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. publication in 1989: Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. In Papers on Quantification, ed. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and . The semantics of verbs and times in Emmon; Kratzer Bach, Angelika; Partee, Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ: Synthese Language Library. Dordrecht: Reidel. Massachusetts at Amherst]. Dowty, David. 1982. Tenses, Time Adverbs, and Compositional Semantic Theory. Linguistics and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. In SALT VIII: Philosophy 5:23-55. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1998, eds. Devon Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:547-619. Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson, 92-110. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Enç, Mürvet. 1981. Tense without Scope: An Analysis of Nouns as Indexicals, University of Wisconsin, Cornell University. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdf. Madison. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In The Syntax of Time, eds. Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 389-423. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 9:405-426. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DZkY2FmY/Telicity:%20The%20Paper.pdf. Enç, Mürvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18:633-657. Krifka, Manfred. 1987. Nominal reference and temporal constitution: towards a semantics of quantity. In Filip, Hana. 1992. Aspect and interpretation of nominal arguments. In CLS 28: Papers from the Twenty- Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers (= GRASS Eighth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. C.P. Canakis, G.P. Chan and J.M. Denton, Series No. 8), eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof and Frank Veltman, 153-173. Dordrecht: 139-158. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Foris. Filip, Hana. 1993. Aspect, Situation Types and Nominal Reference, University of California at Berkeley: Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Ph.D. dissertation. Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen: Studien zur Theoretischen Linguistik. München: Wilhelm Fink Filip, Hana. 1996. Integrating telicity, aspect and NP semantics: the role of thematic structure. In Formal Verlag. Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 3: The College Park Meeting 1994, ed. Jindrich Toman, 61-96. Ann Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. Arbor, Mich.: Slavic Publications. In Lexical Matters, eds. Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 29-53. Stanford: CSLI. http://amor.rz.hu- Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York: Garland. berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Publications/Krifka 1992 Thematic Relations.PDF. Filip, Hana. 2000. The quantization puzzle. In Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197-235.

MGU0119.doc 13 MGU0119.doc 14 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Semantic Universals, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011 Barbara H. Partee, MGU, April 14, 2011

Dordrecht: Kluwer. http://bhpartee.narod.ru/Partee1984NomTemp.pdf Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures: Studies in Linguistics and Partee, Barbara. 1991. Adverbial quantification and event structures. In BLS 17: Proceedings of the Philosophy v.76. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Chapters 5 and 6 in zipped rar file: Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, eds. Laurel Sutton, Christopher https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Landman_00_ev-plr-lect5-6.rar ; Table of Johnson and Ruth Shields, 439-456. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. contents of Chapters 5 and 6 (Word file): http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TQwZGUyY/. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Landman_Chs5_6_TOC.doc. Partee, Barbara H. 1997. Vid i interpretacija imennyx grupp ("Aspect and the interpretation of Noun Levinson, Dmitry. 2005. Aspect in negative imperatives and Genitive of : A unified analysis of Phrases"). In Trudy Aspektologicheskogo Seminara Filologicheskogo Fakul'teta MGU im. two phenomena in Russian. Ms. Stanford. Lomonosova, Vol. 3, ed. Marina Chertkova, 121-140. Moscow: Moscow University Press. Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, ed. E.L. Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Nominal and temporal semantic structure: aspect and quantification. In Prague Keenan, 3-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, Linguistics Circle Papers, v.3, eds. E. Hajicová, T. Hoskovec, O. Les"ka, P. Sgall and Z. 178-188 http://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/07-Lewis- Skoumalová, 91-108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Adverbs.of.Quantification.djvu. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 1971. Some Problems of Non-Singular Reference: A Logic for Mass, Sortal, and Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Adverbial Terms, Philosophy, UCLA. Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, eds. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow, Prior, A. 1967. Past, Present, and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 303-323. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter; reprinted in Portner and Partee (2002), 127-146. Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. London: Macmillan. Reprinted in Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy: CSLI lecture Rothstein, Susan Deborah ed. 1998. Events and Grammar. Studies in linguistics and philosophy ; v. 70. notes No. 74. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. pp.11-34. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., Dordrecht ; Boston: Kluwer Academic. 2002, 127-146. http://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/04-Link- Siegel, Muffy. 1976a. Capturing the Russian adjective. In Montague Grammar, ed. Barbara H. Partee, The.Logical.Analysis.of.Plurals.and.Mass.Terms:A.Lattice-theoretical.Approach.djvu. 293-309. New York: Academic Press. Link, Godehard. 1987. Algebraic semantics of event structures. In Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Siegel, Muffy E.A. 1976b. Capturing the Adjective, University of Massachusetts: Ph.D. dissertation. Colloquium, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof and Frank Veltman, 243-262. Amsterdam: Smith, Carlota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ITLI. Reprinted in Link 1998, pp. 251-268 Tatevosov, Sergei. 2005. Verbal attenuatives and degree modification. In Proceedings of the workshop Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy: CSLI lecture notes No. 74. on Formal Semantics and Cross-Linguistic Data, ESSLLI 2005 eds. Joost Zwarts and Helen de Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Hoop. http://www.student.ru.nl/luucvanderhorst/bestanden/ESSLLI/tatevosov.pdf. McCoard, James. 1978. The English Perfect: Tense-Choice and Pragmatic Inferences. Amsterdam: Tenny, Carol, and Pustejovsky, James eds. 2000. Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging North-Holland Press. Perspectives of Lexical Semantics, Logical Semantics and Syntax. vol. 100. CSLI Lecture Notes. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English, MIT: Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford: CLSI Publications. Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review 66:143-160. Reprinted in Z. Vendler English. Linguistic Analysis 3:1-29. (1967), Linguistics in Philosophy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 97-121. Montague, Richard. 1970. Pragmatics and intensional logic. Synthèse 22:68-94. Reprinted in Montague Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and Times. In Linguistics in Philosophy, ed. Zeno Vendler, 97-121. Ithaca: 1974, 119-147. Cornell University Press. Mourelatos, Alexander. 1978. Events, Processes, and States. Linguistics and Philosophy 2:415-434. Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects: Foundations of Language Suppl, Musan, Renate. 1997. On the Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases. New York: Garland. Series 15. Dordrecht: Reidel. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1996. Tense, Attitude, and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer. von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. In SALT V: Proceedings of the Fifth Padu"eva, E.V. 1994. From Pu0kin to Nabokov: narrator in the position of observer. Russian Literature Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1995, eds. Mandy Simons and Teresa Galloway, 36. 362-386. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University. Padu"eva, E.V. 1996. Semanti!eskie issledovanija: Semantika vremeni i vida v russkom jazyke; Semantika narrativa. [Semantic Studies: The Semantics of Tense and Aspect in Russian; The Semantics of Narrative.]. Moscow: 1kola "Jazyki Russkoj Kultury". Paducheva, E.V. 1998. On non-compatibility of partitive and imperfective in Russian. Theoretical Linguistics 24:73-82. Paducheva, Elena V., and Pentus, Mati. In press. Formal and informal semantics of telicity. In Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, ed. Susan Rothstein. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/phil/faculty/tparsons/Event%20Semantics/download.htm. Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70:601-609. Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 50-58 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022- 362X%2819731025%2970%3A18%3C601%3ASSABTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H or http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WUyZGJjY/Partee1973.pdf. Partee, Barbara. 1984. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7:243-286.

MGU0119.doc 15 MGU0119.doc 16