Revisiting aspectual se in Spanish: telicity, statives, and maximization
-
Gabriel Martínez Vera
Abstract
This paper addresses aspectual se in Spanish. Building on the previous analyses that have been proposed in the literature to account for constructions with aspectual se that mainly focus on the syntax of these (see, e.g., MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2017. Spanish aspectual se as an indirect object reflexive: The import of atelicity, bare nouns, and leísta PCC repairs. Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics 29(1). 73–118), this paper provides a semantic account that makes explicit (i) why dynamic predicates must be telic in the presence of se, and (ii) why the very same se can appear with a limited number of stative predicates, which are atelic. The account is implemented in the Figure/Path Relation model in Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 335–370, Figure/Path Relation model. I propose a maximization strategy that captures that dynamic predicates in constructions with se are always telic by indicating the conditions under which the theme has a fixed quantity and the scale/path that may be associated with the verb is bounded. This maximization strategy is then compared to and distinguished from the event maximization strategies proposed for Slavic languages (Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and maximalization: The case of telicity and perfectivity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 217–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) and Hungarian (Kardos, Éva. 2016. Telicity marking in Hungarian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1). 1–37), and to the scale/path maximization strategy proposed for Southern Aymara (Martínez Vera, Gabriel. 2021a. Degree achievements and degree morphemes in competition in Southern Aymara. Linguistics and Philosophy 44. 695–735).
Appendix: A note on non-maximization in Spanish from a cross-linguistic point of view
While the discussion in the main text has focused on maximization in the presence of aspectual se, a question arises with regard to cases where aspectual se is absent, in particular, with regard to how such cases pattern within a cross-linguistic point of view. While such a discussion was carried out in connection to cases with aspectual se, it was not done with cases without it.[24] The latter cases were only mentioned when focusing on how the contrasts in cases with aspectual se differed from the ones without it. In this Appendix, I discuss cases without aspectual se in contrast to cases in Slavic languages and Hungarian; in this regard, I focus on the presence or absence of categorical versus non-categorical contrasts in connection to minimal pairs involving (non-)maximization.[25]
As the literature has pointed out (see, e.g., Filip 2008; Kardos 2016; Martínez Vera 2021b; see Section 6), Slavic languages and Hungarian display event maximization strategies. Focusing on Hungarian for illustration, in this language, event maximization takes place in the presence of verb particles or resultatives (here the focus is on non-creation/non-consumption predicates, following Kardos 2016). The examples in (39) are repeated below. In connection to (46), as briefly mentioned in Section 6, it is worth pointing out that there are categorical contrasts when comparing the examples: in the presence of an event maximizer, the predicate is telic (46)b–c; in its absence, the predicate is atelic (46)a.
| Péter | 10 perc-ig | / | *10 perc | alatt | festett | egy | ajtó-t. |
| Péter.nom | 10 minute-for | / | 10 minute | under | painted | a | door.acc |
| ‘Péter was painting/painted a door for 10 minutes/*in ten minutes.’ | |||||||
| Péter | 10 perc | alatt | / | *10 perc-ig | le-festett | egy | ajtó-t. | |
| Péter.nom | 10 minute | under | / | 10 minute-for | prt -painted | a | door.acc | |
| ‘Péter painted a door in 10 minutes/*for 10 minutes.’ | ||||||||
| Péter | 10 perc | alatt | / | *10 perc-ig | fehér-re | festett | egy |
| Péter.nom | 10 minute | under | / | 10 minute-for | white-into | painted | a |
| ajtó-t. | |||||||
| door.acc | |||||||
| ‘Péter painted a door white in 10 minutes/*for 10 minutes.’ | |||||||
| (Kardos 2016: 3) | |||||||
This means that sentences with and without event bounders constitute minimal pairs. As Kardos (2016) points out, for the cases under discussion, the presence of a telic predicate is directly tied to the presence of an event bounder. In its absence, the predicate must be atelic. In a recent paper, Martínez Vera (2021b) proposes a compositional account for Hungarian (as well as for Slavic languages) where sentences with and without event bounders constitute alternatives in the sense of Heim’s (1991) Maximize Presupposition, where semantic blocking based on domain restrictions takes place (while the focus in Martínez Vera’s 2021b paper is on degree achievements, it is mentioned that the proposal is extensible to other types of predicates in principle). By means of such an approach, Martínez Vera (2021b) accounts for the categorical contrasts in (46): the predicates in sentences without event bounders are atelic; the predicates in sentences with event bounders are telic—more specifically, the sentences with event bounders have domain restrictions that the sentences without event bounders do not have; the sentences with a restricted domain block their alternatives (which lack such restrictions) when the relevant conditions are met, thus yielding categorical contrasts (see Martínez Vera 2021b for the formal details). What this means more generally is that there is a close connection between cases where maximization takes place and cases where it does not take place—they are in complementary distribution.
There is no such tight connection in Spanish cases with and without aspectual se. As mentioned, cases with aspectual se display a categorical contrast in that the predicate must be telic. However, it is not the case that the predicate in sentences without se is (necessarily) atelic. This is exemplified in (47) (see Sections 1 and 4 for additional examples). This suggests that sentences with and without aspectual se are not in complementary distribution (nor should they be understood as alternatives where a semantic blocking mechanism is involved).
| María | lavó | el | auto | en | una | hora | / | ?durante | una | hora. |
| María | washed | the | car | in | an | hour | / | for | an | hour |
| ‘María washed the car in an hour/?for an hour.’ | ||||||||||
| María se lavó | el | auto | en | una | hora | / | *durante | una | hora. |
| María se washed | the | car | in | an | hour | / | for | an | hour |
| ‘María washed the car completely in an hour/*for an hour.’ | |||||||||
Before bringing this Appendix to an end, I would like to point out two issues. The first one is a suggestion as to why the Spanish cases do not constitute alternatives in the sense of Slavic languages and Hungarian, where categorical contrasts arise. I suggest that the Spanish cases do not display the categorical contrasts that Slavic languages and Hungarian do due to the more limited distribution of aspectual se. In Slavic languages and Hungarian, the contrasts discussed above are pervasive, i.e., they apply, in general, across the board for many different types of predicates (for instance, in Hungarian, the maximization strategy applies to all non-creation/non-consumption predicates), and they may even be strongly tied to general mechanisms in the language (for instance, in Slavic languages, the contrasts discussed above are strongly tied to the perfective versus imperfective distinction; see Filip 2008 for extensive discussion). In Spanish, this is not the case. Thus, as pointed out in the literature, aspectual se can appear with some consumption predicates, e.g., beber ‘drink’ and comer ‘eat’, with some predicates that denote activities, e.g., lavar ‘wash’ and leer ‘read’, and with some statives that are tied to belief and knowledge, e.g., saber ‘know’. Overall, what this means is that the distribution of aspectual se is much more limited, and, in this sense, perhaps this is the reason why a general mechanism that applies across the board in the language has not arisen.
The second issue I would like to mention is that, for one of my consultants, with the predicates beber ‘drink’ and comer ‘eat’, in a context where the eventuality under consideration has been completed, the sentence without se is somewhat degraded; the sentence with se is strongly preferred (an anonymous reviewer indicated that they have a similar judgment)—this would mean that there might be some kind of competition after all in a limited sense in Spanish, at least for some speakers, as I discuss in what follows. Recall in this regard the examples in (18) with beber ‘drink’, which are repeated below; the judgment indicated is the one from this consultant (the stimulus the was used to elicit such a judgment was a sequence formed by two pictures: the first one had a woman drinking a beer and the second one had the same woman with an empty glass).
| ?(?)María | bebió | la | cerveza. |
| María | drank | the | beer |
| ‘?(?)María drank the beer.’ | |||
| María | se | bebió | la | cerveza. |
| María | se | drank | the | beer |
| ‘María drank down the beer.’ | ||||
While this kind of data is preliminary, if the contrast in (48) is more systematic across speakers, it may be the case that, at least for some predicates, there is some kind of interaction between sentences with and without aspectual se. A suggestion in this regard would be that sentences with beber ‘drink’ and beberse ‘drink down’ constitute alternatives to be understood in terms of scalar implicatures (see Sauerland 2012 for an overview). This would be limited to some lexical items (the phenomenon would not be as pervasive as it is in Slavic languages or Hungarian, as indicate above), and the effect of having alternatives would be pragmatic in nature (and not semantic, as in Slavic languages or Hungarian).
References
Abusch, Dorit. 1986. Verbs of change, causation, and time. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paola Menéndez-Benito. 2013. Indefinites, dependent plurality, and the viability requirement on scalar alternatives. Journal of Semantics 30(1). 65–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffr013.Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, Grant. 2011. Two classes of transitive verbs: Evidence from Spanish. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, Grant. 2013. Agentive reflexive clitics and transitive se constructions in Spanish. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2). 81–128. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2526.Search in Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 2010. The se clitic and its relationship to paths. Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics 22(2). 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2010.010.Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2006. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2008. On the nature of goal marking and delimitation: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44(2). 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226708005136.Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2009. Multiple incremental themes and figure/path relations. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18. 90–107.10.3765/salt.v18i0.2495Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2010. The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86. 821–864. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0040.Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 335–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6.Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2012a. Lexical aspect and multiple incremental themes. In Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, change, and state, 23–59. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2012b. Resultative constructions. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 908–933. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0032Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden. 2012. Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 331–369. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00093.Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden. 2020. The roots of verbal meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. The normal course of events: Structuring sense, vol. 2. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Brisson, Christine. 1998. Distributivity, maximality, and floating quantifiers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Brisson, Christine. 2003. Plurals, all, and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 129–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022771705575.10.1023/A:1022771705575Search in Google Scholar
Campanini, Cinzia & Florian Schäfer. 2011. Optional Se-constructions in Romance: Syntactic encoding of conceptual information. Handout from talk at Generative Linguistics in the Old World 34. 1–32.Search in Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1980. Reference to kinds in English. New York & London: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
Champollion, Lucas. 2017. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198755128.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6. 339–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008324218506.10.1023/A:1008324218506Search in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174. 99–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2009. Aspectual and causal structure in event representation. In Virginia C. Mueller Gathercole (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman, 139–166. New York: Psychological Press.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and argument structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cruse, Allan. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9. 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700003509.Search in Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Cuervo, María. 2014. Alternating unaccusatives and distribution of roots. Lingua 141. 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.12.001.Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021.Search in Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2018. Determiners and quantifiers in Spanish; types, tests and theories. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 7(2). 1–107.10.7557/1.7.2.4546Search in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, eventuality types and nominal reference. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2005. The telicity parameter revisited. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. 92–109.10.3765/salt.v14i0.2909Search in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and maximalization: The case of telicity and perfectivity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 217–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.110.10filSearch in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana & Susan Rothstein. 2006. Telicity as a semantic parameter. In James Lavine, Steven Franks, Hana Filip & Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics XIV, 139–156. Ann Harbor, MI: University of Michigan Slavic Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2005. Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of v. In Paola Kempchinsky & Roumyana Slabakova (eds.), Syntax, semantics, and acquisition of aspect, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5Search in Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. 2016. Another look at NPIs in definite descriptions: An experimental approach. In Pierre Larrivée & Lee Chungmin (eds.), Negation and polarity: experimental perspectives, 307–327. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-17464-8_13Search in Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Ps in motion. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Search in Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S. 1987. The readings of plural noun phrases in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00584318.Search in Google Scholar
Gulgowski, Piotr. 2013. Resultative and goal phrases in Polish and English: Interaction with aspect. Questions and Answers in Linguistics 1(1). 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/qal-2015-0001.Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “Degree achievements”. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9. 127–144. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833.Search in Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgen ̈ossischen Forschung, 487–535. Berlin: Berlin de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110126969.7.487Search in Google Scholar
Kardos, Éva. 2012. Toward a scalar semantic analysis of telicity in Hungarian. Debrecen: University of Debrecen Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kardos, Éva. 2016. Telicity marking in Hungarian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1). 1–37. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.52.Search in Google Scholar
Kardos, Éva. 2019. Situation aspectual properties of creation/consumption predicates. Acta Linguistica Academica 66(4). 491–525. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2019.66.4.2.Search in Google Scholar
Kardos, Éva & Gergely Pethő. 2019. The interaction between event structure and argument structure: The Hungarain facts. In Anna Malicka-Kleparska & Maria Bloch-Trojnar (eds.), Valency in verbs and verb-related structures, 119–139. Berlin: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2007. Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua 117. 26–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.09.002.Search in Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2012. The composition of incremental change. In Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, change, state: A cross-categorical view of event structure, 103–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse, 156–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199211616.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81. 345–381. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 389–424. Cambridge: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0017Search 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 expressions, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.10.1515/9783110877335-005Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9Search in Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02342615.Search in Google Scholar
Łazorczyk, Agnieszka. 2010. Decomposing Slavic aspect: The role of aspectual morphology in Polish and other Slavic languages. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2011. Indefiniteness and specificity. In José Ignacio Hualde, Antxón Olarrea & Erin O’Rourke (eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics, 285–305. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1002/9781118228098.ch15Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Peter Sells. 2009. Unpredicated particles. In Lian-Hee Wee & Linda Uyechi (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, 303–324. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110852820.302Search in Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects. Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2008. Domain of aspectual interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 38(1). 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.128.Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2010. The aspectual influence of the noun: (A)telicity, (A)symmetry, incrementality and universality. Language and Linguistic Compass 4(9). 831–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00227.x.Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2017. Spanish aspectual se as an indirect object reflexive: The import of atelicity, bare nouns, and leísta PCC repairs. Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics 29(1). 73–118. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2015-0009.Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, Jonathan E. & Susana Huidobro. 2010. The lack of Spanish non-argumental clitic doubling. In Claudia Borgonovo, Manuel Español-Echevarría & Philippe Prévost (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 50–62. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar
Marín Gálvez, Rafael. 2000. El componente aspectual de la predicación. Bellaterra: Universidat Autònoma de Barcelona Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Martí, Luisa. 2008. The semantics of plural indefinite noun phrases in Spanish and Portuguese. Natural Language Semantics 16. 1–37.10.1007/s11050-007-9023-xSearch in Google Scholar
Martí, Luisa. 2009. Contextual restriction on indefinites: Spanish Algunos and Unos. In Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds.), Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, 108–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199541089.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne. 2019. Non-culminating accomplishments. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(8). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12346.Search in Google Scholar
Martínez Vera, Gabriel. 2016. Syntactic structure of Spanish parasynthesis: Towards a split little-v via affectedness. Isogloss. Open Journal of Romance Linguistics 2(2). 63–94.10.5565/rev/isogloss.40Search in Google Scholar
Martínez Vera, Gabriel. 2018. On competing degree morphemes in derived verbs of change in Southern Aymara. Sinn und Bedeutung 22 2. 125–142.10.21248/zaspil.61.2018.488Search in Google Scholar
Martínez Vera, Gabriel. 2021a. Degree achievements and degree morphemes in competition in Southern Aymara. Linguistics and Philosophy 44. 695–735.10.1007/s10988-020-09299-3Search in Google Scholar
Martínez Vera, Gabriel. 2021b. Degree achievements and maximalization: A cross-linguistic perspective. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1). 94. 1–28.10.16995/glossa.5883Search in Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 2004. Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4. 115–133. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.107.Search in Google Scholar
Morzycki, Marcin. 2002. Wholes and their covers. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 12. 184–203. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2875.Search in Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1984. Stativity and the progressive. Bloomington, IN: Distributed by Indian University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
Nishida, Chiyo. 1994. The Spanish reflexive clitic se as an aspectual class marker. Linguistics 32. 425–458. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.3.425.Search in Google Scholar
Pedersen, Walter A. 2015. A scalar analysis of again-ambiguities. Journal of Semantics 32(3). 373–424. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu003.Search in Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2008. Aspectual composition with degrees. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse, 183–219. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199211616.003.0008Search 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. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal structure of events. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.110.03hovSearch in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77. 766–797. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0221.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 1975. Referential properties of Spanish noun phrases. Language 51. 32–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/413149.Search in Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470759127Search in Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14. 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/xiv.4.479.Search in Google Scholar
Sanz, Montserrat. 2000. Events and predication: A new approach to syntactic processing in English and Spanish. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/cilt.207Search in Google Scholar
Sanz, Montserrat & Itziar Laka. 2002. Oraciones transitivas con se: el modo de acción en la sintaxis. In Cristina Sánchez (ed.), Las construcciones con se, 311–343. Madrid: Visor Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical? Language and Linguistics Compass 6(1). 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.321.Search in Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-2704-4Search in Google Scholar
Sharvy, Richard. 1980. A more general theory of definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 89(4). 607–624. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184738.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1983. A theory of aspectual choice. Language 59. 497–501. https://doi.org/10.2307/413899.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7Search in Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1982. The syntax and semantics of presentational sentence-types in Spanish. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Licensing of negative polarity items under inverse scope. Lingua 105. 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(98)00021-7.Search in Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1992. The aspectual interface hypothesis. In I. Sag & A. Szabolsci (eds.), Lexical matters. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8Search in Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4Search in Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0012Search in Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 2006. Closure and telicity across categories. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 16. 329–346. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v16i0.2956.Search in Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1996. Compositionality of aspect: Evidence from Spanish aspectual se. In Claudia Parodi, A. Carlos Quícoli, Mario Saltarelli & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Aspects of Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV, 475–488. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 2002. The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613234Search in Google Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro. 1998. Aspectual shift. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 349–370. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_15Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Parasitic gaps aren’t parasitic, or, the case of the Uninvited Guest
- Differential subject marking through SE
- The adjunct condition and the nature of adjuncts
- Proleptic PPs are arguments: consequences for the argument/adjunct distinction and for selectional switch
- Revisiting aspectual se in Spanish: telicity, statives, and maximization
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Parasitic gaps aren’t parasitic, or, the case of the Uninvited Guest
- Differential subject marking through SE
- The adjunct condition and the nature of adjuncts
- Proleptic PPs are arguments: consequences for the argument/adjunct distinction and for selectional switch
- Revisiting aspectual se in Spanish: telicity, statives, and maximization
