On the temporal structure of nonculminating accomplishments

Sergei Tatevosov

doi:10.1515/ling-2020-0018

Article

On the temporal structure of nonculminating accomplishments

Sergei Tatevosov

Published/Copyright: April 17, 2020

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Linguistics Volume 58 Issue 5

Abstract

In the growing body of literature on nonculmination one question seems to have attracted less attention than it may deserve: why do some but not all accomplishment predicates allow for nonculminating interpretations? The goal of this paper is to review attested restrictions on nonculminating accomplishments and to explore one specific aspect of their meaning. Assuming, with the literature on predicate decomposition, that accomplishments minimally consist of a process and change of state components, I focus on the temporal structure of the former. The main empirical finding of the study is that a nonculminating reading is unavailable if contextually relevant parts of this component are arranged by the temporal precedence relation in a unique way.

Keywords: nonculmination; accomplishment predicates; predicate decomposition; perfectivity; syntax-semantics interface

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deeply felt gratitude to Daniel Altshuler, John Bailyn, Oliver Bott, Wayles Browne, Sabine Iatridou, Xenia Kisseleva, Jaklin Kornfilt, Ekaterina Lyutikova, Fabienne Martin, Hans-Robert Mehlig, to the audiences at Tu+ (2015, UMass), FASL 24 (2015, NYU) and TELIC 2017 (University of Stuttgart), and to the anonymous reviewers for stimulating comments, suggestions and criticism. The data from the Mishar dialect of Tatar have been collected in the fieldwork expeditions organized by the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University. I would like to thank all the native speakers for their invaluable help. The financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant #19-012-00627) is gratefully acknowledged. All mistakes, shortcomings, and oversights are mine.

Appendix

Rothstein’s (2004) theory of accomplishment event structure is summarized in (88):

(88)

Rothstein (2004): basic definitions

Accomplishment event template

λyλe∃e₁∃e₂ [e=^S(e₁∪e₂) ∧ activity(e₁) ∧ agent(e₁)=x ∧ Theme(e₁)=y ∧ become(e₂) ∧ Arg(e₂)=Theme(e₁) ∧ INCR(e₁, e₂, C(e₂))]

where ^S(e₁∪e₂) is a singular entity created out of e₁ and e₂

Incremental relation between (sub)events

INCR(e₁, e₂, C(e₂)) (e₁ is incrementally related to e₂ with respect to the incremental chain C(e₂)) iff there is a contextually available one-one function μ from C(e₂) onto the set of parts of e₁, PT(e₁), such that ∀e∈C(e₂) τ(e)=τ(μ(e))

Incremental chain

C(e) is a set of parts of e such that

(i) the smallest event in C(e) is the initial bound of e,

(ii) for every e₁, e₂ in C(e) e₁ ≤e₂ or e₂≤e₁, and

(iii) e is in C(e)

In Rothstein’s account, accomplishments are sums of two subevents, where the summing operation ^S(e₁∪e₂) creates a singular entity. Relevant subevents are activity (e₁ in (88a)) and become (= change of state, e₂ in (88a)). Rothstein provides neo-Davidsonian association of arguments with events via thematic roles. The activity subevent is related to the agent and patient, the single argument of the become subevent is equal to the patient of activity subevent. Subevents are incrementally related. The INCR(emental) relation in (88b) is defined relatively to the incremental chain that consists of parts of the become subevent arranged in a partial order. The incremental chain, defined in (88c), is the set of parts of an event such that any two parts stand in part-of relation. The incremental relation involves a contextually salient function that establishes a one-to-one correspondence between parts of the incremental chain and parts of the activity. This function replaces the causal relation between subevents more commonly accepted in the literature on predicate decomposition and discussed in Section 3.5. Related subevents must temporarily coincide.

Mapping to a minimal final part (MMFP) is defined in (89).

(89)

MMFP(e₂)(e₁)

e₁ stands in the Mapping to a minimal final part relation to e₂ iff there is a contextually available function μ from e₂ onto PT(e₁) such that e₂ is mapped onto the minimal final part of e₁.

an event e′ is a final part of e iff e′ ≤ e ∧ ¬∃e′′ [e′′ ≤ e ∧ e′ « e′′]

where « is a precedence relation on events

an event e′ is a minimal final part of e iff

e′ is a final part of e ∧ ¬∃e′′ [e′′ is a final part of e ∧ e′′<e′]

References

Altshuler, Daniel. 2013. There is no neutral aspect. Proceedings of SALT 23. 40–61.10.3765/salt.v23i0.2681Search in Google Scholar

Altshuler, Daniel. 2014. A typology of partitive operators. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 735–775.10.1007/s11049-014-9232-1Search in Google Scholar

Altshuler, Daniel. 2015. Does viewpoint aspect make reference to time? Paper presented at the Cornell Workshop on Aspect, Cornell University, September 25.Search in Google Scholar

Arregui, Ana, María Luisa Rivero & Andrés Pablo Salanova. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation in imperfectivity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 307–362.10.1007/s11049-013-9226-4Search in Google Scholar

Arunachalam, Sudha & Anubha Kothari. 2012. An experimental study of Hindi and English perfective interpretation. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4. 27–42.Search in Google Scholar

Bar-el, Leora, Henry Davis & Lisa Matthewson. 2005. On non-culminating accomplishments. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 35. 87–102.Search in Google Scholar

Beck, Sigrid & Arnim von Stechow. 2015. Events, times and worlds: An LF architecture. In Christian Fortmann, Anja Lübbe & Irene Rapp (eds.), Situationsargumente im Nominalbereich (Linguistische Arbeiten 562), 13–46. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110432893-002Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Cipria, Alicia & Craige Roberts. 2000. Spanish imperfecto and preterito: Truth conditions and aktionsart effects in a situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8. 297–347.10.1023/A:1011202000582Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Demirdache, Hamida & Fabienne Martin. 2015. Agent control over non-culminating events. In Elisa Barrajón López, José Luis Cifuentes Honrubia & Susana Rodríguez Rosique (eds.), Verbal classes and aspect, 185–217. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ivitra.9.09demSearch in Google Scholar

Deo, Ashwini. 2009. Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: Partitions as quantificational domains. Linguistics and Philosophy 32. 475–521.10.1007/s10988-010-9068-zSearch in Google Scholar

Dickey, Stephen. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Dickey, Stephen. 2006. Aspectual pairs, goal orientation and PO- delimitatives in Russian. Glossos 7. 1–32.Search in Google Scholar

Dickey, Stephen & Julie Hutcheson. 2003. Delimitative verbs in Russian, Czech and Slavic. In Robert Maguire & Alan Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the 13th International Congress of Slavists, Vol. 1, 23–36. Bloomington, In Slavica.Search in Google Scholar

Dowty, David R. 1977. Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English “imperfective” progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 45–78.10.1002/9780470758335.ch11Search in Google Scholar

Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Search in Google Scholar

Filip, Hana. 2000. The quantization puzzle. In James Pustejovsky & Carol Tenny (eds.), Events as grammatical objects, from the combined perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax, 3–60. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Folli, Rafaella. 2002. Constructing telicity in English and Italian. Oxford: University of Oxford dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Gajewski, Jon. 2002. L-analyticity and natural language. https://jon-gajewski.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1784/2016/08/analytic.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Gyarmathy, Zsófia. 2015. Achievements, durativity and scales. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kiseleva, Xenia & Sergei Tatevosov. 2011. Ordered activities and semantics of the delimitative. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society, L’Université de Provence, September 1–3.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Anthony Davis. 2001. Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(1). 71–124.10.1023/A:1005616002948Search in Google Scholar

Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Nuttanart Muansuwan. 2001. How to end without ever finishing: Thai semi-perfectivity. Journal of Semantics 17(2). 147–184.10.1093/jos/17.2.147Search in Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 26. 385–399. doi:10.3765/bls.v26i1.1131.Search in Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Claudia Maienbaum & Angelika Wöllstein-Leisen (eds.), Event arguments in syntax, semantics, and discourse, 177–212. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110913798.177Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics 11), 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110877335-005Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan Sag & Anna Szabolsci (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9Search in Google Scholar

Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1. 1–32.10.1007/BF02342615Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, David. 1973. Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70. 556–567.10.2307/2025310Search in Google Scholar

Lyutikova, Ekaterina & Sergei Tatevosov. 2014. Causativization and event structure. In Bridget Copley & Fabienne Martin (eds.), Causation in grammatical structures, 279–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672073.003.0011Search in Google Scholar

Martin, Fabienne. 2015. Explaining the link between agentivity and non-culminating causation. Proceedings of SALT 25. 246–266.10.3765/salt.v25i0.3060Search in Google Scholar

Martin, Fabienne & Florian Schäfer. 2012. The modality of ‘offer’ and other defeasible causatives. In Nathan Arnett & Ryan Bennett (eds.), Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCFFL), Vol. 30, 248–258. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, Fabienne & Florian Schäfer. 2017. Sublexical modality in defeasible causative verbs. In Ana Arregui, Maria-Luisa Romero & Andres Salanova (eds.), Modality across syntactic categories, 87–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718208.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

Mehlig, Hans Robert. 1981. Satzsemantik und Aspektsemantik im Russischen: Zur Verbalklassifikation von Zeno Vendler. In Peter M. Hill & Volkmar Lehmann (eds.), Slavistische Linguistik 1980, 95–151. Munich: Otto Sagner.Search in Google Scholar

Mehlig, Hans Robert. 2006. Glagol’nyj vid i vtorichnaja gomogenizacija oboznachaemoj situacii: K upotrebleniju delimitativnogo sposoba dejstvija v russkom jazyke. [Verbal aspect and secondary homogenization of an eventuality: On the distribution of the Delimitative Aktionsart in Russian]. In Volkmar Lehmann (ed.), Glagol’ nyj vid i leksikografija: Semantika i struktura slavjanskogo vida IV, 235–276. Munich: Otto Sagner.Search in Google Scholar

Mehlig, Hans Robert. 2012. Hybrid predications in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 20(2). 171–227.10.1353/jsl.2012.0010Search in Google Scholar

Paslawska, Alla & Arnim von Stechow. 2003. Perfect readings in Russian. In Monika Rathert, Artemis Alexiadou & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Perfect explorations, 307–362. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110902358.307Search in Google Scholar

Piñòn, Christopher. 1994. Aspectual composition and the ‘pofective’ in polish. In Sergey Avrutin, Steven Franks & Liljana Progovac (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, 341–373. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Piñòn, Christopher. 2003. Distributive po- in Polish. Paper presented at FDSL-5, Universität Leipzig, November 28.Search in Google Scholar

Portner, Paul. 1998. The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74(4). 760–787.10.2307/417002Search in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486319Search in Google Scholar

Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Malden MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470759127Search in Google Scholar

Singh, Mona. 1998. On the semantics of the perfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics 6. 171–199.10.1023/A:1008208311200Search in Google Scholar

Soh, Hooi Ling & Jenny Yi-Chun Kuo. 2005. Perfective aspect and accomplishment situations in Mandarin Chinese. In Angeliek van Hout, Henriette de Swart & Henk Verkuyl (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, 199–216. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3232-3_11Search in Google Scholar

Tatevosov, Sergei. 2008. Subevental structure and non-culmination. In Olivier Bonami & Patrica Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, Vol. 7, 393–422. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7.Search in Google Scholar

Tatevosov, Sergei. 2009a. Aspectual’naja compozitsija [Aspectual composition]. In Sergei Tatevosov (ed.), Studies in the grammar of Tuba, 78–133. Moscow: IMLI.Search in Google Scholar

Tatevosov, Sergei. 2009b. Mnozhestvennaja prefiksatsija i anatomija russkogo glagola. [Multiple prefixation and the anatomy of Russian verb]. In Xenia Kiseleva, Vladimir Plungian, Ekaterina Rakhilina & Sergei Tatevosov (eds.), Corpus-based studies in the grammar of Russian, 92–157. Moscow: Probel.Search in Google Scholar

Tatevosov, Sergei. 2011. Severing perfectivity from the verb. Scando-Slavica 57. 216–244.10.1080/00806765.2011.631782Search in Google Scholar

Tatevosov, Sergei. 2013. Mnozhestvennaja prefiksatsija i fiziologija russkogo glagola. [Multiple prefixation and physiology of Russian verb]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 3. 42–89.Search in Google Scholar

Tatevosov, Sergei & Mikhail Ivanov. 2009a. Event Structure of non-culminating accomplishments. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop & Andrei Malchukov (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality, 83–130. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.148.05tatSearch in Google Scholar

Tatevosov, Sergei & Mikhail Ivanov. 2009b. Causativization and aspectual composition. In Ryosuke Shibagaki & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics, Vol. 58, 380–394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert, Jr. & Randy LaPolla 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799Search in Google Scholar

Varasdi, Károly. 2014. Making progressives: necessary conditions are sufficient. Journal of Semantics 31. 179–207.10.1093/jos/fft004Search in Google Scholar

Varasdi, Károly. 2017. Worlds, events, and inertia. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 26(3). 303–332.10.1007/s10849-017-9253-3Search in Google Scholar

Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-017-2478-4Search in Google Scholar

Verkuyl, Henk. 1993. A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597848Search in Google Scholar

Verkuyl, Henk. 1999. Aspectual issues: Structuring time and quantity. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-04-17

Published in Print: 2020-11-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0018

Keywords for this article

nonculmination; accomplishment predicates; predicate decomposition; perfectivity; syntax-semantics interface