Temporal Modification in Nominals Paris Tense Workshop In each example, (5) (3) in general; cf.: (2) (1) Consider the interpretation of In this paper I will: Richard Larson (SUNY - Stony Brook) 1.0 (4) The prenominal deictic/generic ambiguity appears to be structural. But in (1c) and (2b), c. b. a. a. b. a. b. a. • • • My b. A/the/John’s the the (Tuesday lectures are usually interesting and Thursday boring but:) The lecture Every Every appointment Thursday The lecture Examine some of the syntactic & semantic correlates distinction the other, D-complements Propose an analysis in which one set of modifiers are N-complements, and major domains in the nominal: NP and DP. Suggest that temporal modifiers, like other distribute across two A Simple Ambiguity The lecture (said of a regular Thursday lecture moved to Wednesday during one week)

Thursday generic

Thursday

Wednesday Thursday

deictic deictic Thursday ’s lecture

on Thursday on

lecture Thursday

Thursday November 16, ’00

Thursday Thursday Thursday appointment. Thursday

Thursday can have a

generic deictic

Thursday

generic Thursday

can also have a lecture s lecture (was interesting this week)

lecture (was packed) , as it appears in (1)-(2): (was interesting). deictic reading (deictic) (generic) 1 generic reading , denoting a specific Thursday. , referring to Thursdays (10) (9) contrasts that have been noted over the years. (11) pairs like (11a,b): (8) The difference is truth conditional (7a,b). But it Bolinger (1967): 2.2 2.1 (7) prenominal vs. postnominal (8a,b): The positional ambiguity with (6) difference in pairs like:(6a-d): 2.0

The b. a. b. b. The stars b. a. a. • • a. The d. c. b. a. Possible #The The The Mary interviewed every Mary interviewed every The But it also can attribute a characteristic or A prenominal adjective can attribute a temporary property. The postnominal adjective attributes a the the the the the the the the Bolinger Contrasts Prenominal Modifier Ambiguities

individuals responsible visible stars stars visible navigable rivers rivers navigable stolen jewels jewels stolen responsible individuals visible

nonvisible visible visible visible TP

visible nonvisible

visible Ambiguities

stars stars include Capella. EP

visible include Capella. visible stars include Capella.

stars include Capella. Thursday Bolinger (1967) notes a subtle, but systematic meaning stars include Capella. possible candidate candidate possible stars include Capella include Capella. Larson (2000) discusses the meaning difference in (include Capella, Betelguese, and Sirius) (include the Nile, Amazon and Ganges) (were on the table). (include Mary, John and Alice).

seems to be one instance of a wider set Temporal Modification in Nominals - R.K. Larson 2 temporary property not enduring property . . (pace Bolinger) simply a matter of Incoherent! Coherent! (B. Citko) (TP). (EP). (14) Paris Tense Workshop (13) Again, the ambiguity in prenominal position appears to be structural. Consider: (12) 2.3 (17) This prenominal ambiguity appears to depend on proximity N: (16) (19) (18) (15) readings: examples like (15) and (16), said to display "intersective" "nonintersective" Larson (2000): . every b. a. b. a. a. . a b. a. b. • • Mary interviewed every (= Mary interviewed every Mary interviewed every Mary interviewed every potential candidate Mary interviewed every candidate that it was possible for her to interview. Olga is a Olga is a Olga is a Olga is a But it also has a The prenominal adjective has the implicit relative reading. The postnominal adjective has an Intersective-Nonintersective Ambiguities ii. Peter is an ii. i. i. Olga is a

’Peter is longtime friend/friend of longstanding’ ’Olga dances beautifully’ ’Peter is an aged friend/friend who old’ ’Olga is a dancer who beautiful’ INTERSECTIVE NONINTERSECTIVE beautiful

possible blonde beautiful blonde blonde fast beautiful dancer

old friend IR

November 16, ’00

and direct modification reading

and beautiful beautiful

beautiful DM . beautiful possible candidate

possible

potential candidate possible for her to interview.) dancer dancer . dancer. candidate dancer. dancer

implicit relative 3

candidate.

Only Non-intersective Reading Non-Int Int Int (Vendler 1967) Only Intersective Int (DM) (cf. 12b) Consider also familiar − − − Non-Int Int Int

r (Non-intersective Reading) (Intersective Reading) (Non-intersective Reading) (Intersective Reading) eading − Int

(IR) (cf. 12a) Reading ∗ √ √ √

(23) (21) (Carlson 1977): N-modification readings often appear to be generic, or express i-level predication Observations (20) Ideas Pursued Some Questions 3.0 b. a. • a. • • • • d. c. b. a. b. • • • These stars are These visible stars No clear difference of meaning in modifier Their Thursday meeting D-modifiers are N-modifiers are [ The inner vs. outer position in (19) corresponds to N- D-modification There are two distinct domains of modification: N- vs. D-modification. They meet What is the nature of positional contrast? Why are there apparently N-Modification relative; intersective modifier vs.nonintersective modifier? generic; temporary property vs. enduring property; direct modifier implicit What accounts for the semantic differences in two positions: deictic vs. positions for one and the same modifier? No clear relation to A-ordering hierarchies (Hetzron 1978, Sproat & Shih 1991) position seems to be what’s crucial

DP

IMPLICIT REL TEMP PROP DEICTIC INTERSECTIVE beautiful possible visible Thursday OUTER

α : [ Here NP on Thursday(s) β N ]

intersective in interpretation; N-modifiers are not. in characteristically/intrinsically visible [ [ [ [

the domain of a generic quantifier α

] DIRECT MOD ENDURING PROP GENERIC NONINTERSECTIVE beautiful possible visible Thursday INNER

.

(

α Temporal Modification in Nominals - R.K. Larson 4 = D-modifier; (22)

dancer ] stars ] lecture ] candidate ] per se b. a. She dances A beautiful dancer ; occurring in outer/inner β = N-modifier) Γ ; D-modifiers are not. . beautifully two .

3.1 Paris Tense Workshop A postnominal source for in (29) derivation for (29d), on its generic reading: (29a) from postnominal constructions by fronting (29b,c); she assumes (pc.) a similar Conclusion outside NP are scope of Modifiers (YP) inside NP will have potential generic reading. (XP1, XP2) (27) (26) (25) (24) are dancings by Olga". Similarly for (26) and (27). general, for events of the contextually relevant kind (Con) containing Olga, those bound by a generic quantifier ranging over eventualities (24b/25b); read (24b) as: "in Chierchia (1995) suggests generic verbs, predicate nominals, and i-level adjectives are (28) Assume NP in DP always contains a generic quantifier with scope limited to NP: (30) for manner reading: pre- and postnominally (Cinque 1993, Crisma 1993,1996). Post-nominal position is necessary (31) a. b. a. b. a. b. a. b. a. a. c. b. A λ Thursday meeting Γ They meet on Thursday(s) Γ Olga is a beautiful dancer. / dances beautifully. Γ Olga is a dancer. / dances. N-Modification: Syntax & LF ’their brutal aggression against Albania’ Det their brutal aggression against Albania La loro A [ A [ [ XP1 Olga is a [ e*[ e[ Con(e, them) & meeting(e, them)] [Loc(e,Thurs)] e[ Con(e, olga) & dancing(e, olga)] [beautiful(e,C)] e[ Con(e, olga)] [dancing(e, morning N morning meeting Γ : The inner modifiers in (20) are all inside NP. e[ e \______/ brutale [ beautiful ∈ NP meeting]

e* meeting November 16, ’00 IN

Γ & meeting(e)] [Loc(e,Thurs)]]

morning aggressione all’Albania e [ YP N ] i [ dancer

IN beautiful dancer

t Γ ] ] & t cannot get generic reading. i ]] ] Levi (1978) derives complex nominals like XP2 ] 5 (30) is also motivated. c. e. d.

A [ A [ A ( ("dances beautifully") brutale Thursday N Thursday meeting gets subject-oriented interp) \______/ meeting IN meeting

Thursday Italian As occur IN

t ] ] analysis of relative clauses, yielding the same basic semantics. (34) a relative clause: R (33) (32) restriction/low-scope mapping of Diesing (1992): With a postnominal source, LF tree-splitting is simple and follows the high- 4.0 Implication eadings of outer modifiers are uniformly intersective, equivalent to what one gets with Q | b. a. b. a. b. D-Modification d. c. Γ The stars The lecture A [ A Thursday meeting ’their brutal aggression against Albania’ Det their aggression brutal against Albania La loro aggressione A Every candidate λ e[ Con(e, them) & meeting(e, them)] [Loc(e,Thursday)] e*[ beautiful NP : an analysis of (34a-d) should be based on (some generalization of) Q Γ

e[ e

|

meeting [ they visible ∈ Thursday Restriction | dancer Restriction e* DP

& meeting(e)] [ Loc(e,Thurs)] ] possible brutale

VP

| Scope meet V all’Albania IN a.’ b.’ Thursday ]] c.’ d.’

V’ Temporal Modification in Nominals - R.K. Larson 6 on Thursday The lecture The stars Every candidate A dancer

PP Scope

( brutale who is beautiful that are visible that was on Thursday gets manner interp.) that it’s possible for ... Paris Tense Workshop 4.2 4.1 My approach employs a particular version of the Article-S analysis, involving "DP shells: (36) determiners and restrictive modifiers, including relative clauses: Article-S was motivated in part by apparent discontinuous dependencies holding between (35) (38)

b. Relative Clauses as D-Complements (Larson 1988,1991) Analyses of Relative Clauses c. d. c. b. a. a. a. i. Smith (1964) Ross (1967) ii. The ARTICLE-S Analysis ii. I earned it The NP-S Analysis i. Det the Det the

*some/three/most/many boys but/except Bill *no/three women than men

(after Kuroda 1969) more every NP

Det women that I saw / girl N no | the way that one should | *the way | that way | the old-fashioned way

NP

S boy November 16, ’00

NP than that I saw but/except men S girl N

Bill

7 d. b.

A "Right Wrap" Variant Stockwell, Schacter& Partee (1970) The NOM-S Analysis (37) Det the girl the girl that I saw (Keenan and Stavi 1986) b. a. c. (from Jackendoff 1977) NP girl N the old Paris *the Paris the Paris that I love the the that I saw NOM that I saw that I saw S (MG) (42) (40) \______/ \______/ \______/ (41) (39) (43) be analyzed as initial arguments of D, stranded by D-raising: This view can be generalized to the class of postnominal modifiers noted earlier; all

c. b. a. a. a. a. a. b. b. c. c.

every every the the some [ [ [ some John DP DP DP DP Pro [ Pro [ Pro [ meet(x,y) John DP met VP → → → → → → D’ V D’ D’ VP

met every the the λ λ λ λ λ λ V Q Q Q Q Q Q [ [ V’ λ λ λ λ λ λ Bill DP V’ P P P P P P DP DP [ ∃ ∀ ∃ ∀ ∃ ∃ Bill DP DP stars [ lecture [ y y x[[Q(x) & x[Q(x) x[[Q(x) & x[Q(x) ∀ ∀ VP candidate [ x[[[Q(y) & x[[Q(y) V t Thursday & → V’ D’

D’ P(x)] t [ R(x) R(x) P(x)] ↔ DP t [ y = x ] R(y) A ] D’ ] P

DP

&

→ Temporal Modification in Nominals - R.K. Larson 8 t [ visible

] P(x)]

Thursday P(x)] ↔ & b. b. Spec XP Pro y = x ]

P(x)]

]]]]] possible THE(X,Y) Spec Pro ]]]]] DP & the D

P(x)] ]]]]] (Bach & Cooper (1978)) DP meeting the D D’ NP D’ meeting DP D t NP D’ that occurred Thursday

CP

(48) Paris Tense Workshop (47) (46) \______/ \______/ 4.3 (50) (49) must be derived, even with modifiers that cannot surface postnominally (49): If D-modifiers are underlyingly inner D-complements, then outer prenominal position (45) postnominal occurrences (48). predicates (46). Used as modifiers, they pattern like arguments (47). Similarly for like Some Evidence for Argument Status (44) Derivation from postnominal position is clear with (51) last Thursday b. a. b. a. b. a. b. Prenominal Position for D-Modifiers Mary interviewed b. a. a. b. a. ( ≠ Mary interviewed la conferenza * the meeting last Thursday la conferenza Ho incontrato Mario I met Mario (the) Thursday last/(the) before Ho incontrato Mario These talks are typical of last Thursday Sono discorsi da The day before the exam was last Thursday /the Il giorno dell’esame era [ Ho passato I have spent (the) Thursday last/(the) before at the seaside Ho passato [ (cf. *the climate We discussed the *Mary sampled Mary sampled DP DP Pro [ Pro [ D’ D’ and

more every

*(lo) scorso giovedì (?il) giovedì scorso November 16, ’00 (?il) giovedì scorso

a every the Thursday before (lo) scorso giovedì previous a / no a/no/three/more [ / scorsa giovedì [ no previous DP DP / three *(lo) scorso giovedì (?il) giovedì scorso / / three women [ all boy [ / (il) giovedì scorso the only / / more current / more D’ / current t [ D’ : Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) note that phrases / / food(s) t [ a taller possible candidate al mare *(il) giovedì prima / PP /

the sweetest subsequent candidate /* pattern differently as arguments (45) vs. 9 (il) giovedì prima

/ PP but/except Bill subsequent

than men

possible

/ possible *(il) giovedì prima / (il) giovedì prima ( s / ) that it was recent food(s) ]]]]] / -ambiguities (Larson 2000): . recent ]]]]] (A. Cardinaletti, p.c.) al mare ) possible climate possible . ( s ). . t to interview.) 4.4 (55) Japanese based on whether they express -s-level or i-level properties (55): N-modifiers. But, Takahashi (1997) notes ordering restrictions on prenominal RCs in is intersective and equivalent to modification by RCs. This suggests RCs should not be N-modification is non-intersective and typically generic (but cf. to some head and then raise Spec. Possibility 2 basically analogizes modifiers to arguments, which start as complements (54) N, and above D (G!,G2,G3...), with features that trigger movement: P (52) How exactly does this movement work? Tricky with multiple modifiers! \______1______/ \______2______/ (53) Possibility 1 \______2______/ \______1______/ ossibility 2 (after Cinque): N-Modifying Relatives? a. c. b. b. a. e. d. a. e. d. c. [Watashi-ga kinoo atta ] [tabako-o suu c. b. We skipped every ?We skipped every meeting [ [ [ ???? *[ ’the person who smokes I met yesterday is Mr. Tanaka’ 1sg-NOM yesterday met tobacco-ACC inhale person-TOP (is Mr. Tanaka) a. We skipped every *We skipped every We skipped every DP DP DP DP Pro [ Pro [ Pro [ [ [ [ DP DP Pro [ DP : D-raising can carry other material along. a [ a [ the [

D’ D’ D’ s-level D’ G G

[ [ every

D D [ P3 P2 G D every [ [ D P1 every [

every [ beautiful visible [

possible Thursday possible Thursday DP Thursday Thursday possible A

a collection of functional projections (F1, F2, F3...) above P meeting D A possible ]] G2 [ P P

possible ]] Thursday G3 [ \______1______/ \______2______/ meeting Thursday meeting G1 [ FP2 [ D’ FP3

\______2______/ \______1______/ [ t [

i-level 10 Temporal Modification in Nominals - R.K. Larson

FP1 visible DP [

Thursday

[ beautiful D’

possible D possible D meeting. meeting P meeting.

P

t [ Thursday

Thursday Thursday F2 [ A P possible ]]]] . . [ F3 [ NP . D’ hito F1 [ t [ [ star [ D NP D’

t ]]] -wa (Tanaka-san desu) possible D t [

dancer

P t NP ]]

[ Thursday [ DP A lecture DP P t

]]

meeting

possible

). D-modification

meeting t

]] t

]] t [ ]] D ][ ]]]]]]] ] [ t ]]]]]] D’ t ]] D’ t ]]] t ]]] Tentative Conclusion (57) Paris Tense Workshop • • • • • • • event structure (more generally, world-time-event-degree structure) of N. (56) closeness to N: RCs marked with Strongly suggests outer/inner modifier distinction. Similarly for Japanese adjectival/finite 5.0 Temporal As participate in the same alternations as nontemporals. As originate postnominally - in effect, as reduced relative clauses. As proposed by some early analyses in transformational grammar, certain prenominal (Cinque 1993) remains to be seen. Whether the two modification domains contain their own ordered functional hierarchies modifiers as its complements (recall (41a,b). Although D is often compared to T/C, in certain respects it also parallel V taking It is N, not D, that closest to being an independent tense domain, containing richer structure in containing two distinct domains of modification: N and D. Although less-articulated structure than CP/TP in lacking tense, DP appears to have a understood as NP modifiers or (reduced) relatives. Prenominal As occupy structurally different sites, depending on whether they are The duty-officer [ b. a. b. c. Conclusions /the sign that fell was bent/??the bent fell’ ’Hanako is looking at the bent, fallen sign/the sign that was bent Hanako-TOP [bend-PST] [fall-PST] signboard-ACC look-TE IRU Hanako-wa [ ’Hanako is looking at the fallen sign/sign that fell’ Hanako-TOP [fall-PST] signboard-ACC look-TE IRU Hanako-wa [ *[tabako-o suu ] [watashi-ga kinoo atta 1sg-NOM yesterday met tobacco-ACC inhale BE-PST] person-TOP [Watashi-ga kinoo atta ] [tabako-o sutte ita]

i-level

s-level -ta

, ’Past’ (Abe 1993, Ogihara 1998). Adjectival reading seems to require : RCs are not forbidden from N-modification if they combine with the November 16, ’00 when John was on deck magat-ta taore-ta

] kanban-o mi-te iru s-level ] [ taore-ta

11 s ] kanban-o mi-te iru -level ] will be at the board of inquiry. hito -wa (Tanaka-san desu)

hito -wa Γ .

Giorgi, A. and F. Pianesi (1997) Vendler, Z. (1967) Takahashi, N. (1997) "Hierarchy Among Relative Clauses in Japanese," unpublished ms., SUNY - SB. Ross, J. R. (1967) Ogihara, T. (1998) "The Semantics of Adjectival Relatives in Japanese," unpublished ms., UWash. Giorgi, A. and F. Pianesi (1997) Larson, R. (2000) "ACD in AP?" paper presented at the Nineteenth West Coast Conference Keenan, E and J. Stavi (1986) "A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners," Hetzron, R. (1978) "On the Relative Order of Adjectives," in H. Seiler (ed.) Davidson, D. (1967) "The Logical Form of Action Sentences," in N. Rescher (ed.) Crisma, P. (1996) "On the Configurational Nature of Adjectival Modification," in K. Zagona (ed.) Crisma, P. (1993) "On Adjective Placement in Romance and Germanic Event Nominals," Cinque, G. (1993) "On the Evidence for Partial N Movement in Romance DP," University of Venice Bach, E. and R. Cooper (1978) "The NP-S Analysis of Relative Clauses Compositional Semantics," Abe, Y. (1993) "Dethematized Subjects and Property Ascription in Japanese," References Stockwell, R., P. Schacter, and B. Partee (1970) Sproat, R. and C. Shih (1991) "The Cross-Linguistic Distribution of Adjectival Ordering Restrictions," in Smith, C. (1964) "Determiners and Relative Clauses in Generative Grammar," Levi, J. (1978) Larson, R. (1998) "Events and Modification in Nominals," D. Strolovitch A. Lawson (eds.) Larson, R. (1991) "The Projection of DP and DegP Structure," unpublished ms., SUNY - Stony Brook. Larson, R. (1988) Class lectures. MIT. Larson, R. Kuroda, S.Y. (1969) "English Relativization and Certain Other Related Problems," in Reibel & Schane. Koster, J. (1978) "Why Subject Sentences Don’t Exist," in S.J. Keyser (ed.) Jackendoff, R. (1977) Diesing, M. (1992) Chierchia, G. (1995) "Individual-level Predicates as Inherent Generics," in G.Carlson and J. Pelletier Bolinger, D (1967) "Adjectives in English: Attribution and Predication",

of S-Y Kuroda Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages (Selected Papers from the 25th LSRL) Asian Conference on Language, Information and Computation and Action Linguistics and Philosophy 9 Linguistics and Philosophy 2 Grammatica Generativa 18 Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Formal Linguistics ( Studies in European Languages Working Papers Vol.3, n.2.. Venice: Centro Linguistico Interfaculta. C. Georgopoulos and R. Ishihara (eds.) 165-184) Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. (eds.)

The Generic Book Restrictive Modification: Relative Clauses and Adverbs

. (pp. 81-120) Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals

. (pp.565-593) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Constraints on Variables in Syntax Linguistics in Philosophy

Indefinites

X-bar Syntax WCCFL 19 . (pp. 176-223) Chicago:University of Chicago Press. . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

: 61-100.

Tense and Aspect :253-1326. Tense and Aspect :145-150. ). UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. . Cambridge: MIT Press. . (pp.53-64) Cambridge: MIT Press.

. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor The Major Syntactic Structures of English

12 . New York: Oxford Univ. Press. . New York: Oxford University Press. Temporal Modification in Nominals - R.K. Larson . Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. . Ithaca: Cornell University. . New York: Academic Press.

. Ph.D. dissertation, UWisc.

, Seoul.

Lingua 18

Language Universals

Recent Transformational

Proceedings of the 1992 Language 40

,1-34.

The Logic of Decision Rivista Di . (pp. 59-71). . New York: : 37-52. . (pp.